On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog2@adns.net> wrote:

...

Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space.

Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?

Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something?

Hi John,

The game is:

Sign ARIN's "Legacy RSA" covering your legacy space. With the LRSA you retain more rights than folks who sign the regular RSA, but probably less rights than you have now.

More accurately, you retain more rights than the standard RSA and you move from a situation where your exact rights are unknown and undetermined with no contractual relationship between you and ARIN to a situation where your rights are assured, enumerated, and a contractual relationship exists between you and ARIN governing the services you are receiving from ARIN.

Pay your $100/year as an end-user. You now qualify for an IPv6 assignment under ARIN NRPM 6.5.8.1b regardless of the size of your network.

Pay the $1250 IPv6 initial assignment fee.

This is correct. I would like to see initial registration fee waivers for IPv6 end-user assignments. I've brought the subject up on arin-discuss. There was substantial opposition to the idea. If you would like to see that happen, I encourage you to voice your opinion there.

For better or for worse, you're not going to get IPv6 space under the "same terms" as your legacy IPv4 space. You got a really good deal on IPv4. Try not to be too disappointed that the same deal isn't available with IPv6.

Well said, Bill. Owen

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:

...

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog2@adns.net> wrote:

...

Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space.

Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?

Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something?

Hi John,

The game is:

Sign ARIN's "Legacy RSA" covering your legacy space. With the LRSA you retain more rights than folks who sign the regular RSA, but probably less rights than you have now.

More accurately, you retain more rights than the standard RSA and you move from a situation where your exact rights are unknown and undetermined with no contractual relationship between you and ARIN to a situation where your rights are assured, enumerated, and a contractual relationship exists between you and ARIN governing the services you are receiving from ARIN.

...

Pay your $100/year as an end-user. You now qualify for an IPv6 assignment under ARIN NRPM 6.5.8.1b regardless of the size of your network.

Pay the $1250 IPv6 initial assignment fee.

This is correct. I would like to see initial registration fee waivers for IPv6 end-user assignments. I've brought the subject up on arin-discuss. There was substantial opposition to the idea. If you would like to see that happen, I encourage you to voice your opinion there.

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space. We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 15:31 -0500, Joe Greco wrote:

...

On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:

...

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) <nanog2@adns.net> wrote:

...

Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space.

Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?

Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something?

Hi John,

The game is:

Sign ARIN's "Legacy RSA" covering your legacy space. With the LRSA you retain more rights than folks who sign the regular RSA, but probably less rights than you have now.

More accurately, you retain more rights than the standard RSA and you move from a situation where your exact rights are unknown and undetermined with no contractual relationship between you and ARIN to a situation where your rights are assured, enumerated, and a contractual relationship exists between you and ARIN governing the services you are receiving from ARIN.

...

Pay your $100/year as an end-user. You now qualify for an IPv6 assignment under ARIN NRPM 6.5.8.1b regardless of the size of your network.

Pay the $1250 IPv6 initial assignment fee.

This is correct. I would like to see initial registration fee waivers for IPv6 end-user assignments. I've brought the subject up on arin-discuss. There was substantial opposition to the idea. If you would like to see that happen, I encourage you to voice your opinion there.

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees.

And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your average comcast user is on IPv6? Will you have an incentive then? William

On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:52 AM, William Pitcock wrote:

And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your average comcast user is on IPv6?

The chances of this actually occurring in our lifetime are so small as to be meaningless. There are (according to published reports) between 1 and 2 billion people reachable on IPv4. No rational commercial Internet organization is going to block themselves off from that customer base. Folks like Comcast will probably add IPv6 support _in addition to_ IPv4. Eventually, they may even add a surcharge to encourage people to migrate off IPv4, but I'd imagine that's way down the line. By way of analogy, how long did pulse dialing continue to be supported in the phone system after DTMF was introduced? Regards, -drc

On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:49 PM, David Conrad wrote:

On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:52 AM, William Pitcock wrote:

...

And when there are no eyeballs to look at your IPv4 content because your average comcast user is on IPv6?

The chances of this actually occurring in our lifetime are so small as to be meaningless. There are (according to published reports) between 1 and 2 billion people reachable on IPv4. No rational commercial Internet organization is going to block themselves off from that customer base. Folks like Comcast will probably add IPv6 support _in addition to_ IPv4. Eventually, they may even add a surcharge to encourage people to migrate off IPv4, but I'd imagine that's way down the line. By way of analogy, how long did pulse dialing continue to be supported in the phone system after DTMF was introduced?

David - Your assessment matches mine, with one important difference: While I'm certain that almost any new broadband user from any provider will be able to reach IPv4-only sites (required in order to meet consumer expectations of "This is Internet service"), the ability to provide scalable high-performance, low-latency, low-jitter path to IPv4 resources is questionable. If you are a hosting/content provider, and you decide to only source the content via IPv4 connectivity going forward, the assumption you're making is that each and every ISP out is in charge of the quality of your service, even when the ISPs are internally doing engineering gymnastics with types of NAT to provide the connectivity. /John

Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with IP4 only. Sounds like ARIN has set a trap, so that virtually any contact with them will result in the ceding of legacy rights. We'll be sure to avoid any such contact. Thanks everyone for the info. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net> To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:31 PM Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees.

... JG --

If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what you would call significant? Owen On Apr 7, 2010, at 1:59 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:

Yah, thats what we are thinking here. We'll probably stick with IP4 only.

Sounds like ARIN has set a trap, so that virtually any contact with them will result in the ceding of legacy rights. We'll be sure to avoid any such contact. Thanks everyone for the info.

John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net> To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:31 PM Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

...

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space. We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees. ... JG --

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:17:49 PDT, "Gary E. Miller" said:

Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP.

The small guys pay: $0.000074505805969 per /64. ($1250 / (2^(64-40)) The big guys pay: $0.000000008185452 per /64. ($36000 / (2^(64-22)) The small guys are still paying less than 1/100th of a penny per /64. Assuming your salary plus overhead is $40/hour, each *second* of your time is worth more than the cost of 150 /64s. Oh, the inhumanity.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yo Owen! Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64. That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys. RGDS GARY - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:

This assumes that small = /40 and large = /22.

Still, with more realistic numbers:

The small guy (/48) pays $0.019073486 per /64 The large guy (/24) pays $0.000000032741808 per /64

FWIW.

Owen

On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

...

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:17:49 PDT, "Gary E. Miller" said:

...

Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP.

The small guys pay: $0.000074505805969 per /64. ($1250 / (2^(64-40)) The big guys pay: $0.000000008185452 per /64. ($36000 / (2^(64-22))

The small guys are still paying less than 1/100th of a penny per /64. Assuming your salary plus overhead is $40/hour, each *second* of your time is worth more than the cost of 150 /64s.

Oh, the inhumanity.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLvmQxBmnRqz71OvMRAr2dAKC4BrqBI94hvvyKEa+mLh4oML7yVwCfScFR 60z+bDBMHOvTRQwQJPW6SCo= =9zBu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Owen DeLong wrote:

You are mistaken.

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

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

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

Only $100/year (and an RSA) more than you're paying now. Or, infinitely more, for those of us who think in percentages. Matthew Kaufman

On Apr 9, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:

According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, but pay $100.00 per year thereafter. There's the competitive disadvantage. AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner pay $100.00/yr for huge address space while the little by pays $100.00/yr for a comparatively tiny one. Something's not quite right with that structure.

A large *end-user* pays maintenance fees of $100/year. ISPs pay an annual registration services subscription fee each year, proportional to the size of aggregate address space held. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:

On 4/8/2010 7:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:

...

Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64.

That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys.

According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, but pay $100.00 per year thereafter. There's the competitive disadvantage. AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner pay $100.00/yr for huge address space while the little by pays $100.00/yr for a comparatively tiny one. Something's not quite right with that structure.

Cheers, Curtis

No. AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner are not End-Users. They are ISPs. They pay ISP fees. I believe each of the ones you mention are in the "X-large" category, thus paying $18,000/year, not $100/year. An ISP which needs less than a /40 (which currently has no supporting allocation policy) would pay $1250/year. However, the nature of current IPv6 allocation policy is that an ISP would get a /32 and the minimum ISP IPv6 fee would, therefore, be $2,250/year. An end user pays $1,250 for anything smaller than a /40 (usually a /48) once, then, $100/year thereafter for ALL of their resources. Owen

Now I may be talking crazy... IIRC, all of IPv4 space maps to a section of IPv6 space. <mad hat on> If one has legacy IPv4 space, but actually talks IPv6 couldn't one announce a prefix much longer than a /64 to map them onto the IPv6 universe (assuming people would allow such craziness... perhaps on their IPv4 speaking routers) and originate/terminate traffic as normal? </mad hat off> Isn't this all left to the networks to enforce, as usual, but unlike the status quo, these are all valid allocations... Technical note: I know this breaks lots of IPv6 goodness (no need to enumerate it here). DJ

Do you mean the $2250 for a /32, or the $1250 for a /48? Compare the relative costs to ARIN; ARIN's fees aren't set per IP address.

if not, then why are they not flat per-allocation? randy

On 07 Apr 2010 16:17, Gary E. Miller wrote:

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:

...

If you are an end-user type organization, the fee is only $100/year for all your resources, IPv4 and IPv6 included. Is that really what you would call significant?

As always, the devil is in the deetails.

From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers

The proper URL for the below quote is <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#legacy_fee>.

"The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board of Trustees may choose to raise the fee."

Note that the LRSA specifies that the fee increase cannot be more than $25/yr.

Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP.

This is the section at <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers>. That section applies only to _allocations_, which are what ISPs get. The maintenance fee for _assignments_, which is what end users orgs get, has always been $100/yr. No waiver is necessary, and AFAIK the BoT has made never made any noises about increasing the assignment maintenance fee. And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand scheme of things? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere <babydr@baby-dragons.com> wrote:

...

And, really, even if the fee for your /48 (X-small category) assignment maintenance fee went up to $1250/yr to match the current allocation maintenance fee table, would that really be "significant" in the grand scheme of things? S

       Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment .  I don't make enough to cover that

Jim, Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into the DFZ... http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:

What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool?

Bill, ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from months to decades. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA?

Owen, ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout.

Would it be equally onerous if ARIN simply stopped providing RDNS for you?

Probably not. SMTP is the only major service any more that cares. But that's immaterial; ending RDNS for legacy registrants has been an empty threat from the day the notion was first hatched. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:

...

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere

...

       Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment .  I don't make enough to cover that

Not much sympathy for folks crying the blues about the cost of an address assignment that they're going to turn around and announce into the DFZ...

       assuming facts not in evidence there ... but ok.

Hi Bill, If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free for your use.

...

ARIN has implemented a structure to facilitate IPv4 address transfers should an open market come to exist. Between an address market and the ever more creative use of NAT, it should be possible for IPv4 addressing to continue after free pool depletion as a zero-sum game. Exactly how long is a matter of debate with speculation ranging from months to decades.

       cool.  I've used the transfer policy with limited success.        I guess the interesting thing in your statement (and I suspect        a trip to the ARIN NRPM is in order) is "should an open market        come into existence" ... how do you see that happening?

eBay? Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole lot of help to come into being.

       but more to my point.  If I'm using a single /24 out of my /20        (using an antiquated example) - would there be:

       ) interest in the other 15 /24s        ) how would that interest be expressed (so I would know about it)        ) complaints from the folks running w/o default about          the new prefixes on offer?  **

The basic plan (ARIN NRPM section 8.3) is: 1. Request and be approved for addresses from ARIN (even though ARIN won't have any addresses to give). 2. Find (pay) someone who has ARIN-managed addresses that they're willing to give up in the quantity you want. 3. Current holder releases addresses to ARIN in the requested (paid) quantity with instructions to provide those addresses to the already-authorized recipient (in #1). 4. ARIN updates the registration accordingly. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel <dhetzel@gmail.com> wrote:

If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.

137 billion prefixes would crush the DFZ routers of course, but as we all know the routing table isn't ARIN's lookout. :-P On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

...

ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled throughout.

Let's clarify here, however... Nothing guarantees you that ARIN can not do so if you don't have any contract with them.

Owen, Your uneducated YANAL opinion about the governing law in the matter is duly noted and filed beside my own differing viewpoint. Until and unless ARIN attempts to forcibly reclaim a block of legacy addresses from its legacy holder, the question remains theoretical.

The point being that while I think continuing to provide a free ride to IPv4 legacy holders is a good idea, there is no reason to continue that concept into the IPv6 world.

The reason is that it could be structured to increase the rate of IPv6 deployment, to the benefit of all. To what degree that would achieve value for cost is debatable, but it certainly qualifies as more than "no reason." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

BIll, On Apr 8, 2010, at 9:39 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

...

If you're not planning to announce a route into the DFZ, we have RFC1918 or IPv6's ULA, address pools that are 100% and completely free for your use.

er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere...

Pedantry alert.

Addresses are not sellable property.

Sure they are. I personally know of several cases where addresses have been sold. Right now, people have to go through a bunch of foo, creating dummy companies to hold the IP address assets, transferring the assets, selling the dummy companies, etc., but the end result is the same. Policy changes will make this somewhat less silly. Whether those policy changes will be sufficient to stop the creation of alternative "address title registries" remains to be seen.

...

Given a demand and a supply, markets don't traditionally need a whole lot of help to come into being.

Ok... lets say there is a pent up supply ... and no good way to let those with demand know the supply exists. I'll consider acting as the "address Yenta" --- if folks have prefixes they are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity, I'll be glad to be the "go between".

Given current address space utilization efficiency, it isn't hard to find folks who have more address space than they are using. However, I suspect there are VCs who would be interested in discussing the idea... Regards, -drc

On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:

Sure they are. I personally know of several cases where addresses have been sold. Right now, people have to go through a bunch of foo, creating dummy companies to hold the IP address assets, transferring the assets, selling the dummy companies, etc., but the end result is the same.

David - Please report these events to: <https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/index.html>: "This reporting process is to be used to notify ARIN of suspected Internet number resource abuse including the submission of falsified utilization or organization information, unauthorized changes to data in ARIN's WHOIS, hijacking of number resources in ARIN's database, or fraudulent transfers." We do investigate, and if we can determine falsified information was used to effect a transfer, we will revert the transfer and/or initiate resource review as appropriate. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:

John,

In the cases I'm aware of (which were some time ago), there was (to my knowledge) no fraud involved.

If you see more recent cases of this occurring, please report them.

Or are you indicating the mechanisms I described are in some way fraudulent?

Potentially, yes. Sincerely, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

...

Or are you indicating the mechanisms I described are in some way fraudulent? Potentially, yes.

pfui. the current security level is chartreuse. you will get 15,000 free flier miles for spying on your neighbor. john, addresses are assets. people will transfer assets. get over it. two female ostriches are walking down the beach one looks behind & says "don't look now, but two males are following us" the other says, "let's walk faster," so they do the first looks behind and says "they are catching up!" so they break into a trot the first looks behind and says "they are still catching up!" so they start running full tilt the first looks behind and says "they are catching up even more quickly!" they both slam on the brakes and stick their heads in the sand a minute later the two males arrive the males look around and say, "where did they go?" randy

The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review as a result of fraudulent applications.

no. what was being discussed was transfers. you turned left, asserted that they were fraudulent, and told people to turn in their neighbors. randy

John, On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:43 AM, John Curran wrote:

ARIN's position follows RFC 2008

This seems to be contradicted by ARIN's (perfectly reasonable) policies regarding the assignment of provider independent address space to end users. As to whether addresses are assets, I suspect we'll have to wait until the courts rule. I'm sure folks at Networld+InterOp, Apple, HP, etc. will be quite surprised if the courts rule according to ARIN's views.

The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review as a result of fraudulent applications.

Actually, no. The question was whether the practice of creating a company to hold IP addresses then selling that company to another organization was considered by ARIN to be fraudulent. In the particular (historical) cases I'm aware of, the address space in question was legacy /24s and the transfers were done (as I understand it) according to ARIN policies of the time. Speaking personally (of course), I'll admit a certain lack of comfort with the idea of ARIN (or any RIR) acting as lawmaker, police, judge, jury, and (assuming RPKI gets deployed) executioner. Regards, -drc

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:39 PM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:

       er... you misunderstand... there is no single "DFZ" anywhere...        it is a fiction.

Meh. Fiction or no, it does a suitably effective job connecting my users to my servers when and where they want to connect.

       last ebay transaction I saw was a posting by Martin Levy - and it was        withdrawn after some urging by ARIN.

Section 8.3 is new. Just happened last year.

Addresses are not sellable      property.  So what would an "open market" be in... rights to use?        (come to think of it, I have seen submarine cable IRUs for sale on eBAY)

The market would be for contracts to release particular blocks of addresses to ARIN for re-registration to the buyer under the terms of ARIN NRPM section 8.3. The legal fiction is that you're buying the contract, not the addresses. As for whether IP addresses will ever be sellable property... I think it serves to recall that native Americans had no concept of real estate when the Europeans first arrived. They fought the notion hard once they finally realized the settlers were serious about it.

       Ok... lets say there is a pent up supply ...  and no good way to        let those with demand know the supply exists.   I'll consider        acting as the "address Yenta"   ---   if folks have prefixes they        are not using, and would like to let others know there is availablity,        I'll be glad to be the "go between".

Works for me. Maybe I'll drop you a line when the IANA pool finally exhausts. I have some nice real estate down in the swamp that I'm using for relatively low-value applications...

       I remember this.  it suffers from two primary weaknesses:        ) finding someone (see my address-Yenta offer above)

With you volunteering, that problem is solved. See? Easy!

       ) this only works within the ARIN region.

The other regions have their own structures... NIRs and LIRs that aren't tied to ISP service and whose practices differ from the RIR, for example. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees.

No you wouldn't. You'd hit the next impediment where the presence of IPv6 on your LAN destabilizes your "Internet connection" by causing all your software to try IPv6 first even though the IPv6 network hasn't reached the level of stability present in the IPv4 network. And then you'd stop and (rightly) complain about that problem too. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Gary E. Miller <gem@rellim.com> wrote:

I could handle 'like everyone else', but have you noticed the HUGE per IP disparity between large and small block sizes?

How many zeros would you like at the end of your address count? The smallest ARIN IPv6 assignment has nearly 300 trillion more IP addresses than the whole IPv4 Internet.

As always, the devil is in the deetails.

From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers

"The annual fee will be $100 USD until 2013, at which time ARIN's Board of Trustees may choose to raise the fee."

Then scroll down to the fees you can expect in 2013. Especially note how the small guys get hit much harder per IP.

You've misread the insider terminology. Here's a brief lesson in ARIN-speak: allocation - addresses provided to ISPs which ISPs then "reassign" to customers. These cost a lot per year. Partial waivers apply until 2013. assignment - addresses provided to end-users. These cost a lot up front, but then the organization as a whole only pays an annual maintenance fee of $100 per year total. No waivers apply. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

By way of analogy, how long did pulse dialing continue to be supported in the phone system after DTMF was introduced?

It still is on every analog line I've tried, including voip adapters. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:

I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means.

ARIN is not a regulator. The "jump" is from not paying for services that you have no contract for to paying for services that you do have a contract for.

I would think multiple times before making that jump. Hence my suggestion to set up a separate organization to request IPv6 space, and thus not 'endanger' whatever I had before.

Signing an RSA to get new space does not _in any way_ "endanger" or otherwise affect legacy resources. Putting legacy resources under LRSA (or RSA, if you wished) is a completely separate action and is, for now at least, completely optional. You do not need to set up a separate organization; all that does is waste your time and ARIN's. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote:

On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

...

On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:

...

I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being unregulated to regulated, whatever that means.

ARIN is not a regulator. The "jump" is from not paying for services that you have no contract for to paying for services that you do have a contract for.

BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator.

No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Owen

On 09 Apr 2010 12:34, David Conrad wrote:

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

...

No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.

I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove whois data/reverse delegations as a way of enforcing 'regulations'. In the future, assuming RPKI is deployed, ARIN could, in theory, revoke the certification of a resource. While not a gun, these are means of coercion. Are you being literal when you say "gun" or figurative?

As Mao famously said, power grows from the barrel of a gun. Regulators have (either directly or indirectly) lots of guns at their disposal to enforce their will on those they regulate, i.e. their regulations have the force of law. In contrast, ARIN's policies do not have the force of law. If operators choose not to look in ARIN's WHOIS database to verify addresses are registered to some org, or they choose to use another RDNS provider, or they choose to use a RPKI certificate scheme not rooted at ARIN/ICANN, that is their choice and ARIN couldn't do a damn thing to stop them. ARIN has no guns. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 04/09/2010 07:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

some nut i procmail wrote

...

...

No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making.

confusion between the army and the fcc, who, even under cheney, did not use guns.

Gewaltmonopol des Staates... Failure to restrain the use of coercive violence is one (modern) definition of a failed state.

randy

One really good thing about spam was that, before it became a big problem, all Usenet / Internet discussions had a risk of devolving into "libertarians vs. socialists" flamewars, but that got replaced by "*%^&%*& spammers", and eventually we got that nice little checklist as a way to quiet even those discussions. Let's put the "regulators with guns" discussion back into the pre-spam bin, and take this back to the "making IPv6 actually work" topics, of which there are plenty. (Because after all, the IPv6ian People's Front side is wrong, wrong, wrong! :-) -- ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:

Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really.

Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I don't have one, won't they tell me to stop? And if I say no, I won't stop, what happens then? Will they never call the cops and have them show up and forcibly shut down my equipment? And if I try to defend my equipment, will the cops not shoot me? Sorry, all government policies are enforced by guns. ARIN is not government, if I don't pay ARIN for my address space and keep using it anyway, no cops will show up at my door. Sure my upstreams may decide to shut off my announcements, but a gun never gets involved. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:

...

Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really.

Oh really?  So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I don't have one, won't they tell me to stop?  And if I say no, I won't stop, what happens then?

Brandon, Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it through the civil courts. If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency communications, I expect they might well call the police for assistance. But those are police, not FCC agents, and they're acting as much on behalf of the folks whose signals you're jamming as they are on behalf of the FCC. You'll find that any of us (including ARIN) can summon police for assistance with assaults upon us. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:

Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it through the civil courts.

And please educate me then, when I don't pay the fine, then what happens? -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss

On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote:

...

No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.

The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator.

Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really.

ARIN can act by de-allocating your network and revoking your ASN's. They can't fine you, but if you violate the RSA, they can revoke your stuff. That seems regulatory to me. --Curtis

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

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

...

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote:

...

BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator.

No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power.

The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator.

Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really.

If the FCC finds that you have violated an FCC regulation, they are well and truly capable of bringing in the FBI and State or Local law enforcement to enforce their regulation. All three of those entities have guns. To do so, the FCC does not need a court order. ARIN cannot get the FBI, State, or Local law enforcement to enforce ARIN policy unless that policy is further backed by a court order. (Of course, at that point, they are acting under the force of a regulator in the form of the court more than under ARIN). Owen

APNIC has a calculator for the fees for the space. you pay max(IPv4 space fee, IPv6 space fee). So basically you don't pay anything to dual stack your current network. Also, if you are current standing member, they don't even ask you to justify IPv6, they give you a similar space to your current IPv4 space on simple request. If you need more then you need to justify. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Giagnocavo" <patrick@zill.net> To: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, 8 April, 2010 11:10:46 AM Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space Joe Greco wrote:

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees.

... JG

I have to agree ... why such high charges when a similar service like GoDaddy provides (domain name registrar) is $15 a year? Is it REALLY X times the level of difficulty of registering a domain name, and thus the charges are justified? I will let someone who is very technical explain this to me. Cordially Patrick

Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

Joe Greco wrote:

...

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees.

... JG

I have to agree ... why such high charges when a similar service like GoDaddy provides (domain name registrar) is $15 a year?

Is it REALLY X times the level of difficulty of registering a domain name, and thus the charges are justified? I will let someone who is very technical explain this to me.

Cordially

Patrick

There are 117,351,239 domain names registered. If I had to guess, there are less than 1% of that total number in IP assignments (not allocations), but I don't have the patience to go compile those statistics. GoDaddy exists based on volume, which we don't have the same scale with IP assignments. -Dave

Joe Greco wrote:

...

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee. As it stands, there isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the form of the fees.

... JG

I have to agree ... why such high charges when a similar service like GoDaddy provides (domain name registrar) is $15 a year?

Is it REALLY X times the level of difficulty of registering a domain name, and thus the charges are justified? I will let someone who is very technical explain this to me.

Because when ARIN gets into a legal p***ing match with someone (Kremen, etc), the cash to fight that comes from somewhere. When you're registering many millions of domain names, that's going to generate more revenue even at the lower price than what ARIN brings in. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Kevin Stange wrote:

How much IPv6 address space were they expecting? I have trouble envisioning any operation that could require more than a /32 immediately that can't afford to pay $4500 per YEAR.

Amount of address space wasn't the problem. The application was actually approved by ARIN. However, fighting for a line in the budget for the unexpected fee(s) and the prospect of having to push the RSA through state government lawyers was enough to dissuade them that IPv6 just wasn't important enough at this time. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Mark Keymer wrote:

I guess I am confused. Don't you have to pay for IP4 space? I know I am still fairly new to things. So maybe I just don't get it.

Legacy IPv4 holders have no obligation to ARIN until they sign an RSA. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net

On 2010-04-07, at 14:02, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:

ARIN Region IPv6 fee waiver: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers

"In Jan 2008, the Board of Trustees decided to reduce the fee waiver incrementally over a period of 4 years. Full fees will be in effect in 2012."

Can you provide rationalization why anyone should automatically get any kind of allocation? Or why legacy holders should "have equivalent [IPv6] space under the same terms"

- there is no address scarcity with IPv6 (at least not in the sense that there is with v4) - there is no significant danger of unconstrained v6 RIB explosion when assigning PI prefix to people who already occupy at least one slot in the v4 table (the problem is constrained to be at worst as bad as we see with v4, which is a known ceiling) - there's minimal administrative overhead in assigning PI space to people who are unlikely ever to come back to ask for more - what administrative overhead there is is minimal if the process of justification is trivial (or automatic) - ARIN says it is in the business of encouraging people to use v6 - people are more likely to use v6 if they can get v6 addresses easily and cheaply So automatically assigning v6 addresses to people who have a history of advertising v4 prefixes seems like it has minimal cost (less cost than other assignment strategies, seems to me) minimal risk to the Internet and will encourage people to use v6. What rationalisation can you provide for not doing this? [I mention this just because you asked. I'm not trying to turn NANOG into PPML. I'd mention this on PPML instead, but past experience tells me that I have far too much real work to do every day to be able to follow that list, and posting to a list you don't read seems rude.] Joe (speaking as private individual, not in any other capacity)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yo Ricky! On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Ricky Beam wrote:

They will have to start paying for address space like everyone else.

I could handle 'like everyone else', but have you noticed the HUGE per IP disparity between large and small block sizes? RGDS GARY - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLvPU/BmnRqz71OvMRAgNIAJ98nD7MomYGZLqcPqpo7q/1ihq1LwCg0PjA kpNkRpOVNpIiL1pi6zN2gXw= =ndUt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

But its not portable. Thats a deal breaker for some applications. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand@gmail.com> To: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 5:57 PM Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Also, don't forget that if you want to pay less (i.e. nothing) for your IPv6 assignment, you can get a /48 for free from just about any ISP that does IPv6.

-Scott

On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:

...

Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space.

Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?

Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something?

If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything?

Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. "ARIN" is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

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

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010, Joe Greco wrote:

...

Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. "ARIN" is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case.

Out of curiousity, I wonder whether the adoption of the internet in the 90s would have occured if IPv4 addresses were allocated, managed and controlled like they are today.

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

Adrian

On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

...

...

On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:09 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:

...

Was looking at the ARIN IP6 policy and cannot find any reference to those who have IP4 legacy space.

Isn't there an automatic allocation for those of us who have legacy IP space. If not, is ARIN saying we have to pay them a fee to use IP6? Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6?

Those with legacy IP4 space should have the equivalent IP6 space under the same terms. Or am I missing something?

If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything?

Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not encourage adoption of IPv6, where suddenly there'd be an annual fee and a contract for the space. "ARIN" is incidental, simply the RIR responsible in this case.

Umm, ARIN should provide a legacy holder with IPv6 space because the legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN?

No. Legacy holders have little incentive to implement IPv6 because they have their v4 resources; this is a partial impediment to forward progress in the implementation of v6. If the Internet community really wanted to motivate transition to v6, it would make reasonable sense to allocate space to all interested v4 stakeholders at rates and preferably on terms similar to what those stakeholders currently have. This is independent of any particular RIR; the only reason ARIN might be involved is that ARIN is currently vaguely responsible for those legacy delegations, and is therefore the logically responsible entity for such a policy. ICANN could make the decision for all I care.

Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space?

When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go "enforcing" v4 policy and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days late). It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 resources. So, my challenges to you: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR.

Yep, makes perfect sense to me.

If the "rest of the world" moving to IPv6 isn't enough encouragement for you, then bleh.

So far, the rest of the world ISN'T moving to IPv6. A small percentage is, and it's almost entirely dual-stack anyways.

I'm only interested in encouraging my employer and my providers. If you have no need to reach IPv6-only content or eyeballs, and you don't care about NAT or geolocation issues with centralized NAT or.... then sure, you have no encouragement or need to adopt IPv6. If you do need to reach IPv6-only content or eyeballs, then that is your encouragement to play in the same playing field as everyone else in your RIR-area.

IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:54 AM, TJ wrote:

...

IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come.

To be fair - IPv6 only content may not exactly be commonplace, but there are IPv6-only networks out there ... they just tend to consist of "things" rather than "people".

For the "surfable internet", the chicken-and-egg scenario continues - as more services get reachable, it should create impetus for users - all dual stack (hopefully) ... until a threshold is crossed, when it becomes more feasible to be a general consumer who was IPv6-only (or really bad IPv4 alongside it). I also think "for years" and "for many years" are very relative terms :) ...

/TJ

I think that the creation of consumers with IPv6-only or really bad IPv4 along side it will result sooner than any threshold of IPv6-ready content is reached. I think this will be the result of not having IPv4 addresses to give those consumers rather than the result of IPv6 deployment. Owen

On 08/04/10 17:17 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was allocated to someone who only needed to address "3 servers"... say six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six.

Granted, that may have been the case many years ago. However, this was not our experience when we obtained addresses, and the ARIN rules as I understand them would not allow such an allocation today.

Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very long time.

What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool?

I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption. -- Dan White

On 08/04/10 18:00 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dan White wrote:

...

On 08/04/10 17:17 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

...

in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet this amnt of space was allocated to someone who only needed to address "3 servers"... say six total out of a pool of four thousand ninty six.

Granted, that may have been the case many years ago.

However, this was not our experience when we obtained addresses, and the ARIN rules as I understand them would not allow such an allocation today.

i picked a fairly recent example - the min allocation size has fluctuated over time. still it is not the case that most folks will get -exactly- what they need - they will - in nearly every case - get more address space than they need - due to the min allocation rules

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

...

...

Thats a huge amnt of wasted space. If our wise and pragmatic leaders (drc, jc, et.al.) are correct, then IPv4 will be around for a very long time.

What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the existant IPv4 pool?

I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption.

and that outdated assumption is?

The assumption that ARIN allocations are based on anything other than 12-24 month need (with only a few exceptions). If there are a significant number of sparse allocations of IPv4 blocks in ARIN, then that's a good indication that allocation rules need to be updated. -- Dan White

This is a pretty boring topic. It's been argued many times over. I think the more interesting discussion is: - Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed? - What will ARIN look like 10 years from now? Mission creep seems to be pervasive in all organizations. ICANN with a headcount of over 100 and a budget exceeding 60MM fulfills a core function that used to be performed by what? 2.5 full-time persons? Is this the fate that awaits ARIN? The main justification for ARIN's size, budget - its existence, even - is that ARIN shepherds a limited set of resources. I find it interesting then, that a number of the pro-IPV6 folk seem to be saying just the opposite when it comes to IPV6. If they're not saying it outright, then the subtext of their argument is that IPV6 is so large, we'll never exhaust it. (Go ahead and give that customer with one computer a chunk of address space that is 2^32 larger than the entire existing IPV4 address space - we'll never miss it.) Well, if that's true; if IPV6 means that address space is no longer a scarce - limited, even - resource, why would there even be an ARIN? Why not collapse all the RIR's into a website that functions more as a title registry than as a justification/vetting organization? After all, IPV6 space is inexhaustible - right. So what if some idiot wants to grab 50 allocations... We'll never miss it. Joe Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications joe@via.net 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax PS: If we want to keep the size of the routing tables down, why isn't ARIN charging MORE for end-user assignments. A lot more, like the same or even more than what allocations cost.

On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:29 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:

I think the more interesting discussion is: - Where is ARIN and the RIR's headed? - What will ARIN look like 10 years from now?

Joe - Excellent questions... The direction with respect to ARIN is that the Board has spent significant time considering this issue and the guidance provided to date is that ARIN is to focus on its core mission of providing allocation and registration services, and be supportive of other related organizations (e.g. NANOG, ICANN, ISOC) which perform related functions in the community. This approach has reduced the risk of mission creep (at least as far as I can tell... :-) From a practical matter, it also means that we need to consider a future for ARIN which provides a core address registry function, modest IPv4 updates and modest IPv6 new allocation activity, and likely a very stable policy framework. This vision of the future is highly compatible with automation, and ARIN is indeed working aggressively in this area with ARIN Online. I do think that automation plus a reduction in activity will result in a modest reduction in overall costs, but the costs associated with having an open community-based organization aren't necessarily changing: - If you have the community to elect AC and Board members, then you have a membership/election function (which implies specific costs in the organization). - If you have the community set policy via an open policy process, then you have a policy process, policy proposal administration, and public policy meetings (which again implies more costs to the organization, roughly proportional to the policy activity). - If you participate in the global policy process (coordinating with other RIR's, ICANN, and now the ITU), then there is yet another set of costs to be covered by the organization. I'm committed to keeping the costs reasonable and proper for the mission, but its the community that needs to think about that mission and what they want ARIN (and the RIR community as a whole) to be doing 10+ years from now... Input can be provided in many forms, including on the mailing lists, in-person and remotely in the Public Policy Meeting, via the various consultations that ARIN does with respect to services and fees, and directly via running for the ARIN Board in the annual election process. Thank you for raising this topic! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

...

Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space?

When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go "enforcing" v4 policy and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days late).

It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 resources.

So, my challenges to you:

1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources,

2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR.

Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the "old ways." It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to have any responsibility to do anything about it. If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could. I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship. I am not going to argue your second request. It'd certainly be cheaper to do things your way. I just think it's a terrible idea. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867

On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:

If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money.

I'd hate to see that routing table. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Dorn Hetzel wrote:

Well, yeah, but that is a separate problem. Anyone for an announced-prefix-tax ? :)

Just add "announced prefixes" to the settlement charges, alongside bits transferred... - Matt -- A friend is someone you can call to help you move. A best friend is someone you can call to help you move a body.

On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:34 AM, John Curran wrote:

Another bright gentleman many years ago suggested that we have an online website which allows anyone to pay a fee and get an address block. This is not inconceivable, but does completely set aside hierarchical routing which is currently an underlying mechanism for making our addressing framework scalable.

Doesn't end user PI assignment already do this? Note I'm not arguing against end user PI assignment policy, rather just making the observation that given IPv6 did not address routing scalability, the path we're heading down is obvious, the only question is how fast. The problem is that ARIN is getting in the way of people (some of which are ARIN members) dumping nitrous into the combustion chamber. This doesn't seem like a stable, long term viable situation to me. Regards, -drc

Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the "old ways." It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to have any responsibility to do anything about it.

There's a lot of space between throwing caution to the wind and the current set of agreements. The current v6 agreements read a lot like the v4 agreements.

If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could.

Then guard against _that_, which is a real problem.

I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship.

That sets off my radar detector a bit. If you're justifying the need for current policies with that statement, I'd have to disagree... the desire to potentially make changes in the future is not itself a compelling reason to have strongly worded agreements. Even in v4land, we've actually determined that one of the few relatively serious reasons we'd like to reclaim space (depletion) is probably impractical. With that in mind, claims that there needs to be thorough accounting kind of comes off like "trust us, we're in charge, we know what we need but we can't really explain it aside from invoking the boogeyman." On one hand? You absolutely don't want to go around delegating /20's to organizations that clearly have no need. On the other hand, you don't need heavyhanded agreements to avoid that in the first place. This is kind of off-topic for NANOG, so I'll stick with what I've said unless someone has a really good point. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

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

...

...

If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of acces= s to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly = we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all thos= e people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could. =20 Then guard against _that_, which is a real problem.

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

The problem, as I've heard it, is that ARIN's fees are steep in order to pay for various costs. Since there isn't the economy of scale of hundreds of millions of domain names, and instead you just have ... what? Probably less than a hundred thousand objects that are revenue-generating? If you charge $1/yr for each registered object, that means your organizational budget is sufficient for one full time person, maybe two. At $100/yr, you have enough funding for some office space, some gear, and a small staff. So when you run into expensive stuff, like litigation, the best course of action is to avoid it unless you absolutely can't. Further, if you've suffered mission creep and are funding other things such as IPv6 educational outreach, that's going to run up your costs as well. An established entity like ARIN typically has a very rough time going on any sort of diet. Further, companies typically do not segregate their "products" well: if IPv4 policy enforcement runs into legal wrangling and lawsuits, ARIN as a whole gets sued, and it is tempting to spread the resulting expenses over all their products. Segregation into two (or more!) entities is a trivial way to fix that, though it also brings about other challenges.

...

...

I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountabl= e and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties=

...

...

involved already have an established relationship. =20 That sets off my radar detector a bit. If you're justifying the need=20 for current policies with that statement, I'd have to disagree... the desire to potentially make changes in the future is not itself a=20 compelling reason to have strongly worded agreements. Even in v4land, we've actually determined that one of the few relatively serious=20 reasons we'd like to reclaim space (depletion) is probably impractical.=

...

=20 With that in mind, claims that there needs to be thorough accounting kind of comes off like "trust us, we're in charge, we know what we need=

...

but we can't really explain it aside from invoking the boogeyman."

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

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

I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to fix. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

...

I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to fix.

I believe that anything at ARIN which the community at large and the membership can come to consensus is broken will be relatively easy to fix.

Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as "working as intended" by much of the community and membership?

That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6? You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring against v6 adoption. I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support that statement. This is an impediment that I've been idly pondering for some years now, which is why I rattle cages to encourage discussion whenever I see a promising opportunity. Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Martin Barry wrote:

$quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ;

...

...

Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as "working as intended" by much of the community and membership?

That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community and membership implicitly sees little value in IPv6?

I really don't know how much or how little value is seen in IPv6 by "much" of the community. I see tremendous value in IPv6. I also see a number of flaws in IPv6 (failure to include a scalable routing paradigm, for example). Nonetheless, IPv4 is unsustainable going forward (NAT is bad enough, LSN is even worse). I do believe that IPv6 is being deployed and that deployment is accelerating. I'm actually in a pretty good position to see that happen since I have access to flow statistics for a good portion of the IPv6 internet. The IPv6 internet today is already carrying more traffic than the IPv4 internet carried 10 years ago. Many others see value in IPv6. Comcast and Verizon have both announced residential customer IPv6 trials. Google, You Tube and Netflix are all available as production services on IPv6. Yahoo has publicly announced plans to have production services on IPv6 in the near future although they have not yet announced specific dates. I leave it up to you to consider whether that constitutes "much" of the community or not.

Is that orthogonal to Owen's statement?

I don't see how the term orthogonal would apply here.

...

You can claim that's a bit of a stretch, but quite frankly, the RIR policies, the sketchy support by providers, the lack of v6 support in much common gear, and so many other things seem to be all conspiring against v6 adoption. I need only point to v6 adoption rates to support that statement.

Which rates would those be?

http://www.ipv6actnow.org/info/statistics/

IPv6 has had a slow start but it's certainly picking up.

IPv6 started approximately 20 years behind IPv4. It's already caught up with IPv4 traffic levels of 10 years ago. Deployment is accelerating and IPv4 will hit a sustainability wall in the near future. Owen

Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address space?

Reasons: + Fear People simply fear deploying new technology to their environment. + Uncertainty The future is uncertain. Many people fail to realize that IPv4's future is even more uncertain than that of IPv6. + Doubt You are not the only one expressing doubt in IPv6. The reality, however, is that I think that LSN and a multi-layer NAT internet are even more worthy of doubt than IPv6. + Inertia Many people are approaching this like driving at night with the headlights off. They refuse to alter course until they can see the wall. There is a wall coming in two years whether you can see it or not. If you have not begun to deploy IPv6 (changed course), then there will soon come a point where the accident has already occurred, even though you cannot yet see the wall and have not yet made physical contact with it. A classic example of this phenomenon would be a certain large unsinkable ship where the captain chose to try and make better time to New York rather than use a lower speed to have time to avoid ice bergs. The ship never arrived in New York and its name became an adjective to describe large disasters. Owen

On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote:

+Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no tangible benefit to deploying IPv6 right now, and the tangible danger that your v6 deployment will just have to be redone because there's some flaw in the current v6 protocol or best practices that will be uncovered.

This lack of consensus seems to most be associated with people who haven't deployed. those of us who have in some cases a decade ago, don't wonder very much... You can deploy point-to-points as /112s or /64s. if you do anything that isn't aligned on a byte boundary the brains will leak out of the ears of your engineers. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it. any subnet that has more than 2 devices on it is a /64 do anything else and you'll shoot yourself or someone else in the foot and probably sooner rather than later.

+Bonus Doubt: Because we've been told that "IPv4 will be dead in 2 years" for the last 20 years, and that "IPv6 will be deployed and a way of life in 2 years" for the past 10, nobody really believes it anymore. There's been an ongoing chant of "wolf" for so long, many people won't believe it until things are much, much worse.

I bet you're really good at predicting the stock market as well. you can be right and still go bankrupt. It is posisble to mistake postive but nearly random outcomes for skill or insight. I don't have to be right about needing an ipv6 deployment plan or even believe that ipv6 is deployable in it's present form (I happen to believe that, buts it's beside the point), because I need a business continuity plan for what happens around ipv4 exhaustion, I may have more than one, but I have a fiduciary duty to my company to not fly this particular plane into avoidable terrain.

-Dave

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Joe Greco wrote:

The problem, as I've heard it, is that ARIN's fees are steep in order to pay for various costs. Since there isn't the economy of scale of hundreds of millions of domain names, and instead you just have ... what? Probably less than a hundred thousand objects that are revenue-generating? If you charge $1/yr for each registered object, that means your organizational budget is sufficient for one full time person, maybe two. At $100/yr, you have enough funding for some office space, some gear, and a small staff.

Joe - Your financial breakdown is heading the right direction, but let help out with some more information (FYI - ARIN's 2009 Budget is available at https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html, and the 2010 one should be there sometime next week.) ARIN runs about a $15M annual operating expense. As you noted below, it can be hard to separate into distinct "products', and in fact, in some cases it is not appropriate to separate since one function (e.g. support for public policy development) might actually be a prerequisite for another (i.e.new address allocations). I am actually working to get more service- oriented cost information going forward, but this is non-trivial to make happen. In terms of fees, we have about 3500 ISPs (whose registration subscription service fees cover the bulk of ARIN's expenses, i.e. an average of several thousand dollars per ISP per year) In other fees, we have over 1000 end-user organization and presently about 800 legacy RSA holders which pay $100/year for maintenance. This doesn't really cover much expense, and that is quite appropriate since handling registration services requests (and the supporting public policy process) does dominant the expenses of ARIN, at least today. The question is how that evolves over time, particularly if the level of registration services requests in an post-IPv6 world is very modest. At that point, ARIN's expenses will be predominantly registry systems support, and whatever public policy process the community wishes us to maintain. These costs will need to be predominantly covered by the maintenance fees, and will support the objects in the database, which includes the resource records of 3500 ISPs, 1000+ enduser organizations, the signed LRSA holders, and estimated 15000 legacy resource holders who have not signed an LRSA... At the end of the day, the Board of Trustees will determine the best fee schedule to provide for cost-recovery of whatever functions are needed for the mission at that time.

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

Correct.

Further, if you've suffered mission creep and are funding other things such as IPv6 educational outreach, that's going to run up your costs as well.

Presently, IPv6 outreach is not considered "mission creep", as it has been an overwhelming request of the community both online and in the public policy meetings.

An established entity like ARIN typically has a very rough time going on any sort of diet. Further, companies typically do not segregate their "products" well: if IPv4 policy enforcement runs into legal wrangling and lawsuits, ARIN as a whole gets sued, and it is tempting to spread the resulting expenses over all their products. Segregation into two (or more!) entities is a trivial way to fix that, though it also brings about other challenges.

Absolutely correct. I think it is possible to understand those costs better, but in some cases they can't be put into separate organizations without some changes to structural assumptions about ARIN's mission.

I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to fix.

Joe - If you want to improve ARIN policy, jump right in. If you want to propose policy for the sake of changing the nature of the organization, that's also fine, if you contact me I'll assist in providing estimates of cost savings and structural changes that can result from your proposals. At the end of the day, it will be the community's discussion of your proposal, and the AC & Boards consideration of the discussion which will decide the matter. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne <john@sackheads.org> wrote:

So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else?

Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne <john@sackheads.org> wrote:

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

...

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

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

John, I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or- server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come. But if you want to bet against me, more power to you. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne <john@sackheads.org> wrote:

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

...

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

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

John, You'll be able to get another v4 address. It'll cost you noticeably more than it does now, but you'll be able to afford it. Thing is, if you induce me and others to deploy IPv6 now, you may not have to get another v4 address then, nor pay for it. So if there's a way you can induce me to deploy IPv6 now that doesn't cost you any money now or later, well, that's ultimately money that stays in your pocket. Keeps money in my pocket too since I'll have the same problem, but what do you care about that? It's your money that matters, not mine. Inducing behavior that ultimately reduces everybody's cost "serves the public interest." That's what organizations like ARIN are for: serving the public interest. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:26 PM, John Payne <john@sackheads.org> wrote:

b) ARIN or RIRv6 has costs that are covered by registration fees.  How does having a whole bunch of freeloaders save me money?

'Cause if you're clever about it, they're not freeloaders forever... they only get to be freeloaders until, as you so succinctly put it, their presence pushes you into the majority that finds it acceptable to deploy IPv6-only servers. What I might do, and I'm just talking here, but what I might do in ARIN's shoes is preemptively allocate /32s or assign /48s to ARIN orgs whose ASes currently announce only IPv4 prefixes. The deal is: everybody gets em, no assignment fee or evaluation beyond the fact that you're announcing IPv4 now, free for two years after which you either sign the contract and start paying the annual, or you don't and the address block is reclaimed by ARIN. Gives me a $1250 incentive to deploy IPv6 now instead of waiting, and costs you nothing now since I wouldn't have spent the $1250 now anyway. Probably costs you nothing later too, because after two years I'll be paying annuals that I might not otherwise have had to pay -and- since my assignment was done in bulk, ARIN staff will never spend the time (time=money) individually processing my initial assignment.

...

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

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

Fair enough. I won't begrudge you the choice. Just remember years from now when you cough up the cash for that extra v4 address: you had another option. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

...

IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come.

So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else?

Flip it around: Why should WE care about IPv6? WE would have to sign an onerous RSA with ARIN, giving up some of our rights in the process. WE have sufficient IP space to sit it out awhile; by doing that, WE save cash in a tight economy. WE are not so large that we spend four figures without batting an eyelash, so that's attractive. Further, anyone who is providing IPv6-only content has cut off most of the Internet, so basically no significant content is available on IPv6- only. That means there is no motivation for US to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon. Even more, anyone who is on an IPv6-only eyeball network is cut off from most of the content of the Internet; this means that ISP's will be having to provide IPv6-to-v4 services. Either they'll be good, or if customers complain, WE will be telling them how badly their ISP sucks. *I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other hand, I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just described all the ways in which they fritter away money. As a result, the state of affairs simply retards the uptake and adoption of v6 among networks that would otherwise be agreeable to the idea; so, tell me, do you see that as being beneficial to the Internet community at large, or not? Note that I'm taking a strongly opposing stance for the sake of debate, the reality is a bit softer. Given a moderately good offer, we'd almost certainly adopt IPv6. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

...

*I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other hand, I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just described all the ways in which they fritter away money.

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

Clarification required here: You do not have to join ARIN to propose policy. Fees are not policy. You do not have to join ARIN to propose changes to fees through the ACSP. You do have to join ARIN to vote in AC and BoT elections. Owen

-----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:14 PM To: John Payne Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

...

IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years to come.

So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else?

Flip it around: Why should WE care about IPv6? WE would have to sign an onerous RSA with ARIN, giving up some of our rights in the process. WE have sufficient IP space to sit it out awhile; by doing that, WE save cash in a tight economy. WE are not so large that we spend four figures without batting an eyelash, so that's attractive. You don't. No one is going to make you set up IPv6. If you don't ever want or need to reach v6 enabled hosts, that's fine... Depending on your business, you may never need to change. But maybe someday you will want to, and you can set up v6 then. For a lot of folks, especially ISP's and content providers, there is much to be gained by deploying early: operational experience, and competitive advantage. It may not all go smoothly, so the sooner folks who know they will need IPv6, get started, the more time they have to work out any kinks. I think that is one of the interesting things about this problem. Unlike y2k, the deadline is different for everyone - and depends a lot on what your business is. Seriously? "an onerous RSA" What, specifically, do you consider so onerous? Are there no other situations where you willingly give up certain rights in order to obtain a service, or for the betterment or stability of your community/society? When you purchase internet transit, you surely sign a contract that has some terms of service, including an Acceptable Use Policy. You likely give up the right to spam, host copyrighted works, the right to intentionally disrupt networks, etc. It's likely that your provider can terminate services for violations. Do you consider this onerous? Even if you did, it didn't stop you from purchasing service. Further, anyone who is providing IPv6-only content has cut off most of the Internet, so basically no significant content is available on IPv6- only. That means there is no motivation for US to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon. Even more, anyone who is on an IPv6-only eyeball network is cut off from most of the content of the Internet; this means that ISP's will be having to provide IPv6-to-v4 services. Either they'll be good, or if customers complain, WE will be telling them how badly their ISP sucks. *I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other hand, I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just described all the ways in which they fritter away money. You can get IPv6 addresses from your upstream provider, often times free of charge, you don't ever have to deal with ARIN if you don't want to. You won't ever have to sign and agreement with ARIN if you don't want to. But, if you want to get a direct allocation, you got to pay to play - and also, agree to play by the same rules that everyone else is - it's a social contract of sorts- give up some rights in order to gain some benefits. As a result, the state of affairs simply retards the uptake and adoption of v6 among networks that would otherwise be agreeable to the idea; so, tell me, do you see that as being beneficial to the Internet community at large, or not? Note that I'm taking a strongly opposing stance for the sake of debate, the reality is a bit softer. Given a moderately good offer, we'd almost certainly adopt IPv6. "Moderately good offer" Like getting a prefix from your provider? Probably for free, without signing anything from ARIN. Have you talked to your provider? Or a certain well known tunnel broker will give you a /48 along w/ a free tunnel. http://nlayer.net/ipv6 route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6 2001:0590:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32 BGP routing table entry for 2001:590::/32 Paths: (15 available, best #6, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 33437 6939 4436 2001:4810::1 from 2001:4810::1 (66.117.34.140) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Thu Apr 8 20:43:30 2010 ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

...

1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6   numbering resources,

Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that would replace ARIN.

Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is circular reasoning.

...

2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model   of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less   paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR.

Because the ARIN members, who pay most of ARIN's fees, are not complaining about the level of those fees. This means that they think the fees are cheap enough, or else they would demand that the fees be changed. All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members.

Again, ... Anyways, the non-answers to these questions are very illuminating. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:09:19AM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:

...

...

1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6   numbering resources,

Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that would replace ARIN.

Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is circular reasoning.

...

...

2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model   of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less   paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR.

Because the ARIN members, who pay most of ARIN's fees, are not complaining about the level of those fees. This means that they think the fees are cheap enough, or else they would demand that the fees be changed. All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members.

Again, ...

Anyways, the non-answers to these questions are very illuminating.

This is an answer though. The vast majority of people who need address space in North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it for a new system, which they may not be happy with.

... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

-- --

...

This is an answer though. The vast majority of people who need address space in North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it for a new system, which they may not be happy with.

Actually, I don't believe that is completely true. The vast majority of address space in North America is given to ARIN members. However, the vast majority of people who need address space in North America are end users, most of whom get their address space from ARIN members or descendent LIRs from ARIN members. In some cases, they are end users who get address space from ARIN but are not ARIN members. Some end users are ARIN members, but, I do not believe the majority of them are. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it being this way, just that it is an important distinction in address consumption vs. membership. Owen

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:

All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members.

No they are not. Regards, -drc

Michael Dillon wrote (on Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:31:43PM +0100):

On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

...

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:

...

All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members.

No they are not.

According to <https://www.arin.net/fees/overview.html>:

The Fee Schedule, is continually reviewed by ARIN's membership, and its Advisory Council, and Board of Trustees to identify ways in which ARIN can improve service to the community and to ensure that ARIN's operational needs are met

Since the AC and Board of Trustees are elected by the Members, ultimately the members have control of fees.

-- Michael Dillon

Uh, that's NOT the same thing. Or, do you believe you have control of the taxes you pay? *I* sure don't. -- _________________________________________ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants

[context restored]

...

...

If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything?

...

[I replied] Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN

i do not think that statement is defensible

there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights for no benefit

I meant in the context of an answer to the question above. A legacy holder doesn't really care _who_ is currently providing the services that InterNIC once provided. It doesn't matter to me if our legacy space is currently "handled" by ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, ICANN, or whatever. Put less tersely: We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc. Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not get distracted by any "ownership" debate, but just agree for the sake of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it). This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed upstreams. Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN. ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that. As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently "responsible" for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem. The previous poster asked, "If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything?" Well, the flip side to that is, "ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care." Is that a suitable defense of that statement (which might not have been saying quite what you thought)? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Put less tersely:

We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc.

So far, correct.

Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not get distracted by any "ownership" debate, but just agree for the sake of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it). This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed upstreams.

This is fictitious unless you are claiming that your allocation predates: RFC2050 November, 1996 RFC1466 May, 1993 RFC1174 August, 1990 Prior to that, it was less clear, but, the concept was still generally justified need so long as that need persisted.

Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN.

Actually, ARIN was spun off from InterNIC (containing most of the same staff that had been doing the job at InterNIC) well before InterNIC was disbanded.

ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that.

This is going to be one of those situations that could become a legal battle on many fronts either way. On the one hand you have legacy holders who have no contractual right to services from anyone (If you want to pursue InterNIC for failing to live up to whatever agreement you have/had with them, I wish you the very best of luck in that endeavor, especially since you don't have a written contract from them, either). On the other hand, in a relatively short timeframe, you are likely to have litigants asking why ARIN has failed to reclaim/reuse the underutilized IPv4 space sitting in so many legacy registrations. Which of those two bodies of litigants is larger or better funded is left as an exercise for the reader. Nonetheless, ARIN is going to be in an interesting position between those two groups (which one is rock and which is hard place is also left as an exercise for the reader) going forward regardless of what action is taken by ARIN in this area. That is why the legacy RSA is important. It represents ARIN trying very hard to codify and defend the rights of the legacy holders.

As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently "responsible" for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem.

You assume that anyone is currently responsible. What documentation do you have that there is any such responsibility? As a point in fact, ARIN has, for the good of the community, extended the courtesy of maintaining those records and providing services to legacy holders free of charge because it is perceived as being in the best interests of the community.

The previous poster asked, "If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything?"

Well, the flip side to that is, "ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care."

Could you please provide those to Steve Ryan, John Curran, and, ideally, I'd like to see them too.

Is that a suitable defense of that statement (which might not have been saying quite what you thought)?

I don't know. I have yet to see the content of the documents which you claim are your defense. Owen

On Apr 11, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

...

...

Put less tersely:

We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelegation, etc.

So far, correct.

...

Part of that was an understanding that the space was ours (let's not get distracted by any "ownership" debate, but just agree for the sake of this point that it was definitely understood that we'd possess it). This served the good of the Internet by promoting stability within an AS and allowed us to spend engineering time on finer points (such as maintaining PTR's) rather than renumbering gear every time we changed upstreams.

This is fictitious unless you are claiming that your allocation predates:

RFC2050 November, 1996 RFC1466 May, 1993 RFC1174 August, 1990

Prior to that, it was less clear, but, the concept was still generally justified need so long as that need persisted.

Which ours does.

...

...

Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to ARIN.

Actually, ARIN was spun off from InterNIC (containing most of the same staff that had been doing the job at InterNIC) well before InterNIC was disbanded.

Is there an effective difference or are you just quibbling? For the purposes of this discussion, I submit my description was suitable to describe what happened.

Your description makes it sound like there was limited or no continuity between the former and the current registration services entity. I point out that ARIN was formed run by and including most of the IP-related staff from InterNIC. I consider that a substantive distinction.

...

...

ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they better do so, because if they don't, it'll probably turn into a costly legal battle on many fronts, and I doubt ARIN has the budget for that.

This is going to be one of those situations that could become a legal battle on many fronts either way. On the one hand you have legacy holders who have no contractual right to services from anyone (If you want to pursue InterNIC for failing to live up to whatever agreement you have/had with them, I wish you the very best of luck in that endeavor, especially since you don't have a written contract from them, either).

On the other hand, in a relatively short timeframe, you are likely to have litigants asking why ARIN has failed to reclaim/reuse the underutilized IPv4 space sitting in so many legacy registrations.

Which of those two bodies of litigants is larger or better funded is left as an exercise for the reader. Nonetheless, ARIN is going to be in an interesting position between those two groups (which one is rock and which is hard place is also left as an exercise for the reader) going forward regardless of what action is taken by ARIN in this area.

That is why the legacy RSA is important. It represents ARIN trying very hard to codify and defend the rights of the legacy holders.

Yes, but according to the statistics provided by Mr. Curran, it looks like few legacy space holders are actually adopting the LRSA.

So far, yes. That's unfortunate.

Like many tech people, you seem to believe that the absence of a "contract" means that there's no responsibility, and that InterNIC's having been disbanded absolves ARIN from responsibility. In the real world, things are not so simple. The courts have much experience at looking at real world situations and determining what should happen. These outcomes are not always predictable and frequently don't seem to have obvious results, but they're generally expensive fights.

No, actually, quite the opposite. I believe that BOTH legacy holders and ARIN have responsibilities even though there is no contract. I believe that ARIN is, however, responsible to the community as it exists today and not in any way responsible to legacy holders who choose to ignore that community and their responsibilities to it. The reality is that the community has evolved. For the most part, the community has been willing to let legacy holders live in their little reality distortion bubble and accommodated their eccentricities. I think that is as it should be, to some extent. On the other hand, I think the history now shows that ARIN's failure to immediately institute the same renewal pricing model on legacy holders as on new registrants has created an unfortunate disparity and a number of unfortunate perceptions. Contrast this with APNIC and the domain registrars/registries shortly after the ARIN spinoff from InterNIC, where, yes, there was much grumbling from those of us who had legacy (domain, ip resources) from them, but, in the long run, we paid our fees and moved on. Had ARIN done this on day one, perhaps it would have gone the same way. Instead, we have a situation where the mere mention of requiring legacy holders to pay a token annual fee like the rest of IP end-users in the ARIN region leads to discussions like this. FWIW, I'm a legacy holder myself, but, I have signed the LRSA and I do have IPv6 resources under an RSA as well. No harm has come to me as a result and it is not costing me any more to have done so. In fact, I got my IPv6 assignment for a good discount in the process, but, that deal is no longer available. Frankly, I find it remarkably short-sighted that so many legacy holders have refused to sign the LRSA. Especially in light of the fact that if you are sitting on excess resources and want to be able to transfer them under NRPM 8.3, you will need to bring them under LRSA or RSA first and the successor who acquires them from you (under 8.2 or 8.3) will need to sign an RSA for the transfer to be valid.

...

...

As a legacy holder, we don't really care who is currently "responsible" for legacy maintenance/etc. However, whoever it is, if they're not going to take on those responsibilities, that's a problem.

You assume that anyone is currently responsible. What documentation do you have that there is any such responsibility?

As a point in fact, ARIN has, for the good of the community, extended the courtesy of maintaining those records and providing services to legacy holders free of charge because it is perceived as being in the best interests of the community.

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

As a general rule, courts tend to rule that absent an exchange of value, there is no contract. They also tend to rule that contracts which contain significantly inequitable exchanges of value are invalid. Since ARIN is collecting nothing from legacy holders and not getting funded by NSF or other US Government agency the way InterNIC was, it's hard to see where you would find the exchange of value to support that conclusion. Additionally, it could be argued that by refusing to sign the LRSA or RSA and refusing to participate in the community on a level playing field with others, legacy holders are not meeting their obligations under your implied contract theory. IANAL, so I could be completely wrong here and this is just my personal opinion, not a statement of ARIN or the AC.

...

...

The previous poster asked, "If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide you with anything?"

Well, the flip side to that is, "ARIN doesn't have a contract with us, but we still have copies of the InterNIC policies under which we were assigned space, and ARIN undertook those duties, so ARIN is actually the one with significant worries if they were to try to pull anything, otherwise, we don't really care."

Could you please provide those to Steve Ryan, John Curran, and, ideally, I'd like to see them too.

...

Is that a suitable defense of that statement (which might not have been saying quite what you thought)?

I don't know. I have yet to see the content of the documents which you claim are your defense.

I'd be pleased to pull them off our backups for our normal hourly rates. Otherwise, you're encouraged to do your own research.

I've done my own research... I've come up with nothing. You're the one claiming you have documentation to support your assertions... To be blunt, put up or shut up. Owen

On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:21 AM, David Conrad wrote:

Owen,

On Apr 11, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

...

Instead, we have a situation where the mere mention of requiring legacy holders to pay a token annual fee like the rest of IP end-users in the ARIN region leads to discussions like this.

I don't believe the issue is the token annual fee. My guess is that most legacy holders would be willing to pay a "reasonable" service fee to cover rDNS and registration database maintenance (they'd probably be more willing if there were multiple providers of that service, but that's a separate topic). I suspect the issue might be more related to stuff like:

...

Especially in light of the fact that if you are sitting on excess resources and want to be able to transfer them under NRPM 8.3, you will need to bring them under LRSA or RSA first and the successor who acquires them from you (under 8.2 or 8.3) will need to sign an RSA for the transfer to be valid.

You appear to be assuming folks are willing to accept ARIN has the right and ability to assert the above (and more). That is, that the entire policy regime under which the NRPM has been defined is one that legacy holders are implicitly bound simply because they happen to operate in ARIN's service region and received IP addresses in the past without any real terms and conditions or formal agreement. I imagine the validity of your assumption will not be established without a definitive legal ruling. I'm sure it will be an interesting court case.

Well, if they want to operate under the previous regime, then, they should simply return any excess resources now rather than attempting to monetize them under newer policies as that was the policy in place at the time. Certainly they should operate under one of those two regimes rather than some alternate reality not related to either. Interestingly, APNIC seems to have had little trouble asserting such in their region, but, I realize the regulatory framework in the ARIN region is somewhat different.

In any event, it seems clear that some feel that entering into agreements and paying fees in order to obtain IPv6 address space is hindering deployment of IPv6. While ARIN has in the past waived fees for IPv6, I don't believe there has ever been (nor is there likely to be) a waiver of signing the RSA. Folks who want that should probably get over it.

I believe you are correct about that.

To try to bring this back to topics relevant to NANOG (and not ARIN's PPML), the real issue is that pragmatically speaking, the only obvious alternative to IPv6 is multi-layer NAT and it seems some people are trying to tell you that regardless of how much you might hate multi-layer NAT, how much more expensive you believe it will be operationally, and how much more limiting and fragile it will be because it breaks the end-to-end paradigm, they believe it to be a workable solution. Are there _any_ case studies, analyses with actual data, etc. that shows multi-layer NAT is not workable (scalable, operationally tractable, etc.) or at least is more expensive than IPv6?

Can you point to a single working deployment of multi-layer NAT? I can recall experiences with several attempts which had varying levels of dysfunction. Some actually done at NANOG meetings, for example. As such, I'm willing to say that there is at least anecdotal evidence that multi-layer NAT either is not workable or has not yet been made workable. Owen

On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:

When most of the legacy space was handed out, there were no restrictions on what you could do/not do with address space simply because no one considered it necessary.

David - I don't think I can agree with that statement, but for sake of clarity - when do you think this "no restriction" period actually occurred? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:

On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:

...

When most of the legacy space was handed out, there were no restrictions on what you could do/not do with address space simply because no one considered it necessary.

 I don't think I can agree with that statement, but for sake of clarity -  when do you think this "no restriction" period actually occurred?

John, What restrictions do you believe were imposed on someone requesting a class-C between 4/93 and 9/94 who did not intend to connect to MILNET or NSFNET? For your reference, here's the form then active: http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/199304-internet-number-template.txt Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, "exchange of value" as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on; InterNIC had motivations other than a purely financial one to organize IP allocations. The number assignment function is critical to allowing the Internet to work smoothly.

Joe - On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. While I don't consider addresses to be property, if you take the opposite view then there's very likely a significant body of procurement law which already applies to property furnished in this manner and would be far more relevant than any documentation that an address block recipient received at the time. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote:

...

Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, "exchange of value" as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on; InterNIC had motivations other than a purely financial one to organize IP allocations.  The number assignment function is critical to allowing the Internet to work smoothly.

On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. While I don't consider addresses to be property, if you take the opposite view then there's very likely a significant body of procurement law which already applies to property furnished in this manner and would be far more relevant than any documentation that an address block recipient received at the time.

John, Joe: If you want to understand the general thinking circa 1993, find a copy of the first edition, third printing of the crab book (TCP/IP Network Administration, O'Reilly) and read chapter 4. That was the reference many of us followed when getting our first address blocks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004