Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/10 5:27 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > > ARIN might not have a contract with us, or with other legacy holders. > It wasn't our choice for ARIN to be tasked with holding up InterNIC's > end of things. However, it's likely that they've concluded that they > better do so, because if they don't, it'll

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

David, in 1997 and 1998 I was spending about 25% of my time interview the principals and engaged in informal conversations with Ira Magaziner,Kim Hubbard, DonMitchell and others. I was in Londone in late jan 1998 when Jon tried to redirect the root. Magaziner was there and daniel karenburg an

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

John, On Apr 12, 2010, at 5:23 AM, John Curran wrote: > On this matter we do agree, since allocations prior to ARIN's formation were > generally made pursuant to a US Government contract or cooperative agreement. > As we're both aware, Jon was funded in part via the ISI Teranode Network Tech

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Joe Greco wrote: >> Further, given the purported role that InterNIC played, "exchange of >> value" as a prerequisite is a rather questionable position to rely on; >> InterNIC had motivations other than a purely fin

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 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 num

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 ass

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > > 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 pr

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 11, 2010, at 3:20 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> When most of the legacy space was handed out, there >>were no restrictions on what you could do/not do with >>address space simply because no one considered it necessary. > >  I don't think I

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

John, On Apr 11, 2010, at 1:08 PM, John Curran wrote: >> When most of the legacy space was handed out, there were no restrictions on >> what you could do/not do with address space simply because no one considered >> it necessary. > I don't think I can agree with that statement, Not surprising.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 sak

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 11, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Well, if they want to operate under the previous regime, then, they should > simply return any excess resources now rather than attempting to monetize > them under newer policies as that was the policy in place at the time. Why? There were no po

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 l

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 >

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > 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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Dave Israel wrote: On 4/9/2010 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 policies regarding address sp

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it through the civil courts. And please educate me then, when I don't pay the fine, then what happens? -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 tho

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Owen, > > On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with >> guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. > > I'm a little confused on the

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: >>> BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will >>> issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. >>> >> N

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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. > > co

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/09/2010 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote: > Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it > through the civil courts. > > If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency > communications, I expect they might well call the police for > assistance. But tho

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 r

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Michael Dillon wrote (on Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:31:43PM +0100): > On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad wrote: > > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: > >> All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. > > > > No they are not. > > According to :

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: >> All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. > > No they are not. According to : The Fee Schedule, is continually reviewed by ARIN's membership, and its

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

-Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:14 PM To: John Payne Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > > > IPv6-only content won

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

arrive in record time. -Original Message- From: Curtis Maurand [mailto:cmaur...@xyonet.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:15 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> No, ARIN is not a regulator.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I hear

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 09 Apr 2010 12:43, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: >> >>> BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will >>> issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. >>>

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: >> Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. >> Much like ARIN, really. > > Oh really?  So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I > don't have one, won't

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Unless the ip you takes belongs to the rbn, mafia, or a three letter government org. -- -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer bra...@zcorum.com On Friday 09 April 2010, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: > > > Last I heard, the FCC has access to peo

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 distinct

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:26 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Doesn't end user PI assignment already do this? Note I'm not arguing against > end user PI assignment policy, rather just making the observation that given > IPv6 did not address routing scalability, the path we're heading down is > obvious, the

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 h

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: >> BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will >> issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. >> > No, ARIN is not a regulator.  Regulators have guns or access t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: > All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. No they are not. Regards, -drc

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Owen, On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with > guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove whois data

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 un

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 >>> unregul

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 firs

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > 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 subdelega

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/2010 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably >> talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have >> provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 >> policies regarding address space? >>

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

>> > 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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Joe Greco wrote: >>> 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 >>> numbering resources, >> >> Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. >> And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that >> would

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/2010 10:10 AM, John Curran wrote: A large *end-user* pays maintenance fees of $100/year. ISPs pay an annual registration services subscription fee each year, proportional to the size of aggregate address space held. I stand corrected. I misunderstood the doc. I could never read. :

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 $100.0

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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, bu

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various > directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. > Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to > ARIN. Correct (ARIN is the successor

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange wrote: > > On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: >> If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on >> demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space >> would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. > >

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[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 giv

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 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, wh

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

In my experience ARIN/RIR policies have not been a noticeable barrier to IPv6 adoption. Lack of IA/security gear tops the list for my clients, with WAN Acceleration a runner-up. /TJ On Apr 9, 2010 7:23 AM, "Joe Greco" wrote: > > I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't thi

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

$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 v

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 I

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

$quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ; > > Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is > circular reasoning. I would have thought the role ARIN (and the other RIRs) has to play is clear from it's charter (registration of number resources to ensure uniqueness and fair allocation of

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > 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 relativ

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > 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 th

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 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 relate

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN i do not think that statement is defensible there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights for no benefit

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 n

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:05:09PM -0500, Dan White wrote: > >>> > >>> What, if any, plan exists to improve the utilization density of the > >>> existant IPv4 pool? > >> > >>I believe your question is based on an outdated assumption. > > > > and that outdated assumption is? > > The assum

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

You are mistaken. If you only need one /64, you cannot possibly be an IPv6 ISP. As such, you would only pay the end-user price of $1250 one-time and $100/year. That $100/year also covers your IPv4 space and your autonomous system number. Owen On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

-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

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 08/04/10 18:00 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:50:26PM -0500, Dan White wrote: On 08/04/10 17:17 +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > in the IPv4 space, it was common to have a min allocation size of > a /20 ... or 4,096 addresses ... and yet t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: *I* am personally convinced that IPv6 is great, but on the other hand, I do not see so much value in v6 that I am prepared to compel the budgeting for ARIN v6 fees, especially since someone from ARIN just described all the ways in which they

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:26 PM, John Payne wrote: > b) ARIN or RIRv6 has costs that are covered by registration fees. >  How does having a whole bunch of freeloaders save me money? 'Cause if you're clever about it, they're not freeloaders forever... they only get to be freeloaders until, as you s

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > 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 t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations? 10 years ago ARIN rarely allocated less than a /19 or a /20 in IPv4. And we are still breathing today. > Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out > of IPv6 quickly. Fortunately, there haven

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> >> *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 joi

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 >   numbering resources, Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that would replace ARIN. > 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depl

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:14 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or- >>> server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Payne wrote: > On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> I think you'll find that the guy deploying the IPv6-only client -or- >> server is going to be in the minority for a long time to come. But if >> you want to bet against me, more power to you.

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

On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] >> >> On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: >>> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out >>

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne wrote: On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM, John Payne wrote: > On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding >> a free IPv4 address for your new server, it'll be YOUR problem too. > > Sure... if I'm in the minority.  If/when I'm no

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:01:55 EDT, William Herrin said: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne wrote: > > So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? > > Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating > > new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else? > > Becaus

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 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 th

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Greco wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: >> >>> IPv6-only content won't be meaningful for years yet, and IPv6-only >>> eyeballs will necessarily be given ways to reach v4 for many years >>> to come. >> >> So again, why do WE have to encourage

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne wrote: >> So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? >> Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating >> new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else? > > Because when

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 d

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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 mov

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/08/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote: >> If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access >> to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and >> start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we >> have to form these organizations

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM, John Payne wrote: > So again, why do WE have to encourage YOU to adopt IPv6? > Why should WE care what you do to the point of creating > new rules so YOU don't have to pay like everyone else? Because when WE haven't deployed IPv6 yet and YOU have trouble finding a

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

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

On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] > > On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: >> You're aware that RIPE has already made some /19 and /20 IPv6 allocations? >> >> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is poss

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> 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 >

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM, wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:22:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere >> >        Try that fee while trying to make a living in a depressed econimic >> > region JUST for an ipv4 /24 Assignment .  I don't

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

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:47, Jeroen Massar wrote: > [changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] > > On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: >> Yes, with suitably questionable delegations, it is possible to run out >> of IPv6 quickly. The bottom line (IMHO) is that IPv6 is NOT

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> What, exactly do you find so onerous in the LRSA? > > Owen, > > ARIN's unilateral right under the LRSA to reclaim my addresses in the > event of a dispute bugs me a tad, as does similar verbiage sprinkled > throughout. > Let's clarify h

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Well, yeah, but that is a separate problem. Anyone for an announced-prefix-tax ? :) On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange wrote: > On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: > > If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on > > demand, and charged a one-time fee o

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

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

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

[changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content] On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco wrote: >> With IPv6 designed the >> way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if >> some questionable delegations are made? >

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Kevin Stange wrote: > On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > >> Legacy

  1   2   3   4   >