Re: Lightly used IP addresses

In message <4c69cb8d.4000...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard writes: > On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote: > > it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day > > accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes. > > I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who di

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote: it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes. I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who didn't bother with irrdb filters are going to latch on en-masse to rpki there

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of >> RPKI might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried >> talking about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear >> enough. first, let's remember that the rpki is a distributed database which has a number of

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> and, to continue the red herring with jc, i bet you 500 yen that arin >> paid their travel expenses to go to maastricht nl to do this stupid >> thing. > You lose your bet. then owe you 500Y. paypal? randy

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On 16/08/10 09:47 -0700, John Springer wrote: On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote: This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the "only

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:57:51 EDT, Joe Maimon said: Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of RPKI might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried talking about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear enough. I'm no

RE: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote: This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the "only oddball" pushing the IPv6 feature requirement.

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:57:51 EDT, Joe Maimon said: > Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of RPKI > might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried talking > about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear enough. I'm not at all convinced this would

RE: Lightly used IP addresses

> -Original Message- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:13 PM > To: Kevin Loch > Cc: North American Network Operators Group > Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses > > > the fracking rirs, in the name of marla an

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Joe - Excellent question, and one which I know is getting some public policy attention. There is a session at upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilnius specifical

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Randy Bush wrote: Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which have actually been "fixed" by the RIR's. no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are taking about, and i know where

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Randy Bush wrote: and why in hell would i trust these organizations with any control of my routing via rpki certification? they have always said thay would never be involved in routing, but if they control the certification chain, they have a direct stranglehold they can use to extort fees.

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > John/Steve, Just me (we don't pay Steve to read Nanog, although I do forward him legalistic emails depending on content :-) > Bill makes a reasonable point here. Is there a way to, in the next round of > LRSA mods, include something to the eff

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> > The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's > not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it > doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to > behave that way. John/Steve, Bill makes a reasonable point here. Is there a way to, i

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

John, That was just the elevator speech, I wouldn't go off and write an entire proposal without a better understanding on how the community at large feels about the issue and exactly where the boundary would be drawn. My intent was not primarily cost, the registration fees are indeed low. I was ju

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > > Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to > change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to > registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget? Jeffrey - Some historical p

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 16, 2010, at 1:44 AM, William Herrin wrote: > ... > The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's > not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it > doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to > behave that way. Bill - Divid

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern. >> >> I seem to recall that attitude was how ICANN first started t

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

[attribution removed, as I lost track of who said what] > > Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not > > respect your belief. > > > > ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new > > ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action t

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, John Curran wrote: >  The last round of improvements to the LRSA (version 2.0) added several >  circumstances that result in pre-contract status quo, and additional >  ones could be added if the community wants such and the Board concurs. John, I noticed and I ap

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said: >> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights >> somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and >> contrary to the intent of number

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

All (and especially Mr. Curran), Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget? Best regards, Jeff On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM, O

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44:18AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain >> rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in >> nature and contrary to the intent

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern. > > Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses > (and how it collects that money and the privile

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On 8/15/10 6:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote: On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote: when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost when we (sri) lost the defense data network nic contract in may '91, disa awa

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On 8/13/2010 19:55, Randy Bush wrote: > > when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i > think it was called that at the time), rick adams [0] put in a no cost > bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should > have supported that much more strongl

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote: > > when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i > think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost > bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should > have supported that much more strongly.

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

date the RFC2050 guidance or the Policy Development process to remove the reference. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Date: August 15, 2010 6:49:12 AM EDT > To: Randy Bush > Cc: North American Network Operators Grou

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with >> lots of glib words can be made without process. changes you don't >> like have to go through the policy gauntlet. > ... > Changes to ARIN's fees, services, and agreements are done after > consultation to the ARIN Board, an

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said: > You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights > somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and > contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to > Postel's original notebook. Poste

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with > lots of glib words can be made without process. > changes you don't like have to go through the policy gauntlet. Changes to the ARIN's operations are within my authority; I

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally > consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses > instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that > balancing check to the contract, I think

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

john, the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with lots of glib words can be made without process. changes you don't like have to go through the policy gauntlet. randy

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Also, your emphasis above ("_that are not currently being utilized_"), >> pointed our we need to clarify that it should include "all resources, >> including those not currently being utilized", i.e. the phrase wasn't >> intended to exclude *utili

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> Also, your emphasis above ("_that are not currently being utilized_"), > pointed our we need to clarify that it should include "all resources, > including those not currently being utilized", i.e. the phrase wasn't > intended to exclude *utilized* resources from "ARIN will take no action"

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, William Herrin wrote: > Please: don't ask folks to take discussions of public concern to a closed > forum. > ... > ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new > ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: "ARIN will take no action to reduce > the services provid

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44:18AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: > > You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain > rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in > nature and contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way > back to Postel's original note

Routers in Space (was: Lightly used IP addresses)

> In other words, if the ARIN board adopts a policy that legacy > registrants must install some of their addresses on a router on the > moon (or perhaps some requirement that's a little less extreme) then > failing to is cause for terminating the contract (14.b). Which revokes > the IP addresses (1

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern. Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses (and how it collects that money and the privileges conferred on the folks from whom it's collected) are not a

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Sent from my iPad On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran wrote: >> https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html >> In >> between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss >> mailing >> list as o

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Sent from my iPad On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process? >> No > > so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process > which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level playing > field?"

Re: participation in process (Re: Lightly used IP addresses)

Sent from my iPad On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> I highly encourage everyone who has an opinion on Internet numbering policy >> to do the same. > > The same goes for IETF and standards, there one doesn't have to go

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran wrote: > https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html > In > between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss > mailing > list as opposed to the nanog list. John, Is arin-discuss still a closed members-only list?

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process? > No so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process which was not used to put it in place. can you even say "level playing field?" > Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that > all a

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process? No, although it's been presented at multiple Public Policy and Member meetings, and has enjoying extensive discussion on the mailing lists. (It's been extensively revised based on the fe

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

and, may i remind you, that the actual point was > On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN (in particular) >> suggest all will be well if people would just sign away their rights >> via an LRSA, > Actually, you've got it backwards. T

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

gosh, i must have completely misread section nine >>> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150? >> oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the >> lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it. > Easy to do, you can either: > 1) C

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine >> Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150? > > oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the > lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine > Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150? oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it. and then maybe more than a few percent of the

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> gosh, i must have completely misread section nine > Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150? legacy space predates those, and they are not contracts. randy

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific >> contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any >> policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights: > > gosh, i must have completely mi

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific > contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any > policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights: gosh, i must have completely misread section nine as we say in our family, i smell cows

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote: > It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN (in particular) suggest > all will be well if people would just sign away their rights via an LRSA, > ... Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific contractual rights

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 22:24, wrote: > Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... wanna score some gen-yoo-ine Rolex integers, > cheap? Right, because there is no reason to care about the uniqueness of integers used on the Internet... :/ ~Chris

participation in process (Re: Lightly used IP addresses)

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote: I highly encourage everyone who has an opinion on Internet numbering policy to do the same. The same goes for IETF and standards, there one doesn't have to go to meetings at all since most work is being done on/via mailing lists openly. -- Mikael

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Owen, On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Let's clarify the definition of abuse in this context. We are not talking > about people who use their IPs to abuse the network. We are talking about > resource recipients who use their allocations or assignments in contravention > to the

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On 08/14/2010 21:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said: First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who "sell" addresses despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said: > First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid > ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who "sell" addresses > despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud. Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... w

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: > > Question: Why does it cost $11 million or more per year (going to some > $22 million per year after 2013) to run a couple of databases that are > Internet-accessible? Patrick - If this is a reference to ARIN, the budget is approximately

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Randy Bush wrote: >> >> John - you do not get it... > > > > vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you > > and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization > > which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business > > class trave

40 x /18's and an ASN - was Re: Lightly used IP addresses

ths if not a year, > it's just been pushed back several quarters. > > Frank > > -Original Message- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:27 AM > To: Jeffrey Lyon > Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org; Ken Chase > Subject

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space > for B and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive > resource requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick? maybe you should not be searching for a stick.

RE: Lightly used IP addresses

st 6 months if not a year, it's just been pushed back several quarters. Frank -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:27 AM To: Jeffrey Lyon Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org; Ken Chase Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses

RE: Lightly used IP addresses

, August 13, 2010 2:13 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:49:35PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said: >> Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and >> lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating? > >Isn't t

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid > ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who "sell" addresses > despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud. this is less clear-cut than you seem to think it is. but i suspect we will see it in court

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

for the embarrassing wannabe example of the month, marla and lee [0] at the last ietf is just such a shining example. at the mic, they state are from the arin ac and board, like it was their day job and they were speaking fo rarin ploicy. and they propose to roll back a decade of progress getting

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:32, Randy Bush wrote: > when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the > flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating > steaming load that is not gonna change. Yes, those definitions create a steaming load. But why is it that th

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 15:25, Ken Chase wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said: >  >I know of several large providers that would stop routing such "rogue" > space. > > Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non > payment after severa

Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

40 Acres and a Mule were promised to every slave freed in the south by General Grant. It was later rescinded. 600 acres was promised to non-landowning general militia soldiers after the Revolutionary war. You're only off by ~100 years. Andrew On 8/14/2010 1:27 PM, Jimi Thompson wrote: It

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:32:50PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Bill, > > On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and > > fraud. > > > > abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html > > This is a F

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Bill, On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and > fraud. > > abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html This is a FAQ for folks who are accusing ARIN of abuse of network. With the possible e

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

I think you mistake my meaning. I don't regard RA and SLAAC as a problem. I regard their limited capabilities as a minor issue. I regard the IETF religion that insists on preventing DHCPv6 from having a complete set of capabilities for some form of RA protectionism to be the largest problem. Tha

Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson wrote: > It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865) not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to in this thread. Joel's iPad > > > On 8/14/10 11

Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote: > It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI That was Civil War, for freed slaves. Here in NY, war of independence veterans were given at least 100 acres each. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Bret Clark wrote: > On 08/14/2010 11:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people >> walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The >> vendor told each, in turn, "You're the only one asking

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for > end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs. > The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal 2002-3. >

40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, "John R. Levine" wrote: >> Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the >> folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the >> last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own >> IP

Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > I wouldn't for a moment claim that IPv4 space was a way that was uniformly > fair or wise or close to ideal.  But I don't think you're going to have much > luck imposing fairness and wisdom retroactively on people who've already got > the s

Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own IP addresses, that they were merely holding the addresses in trust for the public they serve. .

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > > > Funny! > > > > On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero > > cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use > >

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On 08/14/2010 11:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The vendor told each, in turn, "You're the only one asking for it." I walked up to the vendor and took my turn being

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Funny! > > On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero > cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use > their allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential > exp

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > John et al, > > I have read many of your articles about the need to migrate to IPv6 > and how failure to do so will impact business continuity sometime in > the next 1 - 3 years. I've pressed our vendors to support IPv6 (note: > keep in mind we'

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from >> the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which >> have actually been "fixed" by the RIR's. > > no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Watching people snark on mailing lists is occasionally entertaining. Watching them snark on the wrong mailing lists is usually less entertaining. Watching them snark on the wrong mailing list for 100+ posts when the things they are snarking about were voted on by themselves is getting a little

Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:00 AM, John Levine wrote: >> And in complete fairness - why should folks who received vast tracts >> of addresses for little or no cost under a justified-need regime now >> have free reign to monetize their sale? > > All of the real estate in my part of New York traces b

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> I'm not sure it would make the internet better then i don't want to pay for it. if you have not noticed, money is tight, and it ain't gonna get better. randy

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

I'm not sure it would make the internet better but it would reinforce integrity in a general sense. If we're to get away with lying on justification I might as well go grab a few /18's before the last /8 is issued. Jeff On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> You seem to be suggest

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:32 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > > John, > > I will concur with Randy that much of the travel that ARIN funds is > excessive. ARIN has a booth at trade shows so i'm going to guess that > entire setup with travel costs about $20,000 - 50,000 per show. Why? > To convince me to us

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> You seem to be suggesting that ARIN (and presumably the other RIRs) > invest more in policing the address space and otherwise regulating the > market. How much are you willing to pay for that service? and how would it make the internet any better? randy

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > > John, > > I have privately e-mailed you 5 x /18 and 3 x /19 that are being > abused. If ARIN takes action against even one of these allocations I > will commend you publicly. I'll go do the investigation for you if you > need evidence. I'm not

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is "no demand." It would probably be useful to be public about which vendors are still saying there is no demand for IPv6. > Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

John, I have privately e-mailed you 5 x /18 and 3 x /19 that are being abused. If ARIN takes action against even one of these allocations I will commend you publicly. I'll go do the investigation for you if you need evidence. Best regards, Jeff On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 AM, John Curran wrot

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:12 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > ARIN needs to investigate these companies and start reclaiming space. > Pose as a customer, see if they'll sell you a /24 or shorter on a > dedicated server for some arbitrary reason, and if so they're busted. >> > From there launch a full inves

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

Funny! On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use their allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential expensive lawsuits)... Do you know what you want?

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

John, I will concur with Randy that much of the travel that ARIN funds is excessive. ARIN has a booth at trade shows so i'm going to guess that entire setup with travel costs about $20,000 - 50,000 per show. Why? To convince me to use ARIN for my IP space needs? To convince us to switch to IPv6? I

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > thanks for reaffirming that talking to arin is a waste of time. If you're going to recommend that we not pay for travel for the ARIN AC, I'm going to recommend otherwise and point out that the AC members need to hear from the community, and tha

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

>> one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel >> expenses of non-employees/contractors. > > ARIN Suggestion process: > > > If you submit it, I will bring it to the Board for consideration. In > fairness, I will tell you that

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy >> associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry >> functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated >> policy development process, public po

Re: Lightly used IP addresses

> the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to > the ietf last month with a proposal to push address policy back to the > ietf from the ops. and they just did not get thomas's proposal to > move more policy from ietf back to ops. and, to continue the red herring with jc,

  1   2   >