North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
NANOG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 47
- From: nanog-request
- Date: Sat Aug 14 13:34:17 2010
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Patrick W. Gilmore)
2. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Owen DeLong)
4. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Owen DeLong)
5. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Bret Clark)
6. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
7. Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses
(John R. Levine)
8. Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses
(William Herrin)
9. 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses (Jimi Thompson)
10. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Joel Jaeggli)
11. Re: Lightly used IP addresses (Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:04:53 -0400
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <E1DE5D0C-4AB7-49EA-A487-9E466D8CF17C@ianai.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 silly.
Watching them snark about the people they are snarking -to- trying to get them to participate in the process they are snarking -about- is pathetic.
If you don't like the way ARIN does things, change them. I don't like people going to the IETF and trying to get the IETF to do things the operators should be doing. I talked to the AC & BoD members before I voted, and none of them mentioned this to me. I feel like snarking about that is valid, since I put in time & effort, but was still caught by surprise. But instead of snarking, I'm working to change that.
How much time & effort was spent (wasted?) reading mailing lists that could have been used to put forth proposals to ARIN (or the other RIRs)? Which is more likely to get what you want?
Oh, and about ARIN wasting money: Do you really think a 10% or even 50% reduction in ARIN fees will make -any- difference to the companies paying those fees? OTOH, I do believe a 50% reduction in ARIN fees will result in far less outreach, which means less community participation, which I feel is suboptimal. If you disagree, propose a change, get me & people who feel as I do outvoted, and things will change. What's more, I will not snark about the fact I got outvoted on NANOG.
Or you can post to NANOG and see nothing change. Up to you.
--
TTFN,
patrick
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:05:44 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <9A0C0575-2B8F-4CF3-8691-BD34669DC383@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 you are taking
> about, and i know where and by whom it was spent.
>
I'm not sure what is meant by TLAs in this context, so, I'll leave that alone.
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.
The RA religion still hasn't been solved.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:27:24 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>, Ken Chase <ken@sizone.org>
Message-ID: <DC74890E-F896-4660-ADFF-76D840015390@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 a DDoS mitigation firm, our needs extend beyond
> routers and switches) and found that it's a chicken and egg situation.
> Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is "no demand."
> I've pointed out your articles and demanded IPv6 support, some are
> promising results in the next several months. We will see.
>
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 told "You're the only
one asking for it." I pointed out that I had seen the other people get
the same answer. The sales person admitted he was caught red
handed and explained "We're working on it, but, we don't have a
definite date and so our marketing department has told us to downplay
the demand and the importance until we have something more
definitive."
> Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,
> etc. with /17 and /18 allocations who are either forging justification
> or wildly abusing the use of that space outside of the declared need.
Then those cases should be submitted to the fraud/abuse reporting
process so they can be investigated and resolved.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:40:28 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: Franck Martin <franck@genius.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <A22922AA-21FD-4345-B476-0A0ABF4D2EFC@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 expensive lawsuits)...
>
> Do you know what you want?
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 policies under which they received them (and thus contrary to the RSA which they signed when they received them).
Not that I don't think going after network abuse is worth while, it absolutely is, but, that's not within the current scope of ARIN policy. The community would need to come to consensus on a definition of abuse and the desire for ARIN to take on such a role before it would be possible.
For now, ARIN's role is limited to the administration of the address space in the public trust. That includes taking action to resolve situations where addresses are being used in a manner contrary to the ARIN policies developed by the community.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:47:25 -0400
From: Bret Clark <bclark@spectraaccess.com>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <4C66BA8D.5060100@spectraaccess.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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 told "You're the only
> one asking for it." I pointed out that I had seen the other people get
> the same answer. The sales person admitted he was caught red
> handed and explained "We're working on it, but, we don't have a
> definite date and so our marketing department has told us to downplay
> the demand and the importance until we have something more
> definitive."
>
What company was that? I find it rather odd that any marketing group in
any company would tell a sales team to downplay a possible future
migration path; especially in the case of IP6 which isn't a possible
future migration strategy, but IS a future migration strategy. That's
one company I don't want to do business with if that's what they are
telling their sales team...shows lack of a road map and a total lack of
any understanding of this industry!
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:51:27 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <20100814155127.GA12447@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 their allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential expensive lawsuits)...
> >
> > Do you know what you want?
>
> 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 policies under which they received them (and thus contrary to the RSA which they signed when they received them).
>
> Owen
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
fraud:: https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/index.html
It would be helpful in clarifing the discussion if folks used the proper
terminology.
--bill
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: 14 Aug 2010 12:22:00 -0400
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses
To: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008141147440.44463@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> 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. ...
I dunno. What was New York's responsibility in the 1790s to guys who
didn't join the army because they had to stay home and take care of their
widowed mother and six younger sisters?
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 space.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:21:03 -0400
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Subject: Re: 600 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinMpLXw+VC6aW_25MkHJjMe9hPMmqwJtvDL63We@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> 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 space.
John.
As things stand, IP addresses you've gained control of in the past
decade and a half you gained under a contract in which you explicitly
agreed that they not only didn't belong to you but that your continued
control was subject to the general public's pleasure as expressed
through regularly revised ARIN public policy. You won't tear that up
like an Indian treaty without first overcoming a certain amount of
push back from that disenfranchised public.
If you want IPv4 addressing to enter a legal regime similar to real
estate, I suggest that among other things you figure out how the taxes
should work and write some guidance for the pols before they start
figuring it out for themselves. If you don't construct the public
policy from the bottom up, you can count on someone else building it
from the top down and no newly defined form of property with a
quantifiable value is likely to escape taxation. Bear in mind that as
with real property, tax regimes which encourage a concentration of
ownership by a few wealthy owners will tend to be viewed with
suspicion and disdain.
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
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:27:14 -0500
From: Jimi Thompson <jimi.thompson@gmail.com>
Subject: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <C88C3C22.CDC3%jimi.thompson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> 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 addresses, that they were merely holding the addresses in trust for
>> the public they serve. ...
>
> I dunno. What was New York's responsibility in the 1790s to guys who
> didn't join the army because they had to stay home and take care of their
> widowed mother and six younger sisters?
>
> 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 space.
>
> R's,
> John
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:30:04 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <7464FE7B-5A98-4657-884C-E5BCB2B391FF@bogus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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.
>
> The RA religion still hasn't been solved.
Neither for that matter has the dhcp religion. Autoconfiguration and bootstrapping were not solved problems for ipv4 inn 1994 and in some respects still aren't. The mind boggles that we consider the ipv4 situation so much better than the v6 case...
> Owen
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:25:57 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
To: Bret Clark <bclark@spectraaccess.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <41B80BBB-0056-4B51-8752-D96706B36D24@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 for it."
>>
>> I walked up to the vendor and took my turn being told "You're the only
>> one asking for it." I pointed out that I had seen the other people get
>> the same answer. The sales person admitted he was caught red
>> handed and explained "We're working on it, but, we don't have a
>> definite date and so our marketing department has told us to downplay
>> the demand and the importance until we have something more
>> definitive."
>>
> What company was that? I find it rather odd that any marketing group in any company would tell a sales team to downplay a possible future migration path; especially in the case of IP6 which isn't a possible future migration strategy, but IS a future migration strategy. That's one company I don't want to do business with if that's what they are telling their sales team...shows lack of a road map and a total lack of any understanding of this industry!
I won't name names as that company has since changed their
tune and there is nothing to be gained by publicly embarrassing
them.
Owen
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 47
*************************************
|
