ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

>>
>>> 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

2

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 :slight_smile: ...

/TJ

3

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

4

on the other side of the pond, the Euros are grappling with
  a desire to get actual utilization of assigned numbers into
  something above single digits. They are shooting for 80%
  utilization of all assets before assigning any additional
  numbers.

  this problem has been around for a -very- long time, predating
  the RIRs by a couple of decades. the gist is, virtually
  -every- allocation/delegation exceeds the actual demand - sometimes
  by many orders of magnitude.

  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.

  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?

--bill

5

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.

6

> 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

> 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?

Dan White

--bill

7

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.

8

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.

9

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?

  yuppers. this topic -could- engender those discussions

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?

  the IANA budget was just north of 750K/yr and btwn 2 and 4.5 persons.
  the ICANN bduget, when new TLDs are approved in the next 18 months - is expected to be somewhat north of 500MM/year

Is this the fate that awaits ARIN?

  nope - well i hope not.

After all, IPV6 space is inexhaustible - right. So what if some idiot wants to grab 50 allocations...

  its not.

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.

  'cause ARIN isn't the routing police - yet. wait for widespread adoption of rPKI... :slight_smile:

--bill

10

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.

11

I'd hate to see that routing table.

12

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

13

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?

14

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

15

Just add "announced prefixes" to the settlement charges, alongside bits
transferred...

- Matt

16

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

17

No, because John will just deploy a IPv6-only server, and it will be *your*
support desk catching the "why can't I reach John's service" calls.

You *really* don't want to be the last guy to deploy IPv6 among your
competitors.

18

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

19

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 :slight_smile:

20

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