[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Mark Newton newton at atdot.dotat.org
Fri Mar 1 21:11:00 EST 2013

On 01/03/2013, at 8:16 PM, Jared Hirst <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au> wrote:

> They have a policy for recovering un used address from what I was told
> by them, they just don't have the resources to action it.

There's also almost exactly zero point in actioning it.  The cost/benefit
equation has a pretty small denominator and a very large numerator.

> Don't have a stab at me, I'm speaking what most are probably thinking.

That's the thing -- I don't think you are.  Otherwise the policy would
be different.

> Yes I should go to the policy meetings and I will, and I will speak on
> behalf of around 30 providers that have directly emailed me saying
> they agree... However from what I was told there IS a policy to stop
> this, but no one actions it.

Well, all their policies are on their website.  If you want to turn yourself
into the policy police, start naming and shaming and see how far it goes.


> If you don't think people use loop holes to get IP's for no reason
> then you need to come and work for a hosting company for a day and see
> the shit people say to get an IP, second opinions are approved for no
> reason and IP's are handed out like they are not limited. No wonder we
> have a world wide shortage.

It isn't supposed to be hard.

We have a world-wide shortage because we have an address space good
for 4 billion addresses plus change, and we have more than 4 billion
devices wanting to use it.

Put up all the administrative barriers you like, and there still won't
be enough IPv4.

Having said that, under the "last /8" policy the remaining store of 
IPv4 addresses in the APNIC region is, for all intents and purposes, 
unlimited -- in the sense that there are 16384 allocatable /22's, and
less than 16384 APNIC members, and a rule that says only one /22 can
be allocated to each member.  As long as APNIC continues to have less
than 16384 members between now and when IPv6 is mainstream (which seems
likely, even for pessimistic estimates of that time horizon), the remaining
addresses are, for all intents and purposes, unlimited.

So, with that policy in place, we have no further need to put barriers
in the way of allocations.

> The fact people can now get a /22 with minimal justification and cost
> is my argument,

They've -always- been able to get a /22 with minimal justification.

The only thing that's changed is the price.

Now:  When Gerry Harvey complains about reduced prices enabling new
market entrants, we all laugh and call it "rent seeking," and say it's
a sign that his industry has given up on innovation.

> it's now making it easy to source and hold on to for
> selling and making a profit for later.

Great! More of that, please.  Perhaps they'll inflate the IPv4 price 
bubble so much that migrating to IPv6 has less cost attached to it than
acquiring IPv4, then we'll start to see some real progress.

> I agree there are some people
> that really do need them and I FULLY support them IF they have a REAL
> justification.

Your problem is that you're using your subjective judgment of their
justification to decide if it's "real", instead of applying the criteria
that's in the actual APNIC policy.

APNIC doesn't do that.  They follow what their members have directed them
to follow.  There is consequently a mismatch between their behaviour and
your expectations.

It's important to recognize that your expectations are the problem 
here.  Most past that and we're done!

> (In fact i have helped many customers of mine move off
> my space to their own allocation) A justification of 'we have ssl's'
> is not longer valid in my opinion, you can use SNI or something
> similar to overcome the need for a IP for a SSL, however people still
> seem to use this excuse to gain IP space, I see it everyday in
> hosting.

It's not supposed to be hard.  They're not "making excuses" to gain 
space;  it's actually -your- policies they're trying to find loopholes
in to carry out the business you're supposed to be enabling, not APNIC's

> Obviously in your world of ISP land it's a lot different. But MANY in
> hosting are seeing this horrible trend.

Why is it "horrible"?

> I'm now going to enjoy my beer and Friday night and will look forward
> to attending the next APNIC policy meeting

Excellent!  Here it is:  http://conference.apnic.net/36

> armed with example
> companies hoarding IP's that have knowingly ripped off the application
> policy.

Where "ripped off" seems to be the same as "complied with."  

Unless you're accusing APNIC of incompetently executing the policies,
and thereby granting address space to people who shouldn't have it.

Is that what you're doing?

> Remember I support the genuine people that need IP's 

Yep, by *YOUR* interpretation of their "need."

Other people see needs differently, and they vote at APNIC meetings too.

  - mark

More information about the AusNOG mailing list