<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
You said it yourself, you're IPv6 ready, but no one else is. <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/03/2013 9:55 PM, Jared Hirst
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:583085895400219269@unknownmsgid" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>Agreed, but why speed the process up!<br>
<br>
Regards,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jared Hirst</div>
<div>Servers Australia Pty Ltd</div>
<div>Phone: 1300 788 862</div>
<div>Direct: (02) 4307 4205</div>
<div>E-mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au">jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au</a></div>
</div>
<div><br>
On 01/03/2013, at 9:46 PM, Damian Guppy <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:the.damo@gmail.com">the.damo@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">No offence, but at this point following the
policies you talk about would still be akin to bailing out
the titanic with a hand pump, the move to IPv6 is needed,
and the sooner the better. The whole "we are running out of
IP's" thing has been going on for over 20 years now, it
needs to end some where.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div style="">--Damian</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM,
Jared Hirst <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au"
target="_blank">jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ok no
worries. I don't agree with you at all and we will leave
it at that.<br>
<br>
If anyone else wants to speak up then do. If not ill
shut up and never<br>
question APNIC policies again.<br>
<br>
Your attitude of 'restricting and policing IP's' won't
change a thing<br>
is the exact reason we are in this position.<br>
<br>
If people were conservative with space, use carrier
grade NAT and<br>
actually assigned IP's as per policy them you and I
would not be<br>
having this conversation, end of story. There would be
ample space<br>
available IF people followed policies.<br>
<br>
Call it what you like but people not following policy as
got us in<br>
this position.<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Jared Hirst<br>
Servers Australia Pty Ltd<br>
Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:1300%20788%20862" value="+611300788862">1300
788 862</a><br>
Direct: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2802%29%204307%204205"
value="+61243074205">(02) 4307 4205</a><br>
E-mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au">jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">On 01/03/2013, at 9:12 PM, Mark Newton
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org">newton@atdot.dotat.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> On 01/03/2013, at 8:16 PM, Jared Hirst <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au">jared.hirst@serversaustralia.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> They have a policy for recovering un used
address from what I was told<br>
>> by them, they just don't have the resources
to action it.<br>
><br>
> There's also almost exactly zero point in
actioning it. The cost/benefit<br>
> equation has a pretty small denominator and a
very large numerator.<br>
><br>
>> Don't have a stab at me, I'm speaking what
most are probably thinking.<br>
><br>
> That's the thing -- I don't think you are.
Otherwise the policy would<br>
> be different.<br>
><br>
>> Yes I should go to the policy meetings and
I will, and I will speak on<br>
>> behalf of around 30 providers that have
directly emailed me saying<br>
>> they agree... However from what I was told
there IS a policy to stop<br>
>> this, but no one actions it.<br>
><br>
> Well, all their policies are on their website.
If you want to turn yourself<br>
> into the policy police, start naming and
shaming and see how far it goes.<br>
><br>
> <popcorn><br>
><br>
>> If you don't think people use loop holes to
get IP's for no reason<br>
>> then you need to come and work for a
hosting company for a day and see<br>
>> the shit people say to get an IP, second
opinions are approved for no<br>
>> reason and IP's are handed out like they
are not limited. No wonder we<br>
>> have a world wide shortage.<br>
><br>
> It isn't supposed to be hard.<br>
><br>
> We have a world-wide shortage because we have
an address space good<br>
> for 4 billion addresses plus change, and we
have more than 4 billion<br>
> devices wanting to use it.<br>
><br>
> Put up all the administrative barriers you
like, and there still won't<br>
> be enough IPv4.<br>
><br>
> Having said that, under the "last /8" policy
the remaining store of<br>
> IPv4 addresses in the APNIC region is, for all
intents and purposes,<br>
> unlimited -- in the sense that there are 16384
allocatable /22's, and<br>
> less than 16384 APNIC members, and a rule that
says only one /22 can<br>
> be allocated to each member. As long as APNIC
continues to have less<br>
> than 16384 members between now and when IPv6 is
mainstream (which seems<br>
> likely, even for pessimistic estimates of that
time horizon), the remaining<br>
> addresses are, for all intents and purposes,
unlimited.<br>
><br>
> So, with that policy in place, we have no
further need to put barriers<br>
> in the way of allocations.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> The fact people can now get a /22 with
minimal justification and cost<br>
>> is my argument,<br>
><br>
> They've -always- been able to get a /22 with
minimal justification.<br>
><br>
> The only thing that's changed is the price.<br>
><br>
> Now: When Gerry Harvey complains about reduced
prices enabling new<br>
> market entrants, we all laugh and call it "rent
seeking," and say it's<br>
> a sign that his industry has given up on
innovation.<br>
><br>
>> it's now making it easy to source and hold
on to for<br>
>> selling and making a profit for later.<br>
><br>
> Great! More of that, please. Perhaps they'll
inflate the IPv4 price<br>
> bubble so much that migrating to IPv6 has less
cost attached to it than<br>
> acquiring IPv4, then we'll start to see some
real progress.<br>
><br>
>> I agree there are some people<br>
>> that really do need them and I FULLY
support them IF they have a REAL<br>
>> justification.<br>
><br>
> Your problem is that you're using your
subjective judgment of their<br>
> justification to decide if it's "real", instead
of applying the criteria<br>
> that's in the actual APNIC policy.<br>
><br>
> APNIC doesn't do that. They follow what their
members have directed them<br>
> to follow. There is consequently a mismatch
between their behaviour and<br>
> your expectations.<br>
><br>
> It's important to recognize that your
expectations are the problem<br>
> here. Most past that and we're done!<br>
><br>
>> (In fact i have helped many customers of
mine move off<br>
>> my space to their own allocation) A
justification of 'we have ssl's'<br>
>> is not longer valid in my opinion, you can
use SNI or something<br>
>> similar to overcome the need for a IP for a
SSL, however people still<br>
>> seem to use this excuse to gain IP space, I
see it everyday in<br>
>> hosting.<br>
><br>
> It's not supposed to be hard. They're not
"making excuses" to gain<br>
> space; it's actually -your- policies they're
trying to find loopholes<br>
> in to carry out the business you're supposed to
be enabling, not APNIC's<br>
> policies.<br>
><br>
>> Obviously in your world of ISP land it's a
lot different. But MANY in<br>
>> hosting are seeing this horrible trend.<br>
><br>
> Why is it "horrible"?<br>
><br>
>> I'm now going to enjoy my beer and Friday
night and will look forward<br>
>> to attending the next APNIC policy meeting<br>
><br>
> Excellent! Here it is: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://conference.apnic.net/36"
target="_blank">http://conference.apnic.net/36</a><br>
><br>
>> armed with example<br>
>> companies hoarding IP's that have knowingly
ripped off the application<br>
>> policy.<br>
><br>
> Where "ripped off" seems to be the same as
"complied with."<br>
><br>
> Unless you're accusing APNIC of incompetently
executing the policies,<br>
> and thereby granting address space to people
who shouldn't have it.<br>
><br>
> Is that what you're doing?<br>
><br>
>> Remember I support the genuine people that
need IP's<br>
><br>
> Yep, by *YOUR* interpretation of their "need."<br>
><br>
> Other people see needs differently, and they
vote at APNIC meetings too.<br>
><br>
> - mark<br>
><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>