<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><i>“Was v4 allocations screwed? I don't know. We didn't know what was going to happen 20 years ago... It is easy to look back in hindsight.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>V4 allocations ARE screwed using hindsight. There is one camp saying get over it, use V6 and forget the screwed V4 allocations. And the other camp says why not try to fix the problem. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is typical human behaviour to sit on resources even if they are not being used because ‘one just never knows if they might be needed in 10 years’ time or worth something. Just because many people and businesses do this doesn’t make it right, just as sitting back and letting past mistakes continue is not right. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think it is wrong of APNIC to NOT take a more proactive role in recovering V4 allocations that were obvious mistakes in the past, just as other “resource allocators” around the world should be doing the same thing. Just because people with allocations are going to scream “you can’t take away something I might use one day etc etc” doesn’t mean the attempt shouldn’t be made. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>“IPv4 is dead. People need to get over it and move to IPv6...”</i><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>No, IPv4 is not dead. Why should people get over it when quite clearly there is a resource not being properly managed. People have every right to complain about mismanagement of an important resource. Agreed though that people need to move to IPv6 as they can. Problem is that many of the organisations with the technical knowledge and resources to move to IPv4 have already tied up most of the IPv4 space and don’t yet care, after all, that’s a problem for the next CIO to fix. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>APNIC needs to grow some balls on this issue and take the lead on preserving a scarce resource and re-allocate unused space. If they are not willing to behave properly, maybe the resource deserves to be given to the ITU to manage.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Skeeve Stevens<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, 3 March 2013 6:45 PM<br><b>To:</b> Bevan Slattery<br><b>Cc:</b> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] IPv4<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The thing is... the ITU can whinge... but their arguments are a little moot these days.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Was v4 allocations screwed? I don't know. We didn't know what was going to happen 20 years ago... It is easy to look back in hindsight.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Will v6 suffer the same issues? I don't know... but I don't think so.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I've said in another email that a /32 is 4.2billion /64's. Well the Defence Force in Australia has a /20 - that is 4096 /32's... That is 17 trillion /64's (17,592,186,044,416). I'd try to figure out how many actual individual IP addresses that is, but Excel kind loses its mind at that point.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>IPv4 is dead. People need to get over it and move to IPv6... it is the only way that IPv6 won't be more valuable than gold in the next couple of years. Even if we did all start to move ASAP, it is going to take 4-7 years to see IPv4 almost gone. Some say it will be around for a long time... but once v6 takes hold, and we reach hump point... then ISPs will start to be able to switch off v4, which will make those with content on v4 move very quickly.... and the speed of v4 decline will be VERY rapid.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>To those who say it will be much longer, really do fail to understand the economics of it all and how rapidly adoption will increase if there is a reason to. Imagine Google, Facebook, something else new coming out which says 'v6 only'. Now, that would be foolish, but if the demand is strong enough, it will go ballistic very quickly. Anyone who says that isn't possible is simple evaluating things by todays existing events, and not by the potential that we know the Internet hasn't even realised yet.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>...Skeeve<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Skeeve Stevens - </span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>eintellego Networks Pty Ltd</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com" target="_blank">skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com</a> ; <a href="http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/" target="_blank">www.eintellegonetworks.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks" target="_blank">facebook.com/eintellegonetworks</a> ; <a href="http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve" target="_blank">linkedin.com/in/skeeve</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="http://twitter.com/networkceoau" target="_blank">twitter.com/networkceoau</a> ; blog: <a href="http://www.network-ceo.net/" target="_blank">www.network-ceo.net</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><img border=0 id="_x0000_i1025" src="http://eintellegonetworks.com/logos/ein09.png"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#7F007F'>The Experts Who The Experts Call</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#002060'>Juniper - Cisco - Cloud</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#7F007F'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Bevan Slattery <<a href="mailto:Bevan.Slattery@nextdc.com" target="_blank">Bevan.Slattery@nextdc.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hey James,<br><br>Again great response. I'm not going to continue shove this too hard :) I<br>think we're pretty clear on both sides :)<br><br>I've known numerous people at APNIC and others for many years. Worked on<br>a number of initiatives. Obviously it's full of good people. I also<br>commend you, Skeeve and others working hard for no reward, but to try to<br>make the world a better place.<br><br>So my frustration is more at the structural limitations of the<br>organisation and this is the same with other RIR's, not the people nor the<br>work they do.<br><br>Do I think the RIR's and APNIC have erred here? You bet. Do I actually<br>think they should have done better - absolutely no question. Do I think<br>they could have done something different? Yep too.<br><br>The structure of the RIR's including membership and historical decisions<br>have severely limited their ability to affect significant change and make<br>the hard decisions. That is a shame. The UN and ITU have been knocking on<br>your door and they are going to come knocking again - and I think their<br>argument is going to have some merit in the shorter term (not ideal) when<br>recently developing countries are being treated poorly in terms of<br>resource allocation.<br><br>Out :)<br><br>[b]<br><br><br>On 3/03/13 4:58 PM, "James Spenceley" <<a href="mailto:james@iroute.org">james@iroute.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>>I didn't say I was that free market person or that was the purpose of any<br>>policy. There are side effects of any action or for that matter inaction,<br>>it would be responsible to just stick our heads in the sand and ignore<br>>them. Anyone involved in oversight has the job to consider all possible<br>>outcomes. I don't think you can think for a second that my PS: comment<br>>should be considered the main or even official APNIC position on the<br>>policy, I was noting a side effect as I believe it added relevance to the<br>>debate.<br>><br>>I'm the biggest free market guy there is (well maybe after you Bev :) but<br>>for APNIC's role you have to consider that free market economics simply<br>>don't work across a broad cross sections of economies and member's<br>>interests. That doesn't mean we can ignore their effects, which was the<br>>reason for the openness in that statement.<br>><br>>On 03/03/2013, at 4:14 PM, Bevan Slattery <<a href="mailto:bevan@slattery.net.au">bevan@slattery.net.au</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>> A free market would dictate that the entire space comes to auction<br>>>regularly and pretending that a secondary market for those who were<br>>>essentially gifted space of an globally important resource because of<br>>>poor management is a red herring.<br>>><br>>> Surprising comment from what is supposed to be a not for profit<br>>>organisation that is supposed to be concerned with the global resource<br>>>management of Internet addresses.<br>>><br>>> Completely counter to your argument earlier where you extolled the<br>>>virtues of APNIC trying to reduce the cost for developing nations and<br>>>yet in the next breath saying maybe capitalism dictating $50/ip is just<br>>>fine and dandy.<br>>><br>>> Registries have failed and continue to fail in managing this address<br>>>space.<br>><br>><br>>IP has been broken since the early 80's and RFC 791.<br>><br>>Overtime we have all done out best to become aware of the problem, then<br>>manage that problem As time has gone on, each incarnation (internNIC,<br>>AUNIC, RIRs) have done a better and better job at. CIDR was a massive<br>>positive step, RFC2050 another one (most of the authors of those were RIR<br>>staff), the final /8 policy is allowing late comers to the game to get at<br>>least functional space. The RIRs have the biggest promoters of IPv4<br>>exhaustion and IPv6 training/awareness.<br>><br>>These are all pretty decent achievements, especially given the<br>>geopolitics involved.<br>><br>>Have there been mistakes ? Of course, geez InterNIC giving IBM, HP,<br>>Apple, DEC, MIT, Ford, GE, Haliburton, US Postal etc) an entire /8 can't<br>>exactly be argued to be a positive but that would have simply bought us<br>>time, how much ? still nowhere near what is needed to migrate the worlds<br>>largest creation from one protocol to another.<br>><br>>Again, given that NextDC have their own IP space today is just one of the<br>>reason I point to the fact that your statement (and rather binary<br>>criticism) isn't particularly fair.<br>><br>>What has failed was the design (complication, lack of backwards<br>>compatibility) and implementation of IPv6. The Industry globally has<br>>failed by only waiting till it was too late l(like 10 years to late) to<br>>start dealing with this problem. I can dig up ausnog posts of people who<br>>only a few years ago were saying that IPv4 exhaustion was simply a myth.<br>><br>>It's great to having this debate now, a good thing, but you can't deny<br>>the fact it is coming a little bit too late (but better than never). I<br>>don't think blaming APNIC or the RIRs is the right direction to take<br>>this, we are doing the best we can do for the broad set of "yous" we have<br>>(both new and future), we do this in a complicated environment that was<br>>broken before any of us even got involved.<br>><br>>--<br>>James<br>><br><br><br><br>The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential. This email and any attachments are also subject to copyright. No part of them may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written permission of the copyright owner. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this information is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the message from your system. All email communications to and from NEXTDC Limited are recorded for the purposes of archival and storage.<br>_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>