[AusNOG] IPocalypse now (?)

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

On 01/02/2011, at 1:43 PM, Alastair Johnson wrote:

The problem is that a provider of colocation and transit services to many individual customers (that would not qualify for an APNIC assignment, yet), will be unable to get additional space from APNIC for new customers once they receive their final /22; unless they go the questionable route of setting up shell companies to receive multiple allocations.

So, like everyone else they'll run out?

I'm somewhat on the fence with the proposal to change from /8 to /9 for this reason. I certainly appreciate that we're holding it for the future; but it does lock up resources so that they may end up never used.

There doesn't seem to be a problem that I can see in leaving things as they are and THEN release them in, say, a years time if it's going slowly.   But just like in a life boat, you can use your provisions to satisfy hunger now because you MIGHT get rescued in a day, but maybe stretching them a bit makes sense?

It is potentially much worse for the content operators than the access operators...

Nah.   It's worse for everyone if no one starts moving to IPv6 or uses reasons to delay doing so.   Once the move starts the rush will happen.

Content uses, relatively, small amounts of space compared to access.   Content already has access to techniques (eg. single IP can host many websites) which allow efficient use of IP space.   Access providers have to move to CGNAT which will suck for all.  Already you can look at CDNs.   Akamai can have a cluster with small amounts of IP space but a bazillion websites.

MMC


aj

------Original Message------
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
To: Alastair Johnson
Cc: David Hughes
Cc: Skeeve Stevens
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPocalypse now (?)
Sent: 31 Jan 2011 22:05


On 01/02/2011, at 1:08 PM, Alastair Johnson wrote:


But only if many startups are approaching APNIC for that space. And it doesn't help someone like my previous employer that had many single server colocation customers that would need v4 for hosting, that can't get another allocation from the final /8 to serve that sort of customer.

Two things:

1) The problem is that, like the financial product disclaimers, past history doesn't give any indication of what'll happen in the future.
2) Not sure what problem your previous employer has exactly.


Swings and roundabouts, but best discussed on the policy sig list.


That's what I'm trying to encourage.

MMC



--
Matthew Moyle-Croft
Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
Internode /Agile
Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: mmc at internode.com.au<mailto:mmc at internode.com.au>    Web: http://www.on.net<http://www.on.net/>
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20110201/499b728a/attachment.html>