[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Brad Evans brad at delion.com.au
Fri Mar 1 22:04:45 EST 2013


You said it yourself, you're IPv6 ready, but no one else is.


On 1/03/2013 9:55 PM, Jared Hirst wrote:
> Agreed, but why speed the process up!
>
> Regards,
>
> Jared Hirst
> Servers Australia Pty Ltd
> Phone: 1300 788 862
> Direct: (02) 4307 4205
> E-mail: jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au 
> <mailto:jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>
>
> On 01/03/2013, at 9:46 PM, Damian Guppy <the.damo at gmail.com 
> <mailto:the.damo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> --Damian
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Jared Hirst 
>> <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au 
>> <mailto:jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>>     Ok no worries. I don't agree with you at all and we will leave it
>>     at that.
>>
>>     If anyone else wants to speak up then do. If not ill shut up and
>>     never
>>     question APNIC policies again.
>>
>>     Your attitude of 'restricting and policing IP's' won't change a thing
>>     is the exact reason we are in this position.
>>
>>     If people were conservative with space, use carrier grade NAT and
>>     actually assigned IP's as per policy them you and I would not be
>>     having this conversation, end of story. There would be ample space
>>     available IF people followed policies.
>>
>>     Call it what you like but people not following policy as got us in
>>     this position.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>
>>     Jared Hirst
>>     Servers Australia Pty Ltd
>>     Phone: 1300 788 862 <tel:1300%20788%20862>
>>     Direct: (02) 4307 4205 <tel:%2802%29%204307%204205>
>>     E-mail: jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au
>>     <mailto:jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>
>>
>>     On 01/03/2013, at 9:12 PM, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org
>>     <mailto:newton at atdot.dotat.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     >
>>     > On 01/03/2013, at 8:16 PM, Jared Hirst
>>     <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au
>>     <mailto: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.
>>     >
>>     > <popcorn>
>>     >
>>     >> 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
>>     > policies.
>>     >
>>     >> 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
>>     >
>>     >
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     AusNOG mailing list
>>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130301/1c703568/attachment.html>


More information about the AusNOG mailing list