[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Sat Mar 2 00:34:03 EST 2013

++1

...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Damian Guppy <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> 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
>> Direct: (02) 4307 4205
>> E-mail: jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au
>>
>> On 01/03/2013, at 9:12 PM, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > <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
>> 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/20130302/179168b9/attachment.html>