[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

[Mark Smith]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Jared Hirst <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>
> To: Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org>
> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>; Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>
> Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members
> 

<snip>

> 
> 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.
> 

It sounds like you don't appreciate the problems that CGN will cause - CGN is not a no cost way of saving addresses. It is quite rational for people to avoid the CGN path if they have or can get enough IP addresses to avoid it.

I suggest having a read of the following. You may not have to implement CGN being a hosting provider, but you are likely to suffer some of the consequences of your customers' eyeballs being behind them.

"Issues with IP Address Sharing"
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6269


> Call it what you like but people not following policy as got us in

> this position.
> 

Not deploying IPv6 soon enough is what has actually got into us into this position. The problem is now that even if IPv6 is rapidly deployed, it probably won't be fast enough to avoid the consequences of IPv4 running out, and so in the near future it will be an IPv4 CGN/IPv6 world. In other words, the consequences of IPv4 CGN are now not avoidable.

> 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
>