[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Sat Mar 2 07:24:10 EST 2013

>________________________________
> From: Jared Hirst <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>
>To: Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au> 
>Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
>Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013 10:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members
> 
>
>Exactly, I'm agreeing with Mark saying ipv6 is the best option, but because no one is going v6 we need to be strict and be cautious of what v4 we have left right?
>

You keep repeating that no one is going IPv6. Google, Facebook, Akamai and Yahoo are not "no one". Did you miss June 6 last year?

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/

There is still a lot of deployment to be done, but major content providers, some major CPE vendors and major ISPs have got on board. 

Eric Vyncke @ Cisco has developed the following website to show IPv6 deployment.

http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/

>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 10:46 PM, Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>The more prolinged a crash the worse it is. history teaches us that.
>>if we had listened to industry leaders like mark 20 years ago wed have opv6 already. instead we let politicians essentially decide things for us through shear force of numbers.
>>and that is why we have SNI that doesnt work, server providers like jared trying to help, but a situation like this where collective bad decision making has led us to prolong the crash in a vain attempt to prevent the impossible.
>>sent from android
>>On Mar 1, 2013 10:03 PM, "Jared Hirst" <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au> 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
>>>
>>>On 01/03/2013, 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
>>>
>>>
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>