[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Sat Mar 2 10:02:04 EST 2013

We started deploying it for customers last year, we are a small
business and don't have millions of dollars of resources to set it up.
As soon as it became viable we rolled it out network wide, most people
probably don't even know what v6 is so at least we are offering it to
ALL customers.

If you read 50 emails back, we pulled our site off v6 for various
reasons. And that's not my gripe here, it's about the Mis allocation
of v4

Regards,

Jared Hirst
Servers Australia Pty Ltd
Phone: 1300 788 862
Direct: (02) 4307 4205
E-mail: jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au

On 02/03/2013, at 9:54 AM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:

>
> In message <-7293813278561748603 at unknownmsgid>, Jared Hirst writes:
>> That's nice, I'm a hosting provider I deal with eye ballers not big
>> companies like face book and you tube, and whilst you mentioned before
>> that all large carriers here support it, getting it supported and
>> having it down to the end CPE is a different story. I've had nothing
>> but issues when trying to get support or get people behind us in
>> deploying v6. Especially with the carriers I mentioned before, if you
>> have worked for a big business and had help and support that's great,
>> but I'm giving you an inside look from a small business, and frankly
>> they don't care when it comes to a 'hard thing to support' because
>> they probably won't get any media coverage out of us deploying the
>> v6...you get my drift?
>
> Facebook and YouTube deal with eyeballs as well.  Both eyeballs and
> content providers need to stop waiting for the other to move first.
>
> I don't see IPv6 nameserver or address for your web servers.  Neither
> of these should be hard to do.  We were doing both of these a decade
> ago now.  We were shipping code that supported IPv6 before the turn
> of the century.  We provided IPv6 for the IETF meeting over tunnels
> for years.  The IETF now gets IPv6 for their meeting natively.  Yes
> we are a small business.  We have only reached 60 employees this
> year.  Back when we were doing all this we were at less than 20
> employees.
>
>> I'm not just whinging to waste my time, I have a genuine concern that
>> we will not and cannot be v6 ready by the time v4 is depleted, simple.
>>
>> I'm in hosting, and not ONCE have I even seen a company or control
>> panel or really anything work well with v6, we make it work for the
>> most part but it really isn't widely supported by anything or anyone
>> we use.
>
> And when did you start looking at IPv6.  When did you start requesting
> IPv6 from upstream?  When did you fill bug reports about lack of proper
> IPv6 support in the products you depend apon?
>
>> CGN works and is cheap? As michael said you can do it (proven working)
>> on an A10 device, so don't have a go at me saying I don't know what I
>> am doing and I should just shut up and move to v6.
>>
>> Anyway going to enjoy my Saturday now and not have any future concerns
>> about the v4 depletion as there is none according to everyone that has
>> had a go at me! So clearly I am the wrong one and was totally thinking
>> out of line about the lack of space. Sorry!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jared Hirst
>> Servers Australia Pty Ltd
>> Phone: 1300 788 862
>> Direct: (02) 4307 4205
>> E-mail: jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au
>>
>> On 02/03/2013, at 7:24 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 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 becaus
>> e 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 deploy
>> ment.
>>>
>>> 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 op
>> v6 already. instead we let politicians essentially decide things for us throu
>> gh 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 maki
>> ng has led us to prolong the crash in a vain attempt to prevent the impossibl
>> e.
>>>>> 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 woul
>> d 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 serversaustral
>> ia.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok no worries. I don't agree with you at all and we will leave it at th
>> at.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 to
>> ld
>>>>>>>>>> by them, they just don't have the resources to action it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's also almost exactly zero point in actioning it.  The cost/ben
>> efit
>>>>>>>>> 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 thinkin
>> g.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's the thing -- I don't think you are.  Otherwise the policy woul
>> d
>>>>>>>>> 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 y
>> ourself
>>>>>>>>> into the policy police, start naming and shaming and see how far it g
>> oes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <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 s
>> ee
>>>>>>>>>> the shit people say to get an IP, second opinions are approved for n
>> o
>>>>>>>>>> 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 see
>> ms
>>>>>>>>> likely, even for pessimistic estimates of that time horizon), the rem
>> aining
>>>>>>>>> addresses are, for all intents and purposes, unlimited.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, with that policy in place, we have no further need to put barrier
>> s
>>>>>>>>> in the way of allocations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact people can now get a /22 with minimal justification and cos
>> t
>>>>>>>>>> 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 th
>> an
>>>>>>>>> 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 REA
>> L
>>>>>>>>>> justification.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that you're using your subjective judgment of their
>>>>>>>>> justification to decide if it's "real", instead of applying the crite
>> ria
>>>>>>>>> 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 stil
>> l
>>>>>>>>>> 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 loophole
>> s
>>>>>>>>> in to carry out the business you're supposed to be enabling, not APNI
>> C's
>>>>>>>>> policies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously in your world of ISP land it's a lot different. But MANY i
>> n
>>>>>>>>>> hosting are seeing this horrible trend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is it "horrible"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm now going to enjoy my beer and Friday night and will look forwar
>> d
>>>>>>>>>> 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 applicati
>> on
>>>>>>>>>> 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 t
>> oo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org