[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Nathan Nogic nathan at manageddatasolutions.com.au
Sat Mar 2 10:24:25 EST 2013 

At the risk of jumping into the middle of what is a raging debate with
another point of view.

People seem to have very polar views on this topic. From what I can see, no
one is disputing a number of facts:

1. IPv4 is running out.
2. An acceleration to the IPv6 roll out is required.
3. How we make point 2. happen is a topic of conversation that is being had
all over the world and there are as many opinions as the people who have
them.

While I can see how this topic has somewhat shifted from the original topic
(all valid discussion), I want to put another perspective on this. As a
small hosting / SaaS / IaaS provider, the inability to get more than a /22
from APNIC has limited our growth beyond 12 - 18 months based on our project
schedule. While the next statement from everyone will be "well go IPv6",
that is simply not a switch we can throw overnight and have happen. The
scale of our problem in migrating to IPv6 is not the same as Telstra's, the
scale of our resources are downsized to match and we have to be much more
selective in where we spend our capital. Customer projects and contract
obligations will always get priority in the work schedule and if there is
any time left for R&D it goes into improving systems, innovation and then
IPv6.

The next comment that is likely to come up is that this is the industry you
are in and you either need to adapt or be left behind. The commercial
reality is that very few of our customers actually care about IPv4 or IPv6
(shocking but true), they care about connectivity and are not going to
subsidise a move to IPv6 in contract and price increases. This means that
new projects have to wear the cost of our IPv6 roll out and that makes us
less competitive... catch 22. That is the commercial reality and when you
stack it up with the increasing cost of doing business (power, data centre
space, staff costs, insurances - just came up again for the year! - etc) and
the ever more competitive market in Australia, an investment in an
aggressive IPv6 roll out is simply not at the top of the list for a small
provider when stacked up against the need to pay salaries and support
existing projects. I suspect it's not at the top of the list of many other
organisations (large and small) for exactly the same reason, the business
case for migration does not stack up and everyone will keep putting it off
for as long as possible until the pain becomes greater than the effort
(sorry it's human nature).

To go back to the original topic for a second, that this move by APNIC seems
to make it much easier to give resources to people who most likely don't
need them and *MAY* stockpile IPs, as a small provider I definitely agree.
The 1024 IPs (in reality less) we've got are not sufficient for our needs
and we seem to be at a disadvantage because our business didn't grow fast
enough to justify our own AS early enough. Again, some would argue bad luck,
that's the environment that we're in due to not moving to IPv6 early enough
and that's true. However, it does mean that the rest of us with a need for
IPs have to pay a fortune to get more on the open market which places
additional capital pressures on already slim margins thus further reducing
the IPv6 migration budget to a BAU task that will happen over time.

I have another radical idea, why not start at the bottom of the allocation
list and give the IPs to the smaller organisations who are most severely
impacted by the lack of IPs and the cost of IPv6 transition. Charging
smaller providers for the rest of the IPv4 space and allocating it all would
hurry the transition to IPv6 as new players without significant existing
capital investment in hardware & technology would start on IPv6 as their
baseline and the small guys would have enough time to make the migration.

Cheers

Nathan
Managed Data Solutions 

Tel: 1300 985 875
Direct: 03 9012 0157
Email: nathan at manageddatasolutions.com.au 

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2013 9:54 AM
To: Jared Hirst
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members


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
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

More information about the AusNOG mailing list