[AusNOG] APNIC Slashes Costs for New Members

Sat Mar 2 10:36:46 EST 2013

Bevan,

At no point have I said I disagree with Jared.  It's not like he isn't in
the industry however and didn't know what was going on.  It has been
heavily talked about for years.  But getting all indignant after its all
done, isn't going to help.  We needed people involved when it actually
mattered.

I saw customers getting /17's, /18's, /19's not long before runout by lying
their asses off.. and I too talked to APNIC about it... but APNIC isn't in
the position to go call someone a liar and take back the address space...
they simply do not have the resources to do that.

I've fought hard to stop stupid policies getting through, and also fought
hard to help good ones get through.  I just wish there were more people who
actually cared enough about policy to get involved.

It is easy to sit back and whinge afterwards about how things turned out...
kind of what we do with politics in Australia. If Abbot gets in and start
f*&king shit up as is expected, we will sit around going 'hey, this isn't
right'...  Get involved in what matters BEFORE it becomes a situation you
can't change. Or just sit back and let life happen to you - but stop
whinging about it.

...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 Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au>wrote:

> I think everyone should back off Jared for a minute. Because frankly I
> agree with him and he cares because it affects him.  IMHO APNIC as well as
> the other registries have failed and continue to fail in efficiently
> managing the address space.
>
> Half price membership is commendable.  And as to your suggestions that
> Jared should put some resolutions forward by APNIC?  Frankly it has zero
> chance in hell because it would have a negative impact on those that have
> the space (90% of APNIC transferable members) today.
>
> B
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 01/03/2013, at 11:32 PM, Skeeve Stevens <
> skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
>
> As I said Jared, you are welcome to come to the meeting, but that isn't
> how things work.
>
> And what exactly are you suggesting? Raising costs again?  The only thing
> that happened here was the barrier was lowered... from $4k to $2.5k... and
> this really makes bugger all difference in this country.
>
> The process is that you should get your '30 ISPs' to join APNIC SIG Policy
> mailing list, and then TALK to the other people representing some 3 billion
> people in our region, and see what they think, and that if your opinion in
> the grand scheme of things really matters to them.
>
> I for one, got off my ass... and while I am not in Singapore right now, I
> have been to every meeting around the region for the past 4 years.  It is
> why I have submitted policy, and why I ran for Co-Chair of the APNIC Policy
> Committee.  It is WHY James was chair of SIG Policy and why he is on the
> Executive Council of APNIC now.
>
> BECAUSE WE CARED... years ago, when, to be frank about it, most
> Australians were sitting on their ass doing bugger all.
>
> I am sorry, but I don't give a crap about people who do nothing, then
> whinge when they don't like what has happened without them.... when at any
> time they could have got involved in the process.  This is not just from a
> person level, but company and government/country level as well.
>
> If you really want to be involved.. GET involved. Get on the lists, talk
> to people who have been involved for years, and perhaps get some policy
> drafted and try to make a difference.  But also listen to those who have
> spent years involved in the Internet Governance community and understand
> that it is about the region, not just any particular country, company or
> person.
>
> ...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 8:46 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.
>>
>> Don't have a stab at me, I'm speaking what most are probably thinking.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The fact people can now get a /22 with minimal justification and cost
>> is my argument, it's now making it easy to source and hold on to for
>> selling and making a profit for later. I agree there are some people
>> that really do need them and I FULLY support them IF they have a REAL
>> justification. (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.
>>
>> Obviously in your world of ISP land it's a lot different. But MANY in
>> hosting are seeing this horrible trend.
>>
>> I'm now going to enjoy my beer and Friday night and will look forward
>> to attending the next APNIC policy meeting armed with example
>> companies hoarding IP's that have knowingly ripped off the application
>> policy.
>>
>> Remember I support the genuine people that need IP's please don't get
>> me wrong. I just don't support the people that are out to 'monetarily'
>> gain from space they don't need but can get from a small investment
>> now and a few lies on an application.
>>
>>
>> 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 8:25 PM, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 01/03/2013, at 19:31, Jared Hirst <
>> jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Agree, and one would have thought that me as a member paying them they
>> >> would at least look into people taking advantage of the system,
>> >> clearly I'm just the only one that sees this as an issue.
>> >
>> > Look, I think I see the problem.
>> >
>> > You clearly believe that "the system" is supposed to make it difficult
>> and inconvenient to obtain IPv4 address space, and therefore anyone who
>> makes use of APNIC policies and procedures in a way that enables them to
>> get access to IPv4 in ways that aren't difficult and inconvenient are
>> "taking advantage of the system."
>> >
>> > Due to this misapprehension on your part, you naturally believe that
>> APNIC need to be concerned, and need to do something (what?) to make it
>> difficult and inconvenient to get IPv4 addresses.
>> >
>> > This attitude is reasonably common among people who've heard war
>> stories about how hard it is to get addresses without having done it
>> themselves. Usually the same people who think a "class C" is still a thing.
>> >
>> > Your error is pretty easy to resolve, you merely need to accept that
>> there has never been a requirement for addresses to be difficult or
>> inconvenient to obtain, and those who find it simple are merely, to put it
>> mildly, perhaps better at this kind of thing than you are. In the sense
>> that they're getting their addresses easily, without jumping through the
>> imaginary hoops you seem to think everyone needs to jump through.
>> >
>> > A small attitude adjustment is all it requires. Then you can stop being
>> "frustrated", APNIC can stop spending member money answering your phone
>> calls, and everyone can continue to get the addresses which APNIC's finely
>> handcrafted policies say they're entitled to.
>> >
>> > As Mark Smith hinted: move on to "acceptance."  Win-win!
>> >
>> >> Sorry for bringing it up, I'll remember in future to just be attend a
>> >> political meeting with APNIC and not voice it here for discussion :)
>> >
>> > Start with policy-sig, at the very least. No airfares required.
>> >
>> >   - 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/20130302/2950c202/attachment.html>