[AusNOG] IPv4

Sun Mar 3 16:26:19 EST 2013

Im thanking you James for sticking your neck out here.  Wish there was more like you out there.  But... :)

A free market would dictate that the entire space comes to auction regularly and pretending that a secondary market for those who were essentially gifted space of an globally important resource because of poor management is a red herring.

Surprising comment from what is supposed to be a not for profit organisation that is supposed to be concerned with the global resource management of Internet addresses.

Completely counter to the argument earlier where you extolled the virtues of APNIC trying to reduce the cost for developing nations and yet in the next breath saying maybe capitalism dictating $50/ip is just fine and dandy.

Registries have failed and continue to fail in managing this address space.

Registries may have allotted all your IPv4 but they should remember that you have not allotted their responsibility.

B

Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

On 03/03/2013, at 2:51 PM, James Spenceley <james at iroute.org<mailto:james at iroute.org>> wrote:

Hi Jared,

Annnd we just went round in a circle… this was the reason for my original post, NEW businesses can now get a small allocation /22 for a small fee and then hold on to it to on sell at 600% profit. But existing growing APNIC members cannot, they need to buy it on the black market.

If the final / 8 policy (giving /22 max to only new members) wasn't enacted, then there would be absolutely no space at all today. Under the previous policy allocation rules and rate of allocation it would have all been used around 18 months ago.

While I agree with your concern, that less than ethical people can get space and simply sell it. The complaint that existing members should have access to the remaining space is somewhat moot, if we'd done that there wouldn't be any space left today at all. Under either scenario existing members wouldn't be getting IP address from APNIC today.

Does the good of years of new entrants getting some amount of space to be able to function outweigh the negative of a few people temporarily abusing the system. Yeah, I think it does. Are we watching to see how much of problem it is and if there are serial offenders, yes we are.

--
James

PS: A free market person would argue, that under any scenario existing members only option is to buy space on the secondary market (there is no new space for existing members, hasn't been for ~2 years) and the abuse of this policy actually has the benefit of creating supply in that secondary market, with the result that addresses are finding users who need them.

Not that this makes the abuse or profiting acceptable and as I said we are watching both those who close memberships from the final /8 and those existing members who have a non coincidental occurrence of receiving multiple transfers of space from the final /8. Remember you still need APNIC's approval to transfer space, that is a big bat if needed and there are even bigger bats if that needed.

On 03/03/2013, at 2:47 PM, Jared Hirst <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au<mailto:jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>> wrote:

Annnd we just went round in a circle… this was the reason for my original post, NEW businesses can now get a small allocation /22 for a small fee and then hold on to it to on sell at 600% profit. But existing growing APNIC members cannot, they need to buy it on the black market.

Rather than APNIC managing, scrutinizing and asking WHY said company really needs the IP’s they are allocating them to anyone that ‘needs’ them.

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf Of Joshua D'Alton
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 2:43 PM
To: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4

No shock at all, but if they aren't a cheap hosting provider and have sufficient margins then running out of IPv4 space shouldn't really impact their business, as they can buy more on the open market with relative ease. If a company gets down to half a /24 left and can see they only have 6 months during which they can fulfill current/new customer requests for IP space, then they know they need to either buy more space to extend that period, or slow down their growth (by increasing prices).

Looking at China telecom for an example, they've taken the approach of not turning away new customers but instead allowing them all to fight over IPs to connect, which will continue to get worse and worse as time goes on. This will resolve itself inevitably either by CT losing customers to reach a stable equilibrium, or deciding the cost/benefit of implementing v6/NAT/whatever tipping point has been reached and therefore maintaining growth.

Is anyone on this list that is running low on IP space actually going to lose any business, or will they simply fail to grow (as much)? Obviously inner workings business secrets aside it might be hard for people to step up and admit it, but I think it is reasonable to assume I'm not posing an irrefutable question here.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au<mailto:bevan at slattery.net.au>> wrote:
This appears as though it may come as a shock to you Joshua but not everyone running out of space is a cheap hosting provider.

B

Sent from my iPhone

On 03/03/2013, at 12:15 PM, Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au<mailto:joshua at railgun.com.au>> wrote:
Size of the business doesn't really matter, its the margins that matter. You look at someone like Bulletproof, and while they probably don't do much more traffic than say serversaustralia, I'd bet they charge about 5x as much. And they support IPv6 AFAIK.

@Peter, yea but there is only no benefit because the content providers like serversaustralia don't support it. Obviously it isn't limited to just Australia, most of serversaustralia sized businesses globally don't support IPv6, but imagine if they did.

@Ross, might or might not make sense, but reality is reality. It isn't so much about them footing the bill for everyone else to change, it is about them being competitive in the market. If there is a business, 2yrs or 20 years old, that is facing growth issues due to lack of IP space, then it is up to them to decide how they want to remain competitive. They could moan and groan about IPv4 prices coming down and the fact they can't get any more, or they could move to ipv6 where the potentially large upgrade cost becomes merely nominal if they look 20 years ahead.

All these arguments seem to mirror the ones the copyright groups use. Somehow it is the rest of the worlds duty to keep their old dying business model alive.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Zone Networks - Joel <joel at zonenetworks.com.au<mailto:joel at zonenetworks.com.au>> wrote:

So what you are basically saying ..

Small business cant afford to move to ipv6
Large business can afford to move to ipv6 but couldnt give a damn..

That is brilliant… so Aus has <1% ipv6 traffic and that is cause of all the small business not running ipv6

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf OfJoshua D'Alton
Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013 12:34 PM
To: AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4

No one forced them into business. No one made them go for lower margins that would mean they aren't/weren't IPv6 ready.

If they decided to hop onto the sinking ship without a lifevest, its their own damn fault. If they went into business with software like cPanel and did nothing to try push for proper IPv6 support, again that is their own fault. Bigpond and Optus have very little reason from content serving perspective to have IPv6, so it was up to the major sources of content to get their side ready so that people like Bigpond and Optus actually had benefit in rolling out IPv6. Do you think David Thodey is going to go to his board and say "oh hey guys, here's a $100 million proposal to ready our network for IPv6, of course it won't benefit anyone as none of the content out there is IPv6, but it will cost us more if we have to do it later" and get an answer anything other than "bugger off, not interested, it might cost us more later but all we care about is this years bottom line, screw the future that is the next CEOs problem"?

Maybe instead of looking at it like the world is shafting these smaller businesses, maybe look at it like the world has given them a free ride all this time, and now it is time for them to step up. And if that means their business folds, well that means more customers for businesses that WILL survive and manage to implement IPv6 before the 22nd century.

I gotta tell you though, over the past year or so there have been some fairly massive players on the global stage that have all started charging a lot more for IPv4, and aside from a few complaints from businesses being run out of India or Malaysia or somewhere where low margins work really well, the majority of customers have understood the reality of the cost of IPv4. And none of them have left the providers, because while the IPv4 cost increased, overall these lowish margin providers are still a damn sight cheaper than the majority of companies.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Peter Betyounan <peter at serversaustralia.com.au<mailto:peter at serversaustralia.com.au>> wrote:
So basically any new businesses that are 1/4 of that age are
collateral damage in this mess , great view.

There is no force behind change then software providers like Cpanel
who would hold half the worlds content would move faster on forward
planning on ipv6. Big providers are at fault as it has been said no
residential move has been made by the likes of bigpond and Optus so
take up has been short of nil by market as no substantial end users
have ipv6.

Laying the blame on small providers is plain wrong.

Regards
Peter Betyounan
www.serversaustralia.com.au<http://www.serversaustralia.com.au>

On 03/03/2013, at 7:06 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au<mailto:markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>> wrote:

>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Peter Betyounan <peter at serversaustralia.com.au<mailto:peter at serversaustralia.com.au>>
>> To: Jared Hirst <jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au<mailto:jared.hirst at serversaustralia.com.au>>
>> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>
>> Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2013 7:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
>>
>>
>> As I have always thought without forceful intervention by the governing bodies change will not come, financial incentives/penalties will be the key to this and until all big business can feel this change will not come why would it when they can CGNAT / buy more IP's / etc etc . The issue here is small to medium business who do not have the funds to buy more IP's will eventually die automatically monopolizing the market by leaving the big players which sucks for competition..../end rant.
>
> It won't specifically be IPv6 or running out of IPv4 addresses that will have caused these businesses to fail. What those businesses will have really done is failed to plan ahead. In this instance, they've had 10 to 15 years to prepare and plan, and to incorporate the costs of the future upgrade into their current product prices. In most other instances e.g. a new tax, they'll have less than 12 months to prepare for it. A business that can't plan ahead with a 10 to 15 year notification period probably shouldn't deserve to survive, because it also probably doing a lot of other things wrong too, and has such slim margins that it doesn't have any ability to cope with the reasonable yet unexpected cost increases. Would they survive if power prices go up by 20%?
>
> This sounds harsh, but it is the reality. Businesses that aren't good at being a business fail, and the resources they weren't utilising very well (e.g. people, infrastructure), are absorbed into businesses that are better at being businesses.
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

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

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

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

The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential. This email and any attachments are also subject to copyright. No part of them may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written permission of the copyright owner. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this information is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the message from your system. All email communications to and from NEXTDC Limited are recorded for the purposes of archival and storage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130303/dd1c0e21/attachment.html>