[AusNOG] IPv4

[Zone Networks - Joel]

No need to do any audit... like Bevan suggested, increase the pricing for ipv4 to $1/year and watch it being returned.

And to make it more fair, only for members that got allocation before the last /8 kicked in

And even if the ipv4 doesn’t get returned APNIC etc will have some extra $$ to promote and push ipv6

It really comes down to pushing people onto ipv6 ASAP, and currently they is no APNIC etc policy that is pushing org's into ipv6 (not that I know of)


-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013 7:35 AM
To: Rod Veith; 'AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net'
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4

>________________________________
> From: Rod Veith <rod at rb.net.au>
>To: "'AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net'" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013 6:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
> 
>
>Mark Andrews questions, my answers:
> 
>Q1: I'm curious, how would you have allocated address over the last 10 
>years?
>A: Not sure I could have done better with allocations. What could have been done better is a ‘use it or lose it’ clause in the conditions applying to not only new allocations but all historical allocations.
> 

If these addresses aren't being announced on the Internet, that will require engaging with each party directly, human-to-human. Given this is an audit, and that the parties who have this address space would have a motive to lie about their usage, it will likely involve visits by an audit team, following similar procedures to those that financial external auditors follow. So who is going to conduct these audits, and who is going to pay the significant costs of them? 


>Q2: Please list actual resources that APNIC, ARIN or RIPE could recover.
>A: Specious question used to mask a case for doing nothing. Please ask better questions that contribute in a meaningful way this good discussion.
> 

I think he is asking you to provide your estimation of the volume of recovered address space, given that you are proposing the idea. You need to present that to support your argument that your plan is feasible.

>Q3: Is there really?  Not globally announced does not mean that they are mis-managed.
>A: Partially agreed. The fact some people have legitimate uses is no 
>excuse to do nothing.
> 

Lets say your plan is successful, and recovers say 2 years worth of IPv4 addresses. What is to prevent those who've done nothing about IPv6 to now use that as an excuse to do nothing about IPv6 for another 2 years, and then make the same, but more desperate complaints we've seen here in another 2 years?

>Q4: Again what used addresses?
>A: See answer to Q2. 
> 
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka at isc.org]
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013 5:01 PM
>To: Rod Veith
>Cc: 'AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net'
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv4
> 
> 
>In message <011c01ce188c$c91f1ab0$5b5d5010$@rb.net.au>, "Rod Veith" writes:
>> 
>> "Was v4 allocations screwed? I don't know.  We didn't know what was 
>> going to happen 20 years ago... It is easy to look back in hindsight."
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> V4 allocations ARE screwed using hindsight. There is one camp saying 
>> get over it, use V6 and forget the screwed V4 allocations. And the 
>> other camp says why not try to fix the problem.
> 
>I'm curious, how would you have allocated address over the last 10 years?  As far as I can tell the RIR's all have allocated address on the basis of need.  They didn't hide the fact that IPv4 address were in limited supply.  They did all they could to promote IPv6 which unlike IPv4 has enough addresses for everyone on the planet.
> 
>> It is typical human behaviour to sit on resources even if they are 
>> not being used because 'one just never knows if they might be needed 
>> in 10 years' time or worth something.  Just because many people and 
>> businesses do this doesn't make it right, just as sitting back and 
>> letting past mistakes continue is not right.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I think it is wrong of APNIC to NOT take a more proactive role in 
>> recovering
>> V4 allocations that were obvious mistakes in the past, just as other 
>> "resource allocators" around the world should be doing the same thing.
>> Just because people with allocations are going to scream "you can't 
>> take away something I might use one day etc etc" doesn't mean the 
>> attempt shouldn't be made.
> 
>Please list actual resources that APNIC, ARIN or RIPE could recover.
>> "IPv4 is dead.  People need to get over it and move to IPv6..."
>> 
>>  
>> No, IPv4 is not dead. Why should people get over it when quite 
>> clearly there is a resource not being properly managed. People have 
>> every right to complain about mismanagement of an important resource. 
>> Agreed though that people need to move to IPv6 as they can. Problem 
>> is that many of the organisations with the technical knowledge and 
>> resources to move to IPv4 have already tied up most of the IPv4 space 
>> and don't yet care, after all, that's a problem for the next CIO to fix.
> 
>Is there really?  Not globally announced does not mean that they are mis-managed.
> 
>> APNIC needs to grow some balls on this issue and take the lead on 
>> preserving a scarce resource and re-allocate unused space. If they 
>> are not willing to behave properly, maybe the resource deserves to be 
>> given to the ITU to manage.
> 
>Again what usused addresses?
> 
>Mark
>--
>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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog