[125266] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Apr 11 15:04:52 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6DD59D0-1D38-4456-AA51-65BB3F8A55FD@virtualized.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:03:05 -0700
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:21 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> On Apr 11, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Instead, we have a situation where the mere mention
>> of requiring legacy holders to pay a token annual fee like the rest
>> of IP end-users in the ARIN region leads to discussions like this.
>=20
> I don't believe the issue is the token annual fee. My guess is that =
most legacy holders would be willing to pay a "reasonable" service fee =
to cover rDNS and registration database maintenance (they'd probably be =
more willing if there were multiple providers of that service, but =
that's a separate topic). I suspect the issue might be more related to =
stuff like:
>=20
>> Especially in light of
>> the fact that if you are sitting on excess resources and want
>> to be able to transfer them under NRPM 8.3, you will need
>> to bring them under LRSA or RSA first and the successor who
>> acquires them from you (under 8.2 or 8.3) will need to sign an
>> RSA for the transfer to be valid.
>=20
> You appear to be assuming folks are willing to accept ARIN has the =
right and ability to assert the above (and more). That is, that the =
entire policy regime under which the NRPM has been defined is one that =
legacy holders are implicitly bound simply because they happen to =
operate in ARIN's service region and received IP addresses in the past =
without any real terms and conditions or formal agreement. I imagine =
the validity of your assumption will not be established without a =
definitive legal ruling. I'm sure it will be an interesting court case.
>=20
Well, if they want to operate under the previous regime, then, they =
should simply return any excess resources now rather than attempting to =
monetize them under newer policies as that was the policy in place at =
the time. Certainly they should operate under one of those two regimes =
rather than some alternate reality not related to either.
Interestingly, APNIC seems to have had little trouble asserting such in =
their region, but, I realize the regulatory framework in the ARIN region =
is somewhat different.
> In any event, it seems clear that some feel that entering into =
agreements and paying fees in order to obtain IPv6 address space is =
hindering deployment of IPv6. While ARIN has in the past waived fees =
for IPv6, I don't believe there has ever been (nor is there likely to =
be) a waiver of signing the RSA. Folks who want that should probably get =
over it.
>=20
I believe you are correct about that.
> To try to bring this back to topics relevant to NANOG (and not ARIN's =
PPML), the real issue is that pragmatically speaking, the only obvious =
alternative to IPv6 is multi-layer NAT and it seems some people are =
trying to tell you that regardless of how much you might hate =
multi-layer NAT, how much more expensive you believe it will be =
operationally, and how much more limiting and fragile it will be because =
it breaks the end-to-end paradigm, they believe it to be a workable =
solution. Are there _any_ case studies, analyses with actual data, etc. =
that shows multi-layer NAT is not workable (scalable, operationally =
tractable, etc.) or at least is more expensive than IPv6?=20
>=20
Can you point to a single working deployment of multi-layer NAT? I can =
recall experiences with several attempts which had varying levels of =
dysfunction. Some actually done at NANOG meetings, for example. As such, =
I'm willing to say that there is at least anecdotal evidence that =
multi-layer NAT either is not workable or has not yet been made =
workable.
Owen
