Fw: [nznog] Rescue from alligators in the swamp
I agree in principle with Joe, APNIC are pretty easy to deal with, and for any reasonable robuts requirer of numbers, the costs are hardly prohibitive at US$2,000 one-off, plus US$1,250 per annum. But I guess the argument is that some people have a class C or 2 that they pay nothing for currently and would like to continue to pay nothing. As I said in my previous email, InternetNZ would be happy to step up to the plate if there really is a need - but I doubt we'd be in the business of supplying free number blocks. Keith Davidson Joe Abley stated:
As far as I can see, it's APNIC's job, and they're doing it pretty well already.
There seem to be a lot of people assuming that APNIC are hard to deal with (or that the policies are unreasonable) without ever having tried to deal with them, or to find out what the policies actually are.
The economics are pretty simple for ISPs and largish multi-homed companies: you can pay the cost of renumbering every time you change provider, or you can pay the membership fees at APNIC and obtain provider-independent resources. Choose the option that suits your budget.
Regardless of how much someone might think that every two-person company deserves provider-independent address space, the unfortunate reality is that this doesn't scale (and the problem is the routing system, not address space scarcity).
Joe
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Keith Davidson wrote:
I agree in principle with Joe, APNIC are pretty easy to deal with, and for any reasonable robuts requirer of numbers, the costs are hardly prohibitive at US$2,000 one-off, plus US$1,250 per annum.
For small prividers they are prohibitive. With prices for bandwidth dropping all the time (unlike APNIC's fees), it's possible to multihome for just one or two thousand per month. Expecting a company to pay 10% of that to APNIC for a couple of database entries and a pretty annual report is out of whack.
But I guess the argument is that some people have a class C or 2 that they pay nothing for currently and would like to continue to pay nothing.
I doubt people would object to a more reasonable charge. Currently I can get a domain for less than $US 20 per year and that will get injected in the "DNS routing table" of every provider in the world. I fail to see why a block of IP addresses should cost more. The fear here is that people who have been using these addresses for years are going to lose them and the alternatives ( via Providers or going to APNIC) are significantly more expensive and less flexable.
As I said in my previous email, InternetNZ would be happy to step up to the plate if there really is a need - but I doubt we'd be in the business of supplying free number blocks.
I think if Internetnz can supply the service for significantly less than what APNIC can then people would be interested. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Keith Davidson wrote:
I agree in principle with Joe, APNIC are pretty easy to deal with, and for any reasonable robuts requirer of numbers, the costs are hardly prohibitive at US$2,000 one-off, plus US$1,250 per annum. But I guess the argument is that some people have a class C or 2 that they pay nothing for currently and would like to continue to pay nothing.
Isn't this the nub of the whole debate here. There's a bunch of people who think they have a class C or 2 that they've paid nothing for over the years who now find that Telecom has in fact been doing precisely what they should have been doing and, at first glance at least, Telecom has established title to these five /16s for a paltry US$10000 a year. Large numbers of people with IP addresses in this range haven't done anything about keeping their records up to date, engaging with APNIC about title and now they're paying the penalty. Your IP address space is about as important a resource as you can think of. I'm stunned when people think they shouldn't have to pay for it. We're talking less that one laptop every other year - is it really that much money? Why should those of us who are APNIC members subsidise those in the community who are paying for their resource? We had this argument many years ago when we had to start paying for domain name registrations - now nobody thinks twice about it. And setting up an NZ registry isn't the answer - there'd still be costs that you'd need to meet. Start talking to APNIC here about your IP assignments and offer to pay the money - that way you'll get some traction. Complaining that this used to be free and Telecom are a bunch of thieves etc in this forum won't resolve the issue.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 08:48:20PM +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
Your IP address space is about as important a resource as you can think of. I'm stunned when people think they shouldn't have to pay for it.
I'm not sure of the validity of that argument - air is quite important to me, and I think that's probably one of the reasons I _don't_ have to pay for it. There are rules to ensure that space is conserved and allocated appropriately; I don't see a need to add an economic challenge as well, which gives a strong bias towards the large player. There are enough of those already. And if the claim is that this amount of dosh is what's actually required for administration, then I'd suggest there's some wastage somewhere ... Richard
Richard Hector wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 08:48:20PM +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
Your IP address space is about as important a resource as you can think of. I'm stunned when people think they shouldn't have to pay for it.
I'm not sure of the validity of that argument - air is quite important to me, and I think that's probably one of the reasons I _don't_ have to pay for it.
I think you're deluded if you think air is free - the Kyoto protocol which we've signed up to commits NZ to carbon taxes. Keeping the air we breathe clean costs money and you pay tax to make it happen. I think it's a case that for many NZ organisations they've simply put off budgeting for this expense for so long that they thought the system had forgotten about them and they wouldn't get billed.
There are rules to ensure that space is conserved and allocated appropriately; I don't see a need to add an economic challenge as well, which gives a strong bias towards the large player. There are enough of those already.
So who pays for the administration of the number space? At this stage it's those who've joined APNIC (or RIPE or ARIN or LACNIC) and done the right thing to support responsible stewardship of the number space pay the costs - perhaps if more joined the cost would come down. That's been the trend at APNIC over the years.
And if the claim is that this amount of dosh is what's actually required for administration, then I'd suggest there's some wastage somewhere ...
It's not simply dishing out some IPv4 addresses - it's running a help desk, reverse name service, root name servers, IPv6 address allocation, AS numbers, routing registry.... I still stand by my earlier posting - moaning in this forum will not solve the problem. The discussions will need to be between APNIC, Telecom and those who have address blocks in this space with perhaps someone like InternetNZ to help broker a solution. But at the end of the day if you want your name in the registry against a block of numbers, either the ones you currently use or some new block, expect to pay. If you can't stand that particular piece of heat, get out of the kitchen.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
I still stand by my earlier posting - moaning in this forum will not solve the problem. The discussions will need to be between APNIC, Telecom and those who have address blocks in this space with perhaps someone like InternetNZ to help broker a solution.
But at the end of the day if you want your name in the registry against a block of numbers, either the ones you currently use or some new block, expect to pay. If you can't stand that particular piece of heat, get out of the kitchen.
From what I see, and Don Kendrick, the TNZ IP Resource Manager has said, nobody is losing their networks, Telecom is not reclaiming
I agree with Andy that NZNOG is probably not the appropriate forum to discuss this problem, with the exception that APNIC people do lurk here and would be available for discussion on this topic next year at the conference. However: I'm actually a little bit lost as to what the problem is. them, and he does not intend for it to go that way and it has been acknowledged they are 'swamp' space. It appears to be somewhat a knee-jerk reaction to WHOIS changes as a result of: 1) APNIC's new WHOIS Privacy Policy, documented in this FAQ: http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html Whereby all reassignment information has been marked private, and the supernets are all that are visible. Don has stated that he is attempting to make the information visible again (for many reasons, but I'm sure at the very least the number of abuse reports he'll get is now exponentially higher!). 2) Due to 1), Telecom has had to ask for all maintainer objects to be transferred to NZTELECOM in order to make these delegations 'un-private'. Whether they subsequently get redelegated back into the appropriate person's mnt object has not been made clear. Either way, people have a few options: 1) Work with Telecom and/or APNIC directly to resolve the situation. I'm personally not worried about it being a problem. 2) Obtain their own APNIC membership and assignment. I have seen companies receive /24s for multihoming directly from APNIC. 3) Talk to APNIC about the 'no questions asked' assignment policy. 4) Face reality, do the internet routing table a favor, and go for PA space. Recent conversations on cisco-nsp and NANOG about prefix bloat and their impact on routers with 'only' 256M of memory have been very interesting. Perhaps Don could clarify whether he will re-assign information back into the appropriate maintainer objects, and someone from APNIC (Nurani? I know you lurk on the list..) could discuss why they are not choosing to treat these networks as swamp space, or at the very least ensure that networks in these /16s are clearly designated as PORTABLE space. In fact, the bottom /20 of 202.27/16 isn't even assigned to an NZ company, if my memory serves me correctly. For the most part, I think Telecom have done a pretty good job of looking after the status quo of these legacy NZGate networks. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
HI, I do agree that for the most part, APNIC have not been bad to deal with, although this experience has shown me otherwise.
Isn't this the nub of the whole debate here. There's a bunch of people who think they have a class C or 2 that they've paid nothing for over the years who now find that Telecom has in fact been doing precisely what they should have been doing and, at first glance at least, Telecom has established title to these five /16s for a paltry US$10000 a year.
Large numbers of people with IP addresses in this range haven't done anything about keeping their records up to date, engaging with APNIC about title and now they're paying the penalty.
What about the people who are APNIC members, have had their space for a while, and are paying APNIC the yearly membership fees, but the assignments have still been gobbled up ?
Your IP address space is about as important a resource as you can think of. I'm stunned when people think they shouldn't have to pay for it. We're talking less that one laptop every other year - is it really that much money?
I dont think this is completely an issue of money - I do agree that for some people it is, but not universally. Many people concerned (including ourselves) are APNIC members, and do pay APNIC yearly membership fees, but we have still been affected by the lock ness-monster. So my (un-answered) question to APNIC on Thursday was: where is my money going now ?
Why should those of us who are APNIC members subsidise those in the community who are paying for their resource? We had this argument many years ago when we had to start paying for domain name registrations - now nobody thinks twice about it.
And setting up an NZ registry isn't the answer - there'd still be costs that you'd need to meet.
Maybe setting up a NZ registry isnt the answer, but surely Internet NZ would be a better (more neutral) candidate than TCNZ for managing the swamp space?
Start talking to APNIC here about your IP assignments and offer to pay the money - that way you'll get some traction. Complaining that this used to be free and Telecom are a bunch of thieves etc in this forum won't resolve the issue.
Unfortunately, APNIC dont care, even if you do pay them The best response I got from the APNIC helpdesk was to tell me to contact Telecom NZ to resolve the issue. Regards, Relihan.
participants (6)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Andy Linton -
Keith Davidson -
Relihan Myburgh -
Richard Hector -
Simon Lyall