Rescue from alligators in the swamp
Given today's discussion about address space etc, FX Networks is prepared to allocate equivalent address space to any ISP that is affected by this policy. reply to this address offlist if you wish to stop using old swamp space.
FX Networks wrote:
Given today's discussion about address space etc, FX Networks is prepared to allocate equivalent address space to any ISP that is affected by this policy.
reply to this address offlist if you wish to stop using old swamp space.
And this address space will be ALLOCATED PORTABLE? There's one simple message here. If you want address space that you can call your own, you need to accept that the cost of joining APNIC is part of the cost of doing business and get on with applying. I'd be looking very hard at this document: http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/no-questions-policy.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
There's one simple message here. If you want address space that you can call your own, you need to accept that the cost of joining APNIC is part of the cost of doing business and get on with applying.
I was looking at doing that for $EMPLOYER, but despite reading up various
bits of documentation and calling APNIC with some basic questions, I felt
the whole process was such a crapshoot I couldn't spend $LARGE on a chance
we might get portable space.
We're not after much, /23 would be plenty, and we're multihomed, but the
discussions with APNIC were very much "won't talk, pay us $LARGE and we'll
think about it", which just isn't acceptable.
- --
David Zanetti | (__)
#include
On 26 Nov 2004, at 16:00, David Zanetti wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
There's one simple message here. If you want address space that you can call your own, you need to accept that the cost of joining APNIC is part of the cost of doing business and get on with applying.
I was looking at doing that for $EMPLOYER, but despite reading up various bits of documentation and calling APNIC with some basic questions, I felt the whole process was such a crapshoot I couldn't spend $LARGE on a chance we might get portable space.
If you follow the procedure, and understand the policy (which isn't hard), then there's little or no risk involved. These days you don't even get your membership application processed before you've been approved for resources, never mind pay for the membership.
We're not after much, /23 would be plenty, and we're multihomed, but the discussions with APNIC were very much "won't talk, pay us $LARGE and we'll think about it", which just isn't acceptable.
If all you can justify is a /23, then you can't get PI addresses at all unless you're operating critical Internet infrastructure or an exchange point. A /22 is the minimum assignment, and to get that you have to demonstrate that you're multi-homed. I've never met a single member of APNIC staff who weren't approachable and helpful when asked questions about resource requests (and I've done more than a few of them, for all kinds of different people). Joe
Re: all this hubbub, Why do companies in New Zealand apply directly to APNIC for portable assignments? APNIC have provided for the existence of National Internet Registries http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#4.1.2 which can allocate portable space. Is there no such beast in New Zealand? I must assume there is not. Given the amount of end user organizations who would benefit from portable /23 and /24 assignments, (organizations who would not realisticly qualify for a /22 from APNIC) it would make sense for a National Internet Registry in New Zealand to assign space in a way more suitable to the local environment. Thoughts? JB -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley(a)isc.org] Sent: Saturday, 27 November 2004 5:19 p.m. To: David Zanetti Cc: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] Rescue from alligators in the swamp On 26 Nov 2004, at 16:00, David Zanetti wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
There's one simple message here. If you want address space that you can call your own, you need to accept that the cost of joining APNIC is part of the cost of doing business and get on with applying.
I was looking at doing that for $EMPLOYER, but despite reading up various bits of documentation and calling APNIC with some basic questions, I felt the whole process was such a crapshoot I couldn't spend $LARGE on a chance we might get portable space.
If you follow the procedure, and understand the policy (which isn't hard), then there's little or no risk involved. These days you don't even get your membership application processed before you've been approved for resources, never mind pay for the membership.
We're not after much, /23 would be plenty, and we're multihomed, but the discussions with APNIC were very much "won't talk, pay us $LARGE and we'll think about it", which just isn't acceptable.
If all you can justify is a /23, then you can't get PI addresses at all unless you're operating critical Internet infrastructure or an exchange point. A /22 is the minimum assignment, and to get that you have to demonstrate that you're multi-homed. I've never met a single member of APNIC staff who weren't approachable and helpful when asked questions about resource requests (and I've done more than a few of them, for all kinds of different people). Joe _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On 27 Nov 2004, at 20:59, Jonathan Brewer wrote:
Why do companies in New Zealand apply directly to APNIC for portable assignments? APNIC have provided for the existence of National Internet Registries http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#4.1.2 which can allocate portable space. Is there no such beast in New Zealand? I must assume there is not.
There isn't.
Given the amount of end user organizations who would benefit from portable /23 and /24 assignments, (organizations who would not realisticly qualify for a /22 from APNIC) it would make sense for a National Internet Registry in New Zealand to assign space in a way more suitable to the local environment.
Who would run it? Who would decide its policies? How many endless streams of meetings would be required in order to get any kind of consensus, and who would pay for them? Joe
Joe Abley wrote:
Who would run it? Who would decide its policies? How many endless streams of meetings would be required in order to get any kind of consensus, and who would pay for them?
Telecom should run it. That would be the most efficient solution. I'd offer to run it in my usual inimicable, fascist and non-consensus stylee, but I'm kind of busy at the moment. -- Juha
Joe Abley wrote:
Who would run it? Who would decide its policies? How many endless streams of meetings would be required in order to get any kind of consensus, and who would pay for them?
This is where someone from InternetNZ should say: "It's our job. We'll do it."
"The mission of InternetNZ is to promote and protect the Internet, ensuring that it operates in an open and uncapturable environment." With vast tracts of address space now falling under the control of a monopoly who have not demonstrated in the past that they know how to play nicely, it would be a good thing if some organization such as InternetNZ would step up to the plate. As for the policies and endless streams of meetings, they might actually be worth it in the end.
If InternetNZ will not step to the plate, I would be glad to assist to
community by setting up a registry to allow allocations of everything
larger than a /23.
Josh
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:23:24 +1300, Jonathan Brewer
Joe Abley wrote:
Who would run it? Who would decide its policies? How many endless streams of meetings would be required in order to get any kind of consensus, and who would pay for them?
This is where someone from InternetNZ should say: "It's our job. We'll do it."
"The mission of InternetNZ is to promote and protect the Internet, ensuring that it operates in an open and uncapturable environment."
With vast tracts of address space now falling under the control of a monopoly who have not demonstrated in the past that they know how to play nicely, it would be a good thing if some organization such as InternetNZ would step up to the plate.
As for the policies and endless streams of meetings, they might actually be worth it in the end.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On 27 Nov 2004, at 23:23, Jonathan Brewer wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
Who would run it? Who would decide its policies? How many endless streams of meetings would be required in order to get any kind of consensus, and who would pay for them?
This is where someone from InternetNZ should say: "It's our job. We'll do it."
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 Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
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).
If that two-person company is multihomed ( especially with two international providers ) then it occupies just as many prefixes as it would have if it had it's own space. Actually it occupies even more single the provider it got the space from is probably advertising a supernet. If APNIC is really in the business of saving table entries why don't the chase after people like Otago and Waikato Universities who appear to be singlehomed with a /16 and in Otago's case don't even have/use their own AS number. They should be able to renumber into the /16s belonging to their providers. Please explain exactly what New Zealand has to gain out of this exercise apart from reduced stability of it's Internet, extra costs associated with moving providers, barriers to entry for smaller providers and a few hundred thousand per year extra going into funding APNIC? -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
On 28 Nov 2004, at 00:28, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
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).
If that two-person company is multihomed ( especially with two international providers ) then it occupies just as many prefixes as it would have if it had it's own space. Actually it occupies even more single the provider it got the space from is probably advertising a supernet.
Not quite. An AS which decides to filter on RIR assignment boundaries will still see an organisation which multi-homes using PA space, but will only see one prefix. An organisation which is multi-homed with PI space will introduce an additional prefix to such an AS.
If APNIC is really in the business of saving table entries why don't the chase after people like Otago and Waikato Universities who appear to be singlehomed with a /16 and in Otago's case don't even have/use their own AS number. They should be able to renumber into the /16s belonging to their providers.
APNIC isn't in that business at all. APNIC's business is to manage addresses according to the current policy, and they have no mandate that I know of to insist that the current policy is applied retroactively. APNIC are not even really in the business of setting the policy they follow. The membership does that.
Please explain exactly what New Zealand has to gain out of this exercise apart from reduced stability of it's Internet, extra costs associated with moving providers, barriers to entry for smaller providers and a few hundred thousand per year extra going into funding APNIC?
I don't understand this paragraph. What exercise? Joe
I have to agree with Joe. Look at the choices, pay your money (if that's what you chose) deal with APNIC (they are very good to deal with) and your up and running. APNIC ARE always very good to deal with on the phone and there automated systems are very useful also. Gavin. On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 17:56, Joe Abley wrote:
On 27 Nov 2004, at 23:23, Jonathan Brewer wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
Who would run it? Who would decide its policies? How many endless streams of meetings would be required in order to get any kind of consensus, and who would pay for them?
This is where someone from InternetNZ should say: "It's our job. We'll do it."
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
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
InternetNZ has already engaged in discussions with APNIC about the possibility of having a delegation of supplier independent IP address space. Generally, the numbers people prefer the ccTLD's to stay away from IP numbers, but APNIC appears sypathetic to the concept of such a space. The difficulties would arise for InternetNZ in how to broadcast - it would still require a degree of co-operation by the upstream provider, and may not always lead to the best use of the space. But sure, InternetNZ is interested in providing for the needs of the local Internet community. If someone would like to prepare a more formal position paper as to how InternetNZ should engage, we'd be happy to promote the concept through APNIC at APRICOT 2005, to seek approval from the numbers community for us to have some space, either the legacy addresses or a whole new block. Keith Davidson h Johnathan Brewer wrote:
This is where someone from InternetNZ should say: "It's our job. We'll do it."
"The mission of InternetNZ is to promote and protect the Internet, ensuring that it operates in an open and uncapturable environment."
With vast tracts of address space now falling under the control of a monopoly who have not demonstrated in the past that they know how to play nicely, it would be a good thing if some organization such as InternetNZ would step up to the plate.
As for the policies and endless streams of meetings, they might actually be worth it in the end.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Given today's discussion about address space etc, FX Networks is prepared to allocate equivalent address space to any ISP that is affected by this policy.
reply to this address offlist if you wish to stop using old swamp space. I would actually advise against this unless you know for sure you are losing the old IPs. Currently there's confusion as to whether the info is obscured as part of APNIC privacy protection
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, FX Networks wrote: thing OR whether it is a move by APNIC to force ppl to sort it out. There's a lot to be said about hanging on as some of these allocations predate APNIC or at least current APNIC policies. While I understand APNIC's need to set policies for their current available/unallocated space I do not see why they should be trying to gain control over space that isn't theirs to allocate in the first place. IMHO Theirs to allocated = unallocated space they were given to allocated as well as space belonging to their members. As for Telecom, IMO they shouldn't have agreed to accept responsibility for the old NZGATE IPs if they weren't prepared to shoulder the costs forever! While it sounds extreme, surely they didn't take it over expecting to be able to call it theirs! I am grateful that Telecom agreed to have this included in their space at the time as it meant a smooth transition from NZGate and all that. These were blocks deemed portable and not "deemed portable on certain conditions decided on by APNIC/Telecom"[1] Expecting these small organisations who may not want anymore IPs to join APNIC, pay $$$ to APNIC for nothing apart from generating revenue for APNIC seems a bit ridiculous. This is more than just old space. It allows these organisations the freedom to be multihomed without the inconvenience of having to renumber every time they change ISPs. If APNIC wants to lord over this, are they also calling the shots to the other organisations who have a lot of IP space but aren't used? There are a few companies in NZ who were allocated a class B. I have no doubt they have the resources/funds to join APNIC but do they need to unless they want more IP space? I doubt they have "good IP management plans" or whatever is stated in APNIC policy since their allocation predates APNIC policies. The sooner APNIC recognises that these were allocations made and a Class C (ie /24) were allocated and made portable the better. The fact that these are smaller blocks than current policy for minimum allocation should have been recognised when current policy was made. They should also recognise that this was pre-apnic and remain beyond their control UNTIL the holder of those IPs decide they no longer wish to use it. At NZNOG earlier this year, the APNIC trainers did say that there were special policies or dispensations looked at for smaller countries as there's quite a few pacific islands where the smallest allocation would probably be more than sufficient to cover the entire country a few tiems over. Also that the organisations will not have the resources in terms of $$ to be an APNIC member. While I understand AP = Asia Pacific, I think the policies are easier to fit into the companies within Asia than in Pacific. NZ is Pacific in terms of size of allocations. NZ companies are small when compared with companies in Asia. We may be big when compared with pacific island but a small minnow when compared to some companies considered medium sized in Asia. Lin [1] Yes there's been one or two incidents in recent times.
As Paul Swain said, there are a thousand people who will tell you the
problems, and few who present solutions.
With prudence and appropriate caveats I don't see this offer as a threat.
Or have I misunderstood the response?
Hamish.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:15:17 +1300, FX Networks
Given today's discussion about address space etc, FX Networks is prepared to allocate equivalent address space to any ISP that is affected by this policy.
reply to this address offlist if you wish to stop using old swamp space.
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
participants (12)
-
Andy Linton -
David Zanetti -
FX Networks -
Gavin Legge -
Hamish MacEwan -
Joe Abley -
Jonathan Brewer -
Joshua Brady -
Juha Saarinen -
Keith Davidson -
Lin Nah -
Simon Lyall