"What's the hourly price for a /24?"

Dean Pemberton

1 Oct 2013 1 Oct '13

9:10 a.m.

Hi All, The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would be. I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright. That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of discussion on relevant APNIC lists. Should it be allowed? Should it be disallowed? It it were disallowed would that actually stop it? What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for eg Should someone be able to be allocated addresses under a needs based policy just so they can make money leasing them? Does leasing addresses mean that you no longer need them? Should you be required to return the ? These and many more issues are questions I'd like you all to give me feed back on. This topic will come up in APRICOT 2014 in Thailand. I'd like to know a lot more about what you all think about it before I take the mic. Regards Dean -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 1.6 KB)

Show replies by date

Jonathan Brewer

1 Oct 1 Oct

10:09 a.m.

...

Should it be allowed?

Yes.

...

Should it be disallowed?

...

It it were disallowed would that actually stop it?

There's no way to stop it.

...

What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for eg

Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know who a lessee is.

...

Should someone be able to be allocated addresses under a needs based policy just so they can make money leasing them?

Yes, because needs based policies have not discriminated against use cases in the past.

...

Does leasing addresses mean that you no longer need them? Should you be required to return the ?

No, and AFAIK no one has been required to return space yet. But that's just my understanding. Do update me if I'm out of date.

...

These and many more issues are questions I'd like you all to give me feed back on.

This topic will come up in APRICOT 2014 in Thailand. I'd like to know a lot more about what you all think about it before I take the mic.

I already lease IP address space at $0.03/hour per address. That space happens to come with a virtual machine attached to it, but I needed that anyway.

...

Regards

Dean

-- -- Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz

To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Joel Wirāmu Pauling

10:16 a.m.

...

...
What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for eg

Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know who a lessee is.

I am almost positive that there will be Legislative barriers to not keeping a record; if not now then at some point in the future. Given that even the new Syslog Spec requires a centralized DB of 'EnterpriseID' 'MUST' be included in a syslog entry; for legislative purposes - Big brother would not be happy to see leased IP's being officially moved around without some oversight. Not that I am disagreeing with you, but just pointing out that it may be better to design a policy from the on-set with that in mind. -Joel

Juha Saarinen

10:28 a.m.

On 2/10/2013, at 5:16 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...

Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know who a lessee is.

I am almost positive that there will be Legislative barriers to not keeping a record; if not now then at some point in the future. Given that even the new Syslog Spec requires a centralized DB of 'EnterpriseID' 'MUST' be included in a syslog entry; for legislative purposes - Big brother would not be happy to see leased IP's being officially moved around without some oversight.

That amended Copyright Act, which assumes IP address = an actual subscriber, needs it for instance. -- Juha Saarinen twitter: juhasaarinen

Jonathan Brewer

10:39 a.m.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Juha Saarinen wrote:

...

On 2/10/2013, at 5:16 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...
Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know who a lessee is.

I am almost positive that there will be Legislative barriers to not keeping a record; if not now then at some point in the future. Given that even the new Syslog Spec requires a centralized DB of 'EnterpriseID' 'MUST' be included in a syslog entry; for legislative purposes - Big brother would not be happy to see leased IP's being officially moved around without some oversight.

That amended Copyright Act, which assumes IP address = an actual subscriber, needs it for instance.

That doesn't change what I said. In the case of leased space, It'll be the responsibility of the lessor, and not the RIR, to comply with whatever laws they're governed by. If that means the lessor needs to keep a database of who they leased the address space to on a minute-by-minute basis, then it's the lessor's problem, not the RIR's. No need to extend whois to take care of this function.

Joel Wirāmu Pauling

11:18 a.m.

I wasn't thinking specifically about NZ specific peculiarities; more about mulch-lateral cross border agreements. For which my point stands. -Joel On 2 October 2013 17:39, Jonathan Brewer wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Juha Saarinen wrote:

...
On 2/10/2013, at 5:16 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...
Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know who a lessee is.

I am almost positive that there will be Legislative barriers to not keeping a record; if not now then at some point in the future. Given that even the new Syslog Spec requires a centralized DB of 'EnterpriseID' 'MUST' be included in a syslog entry; for legislative purposes - Big brother would not be happy to see leased IP's being officially moved around without some oversight.

That amended Copyright Act, which assumes IP address = an actual subscriber, needs it for instance.

That doesn't change what I said. In the case of leased space, It'll be the responsibility of the lessor, and not the RIR, to comply with whatever laws they're governed by. If that means the lessor needs to keep a database of who they leased the address space to on a minute-by-minute basis, then it's the lessor's problem, not the RIR's. No need to extend whois to take care of this function.

Dean Pemberton

12:13 p.m.

Righto. I've chosen to reply to this post because after this it really gets into "Why can't we have IPv6 already!". While thats a useful topic, It's not the one I'm looking for an answer on. Anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong but the summary of the discussion so far seems to be: Leasing is ok. Anything to get me the IPv4 hit I need. There are some issues around legislation but that may only be a problem for the lessor not the RIR. We've been leasing for ages already, this is just more of the same. Needs based has never been about actually deploying things (I think thats worth clarifying with APNIC, which I'll do). Sometimes it has been about giving them to customers for a price, and that looks kinda like leasing. Have I misrepresented anything here? Anyone have any counterpoints? Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Jonathan Brewer wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Juha Saarinen wrote:

...
On 2/10/2013, at 5:16 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...
Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know who a lessee is.

I am almost positive that there will be Legislative barriers to not keeping a record; if not now then at some point in the future. Given that even the new Syslog Spec requires a centralized DB of 'EnterpriseID' 'MUST' be included in a syslog entry; for legislative purposes - Big brother would not be happy to see leased IP's being officially moved around without some oversight.

That amended Copyright Act, which assumes IP address = an actual subscriber, needs it for instance.

That doesn't change what I said. In the case of leased space, It'll be the responsibility of the lessor, and not the RIR, to comply with whatever laws they're governed by. If that means the lessor needs to keep a database of who they leased the address space to on a minute-by-minute basis, then it's the lessor's problem, not the RIR's. No need to extend whois to take care of this function.

Dobbins, Roland

12:55 p.m.

On Oct 2, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

We've been leasing for ages already, this is just more of the same.

This is the key point, IMHO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton

Jed Laundry

3:27 p.m.

Evening, Pardon my ignorance of the APNIC list discussions, but is the point to: 1. allow /24s to be used by different ASes for short periods of time to handle peak demands? I can only think of mobile IP providers in different timezones being a "sensible" example of this. 2. to allow ASes to claim a need for addresses based on short term customer uses? This is an edge case; I've run a couple of events where I needed a /26 for a weekend, which was taken from the provider's existing pool. 3. to mark addresses as leased (i.e. cloud servers) to avoid blacklist hell for the next poor unfortunate soul to use them? (glhf?) Thanks, Jed. Righto. I've chosen to reply to this post because after this it really gets into "Why can't we have IPv6 already!". While thats a useful topic, It's not the one I'm looking for an answer on. Anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong but the summary of the discussion so far seems to be: Leasing is ok. Anything to get me the IPv4 hit I need. There are some issues around legislation but that may only be a problem for the lessor not the RIR. We've been leasing for ages already, this is just more of the same. Needs based has never been about actually deploying things (I think thats worth clarifying with APNIC, which I'll do). Sometimes it has been about giving them to customers for a price, and that looks kinda like leasing. Have I misrepresented anything here? Anyone have any counterpoints? Dean -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Jonathan Brewer wrote:

...

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Juha Saarinen wrote:

...
On 2/10/2013, at 5:16 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...
Not at all, the responsibility for what happens with the space is entirely with the lessor. There's no reason for the public to ever know

who

...
...
a lessee is.

I am almost positive that there will be Legislative barriers to not keeping a record; if not now then at some point in the future. Given that even the new Syslog Spec requires a centralized DB of 'EnterpriseID' 'MUST' be included in a syslog entry; for legislative purposes - Big brother would not be happy to see leased IP's being officially moved around without some oversight.

That amended Copyright Act, which assumes IP address = an actual subscriber, needs it for instance.

That doesn't change what I said. In the case of leased space, It'll be the responsibility of the lessor, and not the RIR, to comply with whatever laws they're governed by. If that means the lessor needs to keep a database of who they leased the address space to on a minute-by-minute basis, then it's the lessor's problem, not the RIR's. No need to extend whois to take care of this function.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Dean Pemberton

3:51 p.m.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Jed Laundry wrote:

...

Evening,

Pardon my ignorance of the APNIC list discussions, but is the point to:

1. allow /24s to be used by different ASes for short periods of time to handle peak demands? I can only think of mobile IP providers in different timezones being a "sensible" example of this.

At the moment it's too early to tell what the end case for leasing will be. We've had a large amount of talk about transfers/sales of IP addresses and there is a well defined market established to facilitate this. Over the last 6 months, more and more advertisements have been made for the 'lease' of IP addresses rather than their sale. To date it has been difficult to establish what the terms of these leases would be.

...

2. to allow ASes to claim a need for addresses based on short term customer uses? This is an edge case; I've run a couple of events where I needed a /26 for a weekend, which was taken from the provider's existing pool.

...

3. to mark addresses as leased (i.e. cloud servers) to avoid blacklist hell for the next poor unfortunate soul to use them? (glhf?)

An interesting point. One IP broker who spoke in Xi'an explained that one of the services they offer is to establish the 'history' of a particular range. The equivalent of a background check or a LIM report for those who have bought property. You don't want to end up being the owner of IP addresses who took too many drugs in their youth. There are a lot of issues to think about here. Jamie brings up some interesting ones too. I'll address those next. Dean

Dean Pemberton

4:07 p.m.

...

Needs based has never been about actually deploying things (I think thats worth clarifying with APNIC, which I'll do).

Asked and Answered: Dean wrote:

...

As an example. If a new APNIC member were to apply for their /22 from 103/8 and the justification was "I need 1024 addresses which I intend to lease on a per monthly basis to other users", would that be sufficient justification under current policy?

Hi Dean, We have neither received nor approved a case like this. In evaluating the service and network plan, we look for evidence that the address space will be routed in an aggregated manner. Sub-delegations to customers should come with connectivity/transit services. Having said this, I did observe in the policy SIG discussion in Xi'an that some organisations have actually sub-delegated their space to customers without any connectivity/transit service. This is a practice that is not consistent with the aggregation principle in address space management, but a reality in address transfer market. It seems to me that in the IPv4 near-exhaustion state that we are currently in, where market transfer is a reality, registration takes precedence over aggregation. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Cheers, Sanjaya

bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com

10:21 a.m.

i ran ep.net for _years_ leasing address space. indeed, the RIRs themselves functionally lease the space to us. perhaps the current question might better be expressed as "how much is that routing slot worth and for how long?" presuming no visa hicoughs, i'd be glad to chat up next year in Thailand. /bill On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:10:20PM +1300, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

Hi All,

The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would be.

I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of discussion on relevant APNIC lists.

Should it be allowed? Should it be disallowed? It it were disallowed would that actually stop it? What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for eg Should someone be able to be allocated addresses under a needs based policy just so they can make money leasing them? Does leasing addresses mean that you no longer need them? Should you be required to return the ?

These and many more issues are questions I'd like you all to give me feed back on.

This topic will come up in APRICOT 2014 in Thailand. I'd like to know a lot more about what you all think about it before I take the mic.

Regards

Dean

-- -- Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz

To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.

...

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Peter Mott

10:23 a.m.

On 2/10/2013, at 4:10 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would be. I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

This reminds me of a discussion in the late 90's when there was resistance to charging a fee for the registration of a domain name. Then similar outage when people started transferring domain names for sometimes silly amounts of money. Resistance is futile! regards Peter Mott LocalCloud Limited Business Critical Application Hosting +64 9 280 0925 -/-

Richard Hector

10:41 a.m.

On 02/10/13 16:10, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

Hi All,

The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would be.

I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of discussion on relevant APNIC lists.

Who needs 20,282,409,603,651,670,423,947,251,286,016 addresses? Oh wait, we're still living in the past. Anybody got ideas on when IPv6 will actually be available, and allocated by default, to anyone who orders 'The Internet'? What's the actual holdup? Apologies for the grumble :-( Richard

Juha Saarinen

10:53 a.m.

On 2/10/2013, at 5:41 PM, Richard Hector wrote:

...

Anybody got ideas on when IPv6 will actually be available, and allocated by default, to anyone who orders 'The Internet'?

When it's seamlessly compatible with the IPv4 Internet, presumably? -- Juha Saarinen twitter: juhasaarinen

Tony Wicks

10:59 a.m.

On 2/10/2013 5:53 p.m., Juha Saarinen wrote:

...

On 2/10/2013, at 5:41 PM, Richard Hector mailto:richard(a)walnut.gen.nz> wrote:

...
Anybody got ideas on when IPv6 will actually be available, and allocated by default, to anyone who orders 'The Internet'?

When it's seamlessly compatible with the IPv4 Internet, presumably?

-

Yes, when you can use the internet using only IPv6 without any translation to IPv4 then I would imagine it will be very popular. Personally I see a combination of IPv6 native and IPv4 CGNAT being the foreseeable future.

Michael Fincham

10:59 a.m.

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:53:05 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:

...

When it's seamlessly compatible with the IPv4 Internet, presumably?

It pretty much is at this stage, though. You can turn on native v6 on a LAN of "normal" workstations running modern operating systems, let them pick up an address through RA and not even notice that suddenly you're connecting over v6 to Google et al. Anecdotally I've been running native v6 on my home and work LANs for years and the number of failures as a result of IPv6 is vastly outweighed by things like technicians cutting the wrong wires. -- Michael

Tony Wicks

11:03 a.m.

...

Turn off IPv4 and see how far you get.

Juha Saarinen

11:06 a.m.

On 2/10/2013, at 6:03 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:

...

Turn off IPv4 and see how far you get.

+1 -- Juha Saarinen twitter: juhasaarinen

Richard Hector

11:14 a.m.

On 02/10/13 18:03, Tony Wicks wrote:

...

It pretty much is at this stage, though. You can turn on native v6 on a LAN of "normal" workstations running modern operating systems, let them pick up an address through RA and not even notice that suddenly you're connecting over v6 to Google et al. Anecdotally I've been running native v6 on my home and work LANs for years and the number of failures as a result of IPv6 is vastly outweighed by things like technicians cutting the wrong wires.

...
Turn off IPv4 and see how far you get.

Obviously not far - because IPv6 is insufficiently available. That means more people need to turn v6 on, not hold off because it isn't currently a complete solution. Currently neither my ISP nor my VPS host will offer native IPv6 - it doesn't matter which is the chicken and which is the egg if all we have is the dinosaur ... Richard

Michael Fincham

11:19 a.m.

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:03:56 +1300, Tony Wicks wrote:

...

Turn off IPv4 and see how far you get.

Yeah that's not what I'm saying though - the point I was trying to make is that you can switch on v6 now and it works great. We're not going to solve the "we have no more v4 address space" problem by putting it off indefinitely. (Also, "v6-only" hosts work pretty well. I've got a few - they can still access Debian repos, run torrents, get on IRC, chat with XMPP, access Google, Facebook and Youtube. Application layer proxies or NAT444 do a good job with the rest.) -- Michael

Tony Wicks

11:27 a.m.

...

Yeah that's not what I'm saying though - the point I was trying to make is that you can switch on v6 now and it works great.

We're not going to solve the "we have no more v4 address space" problem by putting it off indefinitely.

(Also, "v6-only" hosts work pretty well. I've got a few - they can still access Debian repos, run torrents, get on IRC, chat with XMPP, access Google, Facebook and Youtube. Application layer proxies or NAT444 do a good job with the rest.)

On this Topic and on my list of things to do, here is a question for the other network operators on this list. As we are well aware there is no NAT with V4 (to all intents and purposes). With IPv4 it is very easy for us to assign the bulk of the customers a single out of a pool and the internal NAT IP range is the customers business. With IPv6 the service provider provides a /48 or /52 or whatever seems good for the customers internal network. Now, if this internal network is assigned out of a pool and the router disconnects and a new network is assigned does this cause a problem ? Or should we be statically assigning this ip block for the customers internal network ? cheers

Joel Wirāmu Pauling

11:30 a.m.

Hi Tony; Best practice is that Customers who wish to retain Ipv6 range persistence through an ISP change (and don't want to get their own AS and assignment0 number their internal networks using ULA IPv6 address blocks. -Joel On 2 October 2013 18:27, Tony Wicks wrote:

...

Yeah that's not what I'm saying though - the point I was trying to make

...
is that you can switch on v6 now and it works great.

We're not going to solve the "we have no more v4 address space" problem by putting it off indefinitely.

(Also, "v6-only" hosts work pretty well. I've got a few - they can still access Debian repos, run torrents, get on IRC, chat with XMPP, access Google, Facebook and Youtube. Application layer proxies or NAT444 do a good job with the rest.)

On this Topic and on my list of things to do, here is a question for the other network operators on this list. As we are well aware there is no NAT with V4 (to all intents and purposes). With IPv4 it is very easy for us to assign the bulk of the customers a single out of a pool and the internal NAT IP range is the customers business. With IPv6 the service provider provides a /48 or /52 or whatever seems good for the customers internal network. Now, if this internal network is assigned out of a pool and the router disconnects and a new network is assigned does this cause a problem ? Or should we be statically assigning this ip block for the customers internal network ?

cheers

______________________________**_________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/**mailman/listinfo/nznog http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Lindsay Hill

11:38 a.m.

Some disagree with that, and say that ULA should only be used if you NEVER want to talk to any public Internet systems: http://www.howfunky.com/2013/09/ipv6-unique-local-address-or-ula-what.html On 2/10/2013, at 6:30 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...

Hi Tony;

Best practice is that Customers who wish to retain Ipv6 range persistence through an ISP change (and don't want to get their own AS and assignment0 number their internal networks using ULA IPv6 address blocks.

-Joel

On 2 October 2013 18:27, Tony Wicks wrote:

Yeah that's not what I'm saying though - the point I was trying to make is that you can switch on v6 now and it works great.

We're not going to solve the "we have no more v4 address space" problem by putting it off indefinitely.

(Also, "v6-only" hosts work pretty well. I've got a few - they can still access Debian repos, run torrents, get on IRC, chat with XMPP, access Google, Facebook and Youtube. Application layer proxies or NAT444 do a good job with the rest.)

On this Topic and on my list of things to do, here is a question for the other network operators on this list. As we are well aware there is no NAT with V4 (to all intents and purposes). With IPv4 it is very easy for us to assign the bulk of the customers a single out of a pool and the internal NAT IP range is the customers business. With IPv6 the service provider provides a /48 or /52 or whatever seems good for the customers internal network. Now, if this internal network is assigned out of a pool and the router disconnects and a new network is assigned does this cause a problem ? Or should we be statically assigning this ip block for the customers internal network ?

cheers

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Nathan Ward

11:53 a.m.

On 2/10/2013, at 6:38 PM, Lindsay Hill wrote:

...

Some disagree with that, and say that ULA should only be used if you NEVER want to talk to any public Internet systems:

http://www.howfunky.com/2013/09/ipv6-unique-local-address-or-ula-what.html

I've skim read that article, and it seems to misunderstand the application ULA was intended for, and the guy seems to talk about things in a way that indicates a poor understanding of the topic. ULA is for static (or, long term) internal addressing for access to internal systems. It has higher precedence in the default address selection tables, etc. etc. If you also want Internet access, you must *also* have globally assigned addresses, *at the same time*. These addresses may change as your Internet connection flaps around, or whatever - so you have to have the ability to do that. RA has a prefix expiry thing where you can set the lifetime of a prefix to 0 to make it expire immediately (I think, maybe 0 means indefinite and you have to set it to 1s or whatever. *handwaving about details*), and DHCPv6 has an update message if you want to roll stateful and give people new leases when your PD prefix from your ISP changes. The benefit of using ULA (and it is an optional thing), is you can use internal DNS on your AD server (or whatever), and you can do whatever other internal things you want where you need static addresses. Maybe you've got some permanent video conferencing system or something, and you don't want to bounce it or whatever. More hand waving. You still need global address(es?) for Internet access. The two are not mutually exclusive. -- Nathan Ward

Dobbins, Roland

12:08 p.m.

On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:

...

If you also want Internet access, you must *also* have globally assigned addresses, *at the same time*.

This is my understanding, as well. ULA alone won't allow for global connectivity across the public Internet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton

Tony Wicks

12:07 p.m.

On 2/10/2013 6:30 p.m., Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...

Hi Tony;

Best practice is that Customers who wish to retain Ipv6 range persistence through an ISP change (and don't want to get their own AS and assignment0 number their internal networks using ULA IPv6 address blocks.

-Joel

I'm not talking about an ISP change, I'm talking about home router reboots etc. Pool assigned addresses will give you the next available and my question is will your new IPv6 enabled smart fridge handle changing IP's ? I'm thinking every residential customer may need to be statically assigned a /64 linknet and /48 internal network. Or am I missing something obvious ? If static is the way it has to be that's fine, its just a lot more internal routes on the ISP's network than is currently the norm. Feedback appreciated.

Dobbins, Roland

12:10 p.m.

On Oct 2, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:

...

I'm thinking every residential customer may need to be statically assigned a /64 linknet and /48 internal network.

The p2p links should be /127s, not /64s. Personally, I think that governments should start issuing /48s to their citizens in place of Social Security numbers or whatever. That would be your personal IP 'cloud' address, and it could then be utilized in BYOD scenarios, et. al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton

Juha Saarinen

12:14 p.m.

On 2/10/2013, at 7:10 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:

...

Personally, I think that governments should start issuing /48s to their citizens in place of Social Security numbers or whatever. That would be your personal IP 'cloud' address, and it could then be utilized in BYOD scenarios, et. al.

Not without much stronger privacy laws, and protection for providers accordingly. -- Juha Saarinen twitter: juhasaarinen

Dobbins, Roland

12:18 p.m.

On Oct 2, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Juha Saarinen wrote:

...

Not without much stronger privacy laws, and protection for providers accordingly.

How about *alongside* SSNs (or whatever national ID numbering scheme is used)? By their nature, pubicly-routable IP addresses don't lend themselves to privacy; although in reality it's easy enough to obtain SSI-type information, you're 100% correct that their should at least be a notion of privacy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton

Michael Fincham

10:53 a.m.

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:10:20 +1300, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of discussion on relevant APNIC lists.

Should it be allowed? Should it be disallowed? It it were disallowed would that actually stop it?

I'm generally of the view that fiddling with IPv4 things at this point will just slow IPv6 adoption - that being the actual solution to the problem. I don't think you'll reasonably stop people ignoring RIR policies and doing whatever BGP and other operators will let them get away with. The time spent discussing policy would likely be better spent working out how to firmly encourage v6 deployment :) -- Michael

Dobbins, Roland

11:20 a.m.

On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

Don't most forms of transit (consumer broadband, IDC hosting, CPE-terminated commercial, et. al.) implicitly charge for 'leasing' routable IP space for customers who don't have PI space? Consumer broadband providers generally charge more for fixed addresses than dynamically-assigned ones. Granted, most of these services are billed monthly, and there's a bandwidth component to the billing for many of them, as well - but it can be argued that dividing a monthly bill for one of these services into hours yields an applicable result . . . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton

Geraint Jones

11:29 a.m.

All of the colo's I use globally offer addressing at around ~$1 per IP per month, no bandwidth or power or anything attached. Sp based on that you can lease today for (US)$0.0013 per hour. On 2/10/13 6:20 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:

...

On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...
I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

Don't most forms of transit (consumer broadband, IDC hosting, CPE-terminated commercial, et. al.) implicitly charge for 'leasing' routable IP space for customers who don't have PI space? Consumer broadband providers generally charge more for fixed addresses than dynamically-assigned ones.

Granted, most of these services are billed monthly, and there's a bandwidth component to the billing for many of them, as well - but it can be argued that dividing a monthly bill for one of these services into hours yields an applicable result . . .

----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com

Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

-- John Milton

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

jamie baddeley

1:02 p.m.

my first reaction on reading this is not so much thinking about the value of a potentially movable (by the hour) /24 but the cost of the resultant instability on BGP and the global routing table. If this is being discussed at RIR level then I'm assuming the /24 in question could shift between AsiaPac economies. Maybe I've missed something. Has there been a development where /24's can pulled out of 103/8 and then moved willy nilly (technical term du jour) by the hour from AS to AS and yet the GRT remains reasonably stable? Coz it seems to me that any solution to deal with that involves solutions within a 'host' AS, and you can't really hope to value that at RIR level. Can you? Having said that if there has been a development I've missed then I'm all ears because I've long been interested in the concept of spot market transit. If a /24 is movable by the hour, then that's essentially what you have. Jamie On 2/10/2013, at 4:10 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

Hi All,

The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would be.

I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of discussion on relevant APNIC lists.

Should it be allowed? Should it be disallowed? It it were disallowed would that actually stop it? What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for eg Should someone be able to be allocated addresses under a needs based policy just so they can make money leasing them? Does leasing addresses mean that you no longer need them? Should you be required to return the ?

These and many more issues are questions I'd like you all to give me feed back on.

This topic will come up in APRICOT 2014 in Thailand. I'd like to know a lot more about what you all think about it before I take the mic.

Regards

Dean

-- -- Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz

To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Phil Regnauld

2:22 p.m.

jamie baddeley (jamie.baddeley) writes:

...

Maybe I've missed something. Has there been a development where /24's can pulled out of 103/8 and then moved willy nilly (technical term du jour) by the hour from AS to AS and yet the GRT remains reasonably stable?

Is there anything to prevent it from happening ?

...

Having said that if there has been a development I've missed then I'm all ears because I've long been interested in the concept of spot market transit. If a /24 is movable by the hour, then that's essentially what you have.

If it's a reputable hotel^H^H^provider, you call it a "day rate". By the hour is frowned upon. :)

Jamie Baddeley

3:02 p.m.

On 2 October 2013 21:22, Phil Regnauld wrote:

...

jamie baddeley (jamie.baddeley) writes:

...
Maybe I've missed something. Has there been a development where /24's

can pulled out of 103/8 and then moved willy nilly (technical term du jour) by the hour from AS to AS and yet the GRT remains reasonably stable?

Is there anything to prevent it from happening ?

Technically? No. But your second question relates to my first answer. It would/could be frowned upon. "Considered Harmful" was a phrase some will be familiar with. So given the subject may be discussed at Apricot in Thailand a conclusion could be 'that's a really really bad idea, so don't do it' because it would destablise the global network (if we still care about that). Or, 'by all means do it', but other operators may end up refusing accepting updates from 103/8 because it causes grief for outer regions of the net who can't deal with "rapid" changes, thereby rendering value discussions of movable /24's in that /8 as $0. Assuming we want outer regions to be connected with relative stability. Then again, some may not - so there would be residual value in the /24. Question is I guess how many operators value eeking the most out of IPv4 versus those that say screw it, move to v6 you muppets! And then again, what is the lowest common denominator we care about these days in terms of AS border routers and their ability to cope with change in the GRT? Once upon a time in the late 20th century we used to care about the size of the overall table because of effing memory limits in Ciscos. We've well and truly got past that. But what is the technical hoop that these days we consider most AS border routers need to jump over before the Net starts falling to pieces? If update frequency is not a factor, then surely hourly changes is OK? But..Tracking them down so we have some semblance of abuse resolution in place? (mm, hire a /24 for an hour to send DoS attacks and then somehow finess that release of the /24 over to a CERT, hmm, that would be um, evil. Or fun. Depending on your perspective..). So, yeah, AUP implications/grief for operators who take (or have taken) a /24 for an hour.

...

...
Having said that if there has been a development I've missed then I'm all ears because I've long been interested in the concept of spot market transit. If a /24 is movable by the hour, then that's essentially what you have.

If it's a reputable hotel^H^H^provider, you call it a "day rate". By the hour is frowned upon. :)

Heh. Never done that - how's that work? :-) jamie

neals5

4:23 p.m.

---- On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 21:22:51 +1300 Phil Regnauld <regnauld(a)nsrc.org> wrote ---- jamie baddeley (jamie.baddeley) writes: > > Maybe I've missed something. Has there been a development where /24's can pulled out of 103/8 and then moved willy nilly (technical term du jour) by the hour from AS to AS and yet the GRT remains reasonably stable? Is there anything to prevent it from happening ? There are at least two reasons to be cautious about whether it will work reliably. The first, to which Jamie alludes, is that the ability of the global Internet routing system to cope with an increased volume of updates as blocks of IP space move around is limited. The second is the old-fashioned fact that router memory is cheaper than it used to be, but it's not free. You can only deaggregate the IPv4 routing table so far before sheer routing table size comes back as an issue. It may be possible for carriers to deal to both of these by just not accepting long prefixes for some value of long. That would leave whoever's leasing out the space to provide routing for it, which is easy, and transit, which may not be. Or would leave users of leased small blocks of space with patchy reachability. This is not an argument for an RIR necessarily to do anything about this. It is a reason not to assume that it's going to solve problems for large numbers of small users. For small numbers of large users it may work just fine, but they're probably the people who need this least. - Donald Neal

Dean Pemberton

4:03 p.m.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:02 PM, jamie baddeley wrote:

...

my first reaction on reading this is not so much thinking about the value of a potentially movable (by the hour) /24 but the cost of the resultant instability on BGP and the global routing table.

True. Even if we're talking by the day or month (which is probably a more realistic preposition to be honest) it's going to mean rethinking a lot of the concepts we consider axiomatic with regard to address ranges. IP Geo-location for eg goes right out the window. One of the services being offered by IP Brokers is to ensure that if you buy addresses from a North American seller, that the usual geo-location providers are made aware that they are now in use in NZ. I was quick to ask if you could pay them extra to NOT make them aware =). RPKI (origin validation) and in tern BGPSEC become a bit more difficult (although not impossible) under a vibrant leasing market.

...

If this is being discussed at RIR level then I'm assuming the /24 in question could shift between AsiaPac economies.

Because these are contracts between a lessor and a lesse (and not the RIR) I don't believe there is a requirement for them to be in the same region. I could for example lease IP addresses from the Democratic Republic of Congo and route them in New Zealand. Similarly, I could offer a lease to a Nigerian prince for some New Zealand IPs which he could route out of his palace in Nigeria for a few days. Just to send a few emails you understand =) Then I could get them back and lease them to another nice man from Uzbekistan. Something about robots... sounded like starwars or something.

...

Maybe I've missed something. Has there been a development where /24's can pulled out of 103/8 and then moved willy nilly (technical term du jour) by the hour from AS to AS and yet the GRT remains reasonably stable?

First off It's not anything specific to 103/8. Second, there had never really been anything to require a certain AS originate a given prefix. Now there is RPKI (origin verification) but anyone leasing their addresses out wouldn't be making cryptographically secure statements that they could only originate from one AS. The stability of the GRT would depend on how often these move about. I don't think it's a huge issue. Parts of the GRT come and go pretty regularly as it is. I think the larger problem is being able to keep track of who to complain to if one of these addresses starts sending you spam.

...

Coz it seems to me that any solution to deal with that involves solutions within a 'host' AS, and you can't really hope to value that at RIR level. Can you?

You could certainly lease addresses to other AS numbers.

...

Having said that if there has been a development I've missed then I'm all ears because I've long been interested in the concept of spot market transit. If a /24 is movable by the hour, then that's essentially what you have.

As scarcity of IPv4 addresses gets more and more, with people looking to feed hungry CGNAT boxes, I can't imagine that a provider wouldn't look at how much addresses would cost just during busy times. Or a pair of providers on opposite sides of the world looking to do a 'deal' Thoughts? Deam

Dobbins, Roland

4:06 p.m.

On Oct 2, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

IP Geo-location for eg goes right out the window.

It's always been a bogus concept - anything which hastens its deprecation is welcome, IMHO. ;> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton

Phil Regnauld

4:14 p.m.

Dean Pemberton (dean) writes:

...

I could for example lease IP addresses from the Democratic Republic of Congo and route them in New Zealand.

With the size of the v4 pool of addresses still available in the afrinic region, I'd be curious to see how many shell companies have already been set up in that part of the world for precisely this purpose.

...

As scarcity of IPv4 addresses gets more and more, with people looking to feed hungry CGNAT boxes, I can't imagine that a provider wouldn't look at how much addresses would cost just during busy times. Or a pair of providers on opposite sides of the world looking to do a 'deal'

Thoughts?

I'm already picturing rolling 8 hour periods of leasing so that your leased block gets used in three different time zones while users are awake...

Leo Vegoda

7:24 p.m.

Phil Regnauld wrote: [...]

...

I'm already picturing rolling 8 hour periods of leasing so that your leased block gets used in three different time zones while users are awake...

When Marla and I wrote RFC 6319 we noted that leases would only be attractive if the lease period was attractive to both parties. I remember us thinking of lessees wanting multiple years and lessors wanting shorter periods. I don't think we had considered addresses changing hands three times a day. I suppose leases lasting a few weeks or months might have value for temporary events. The RIPE community recently agreed a policy to extend the period of time for temporary assignments (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09) and I imagine that some people might want to lease addresses instead of getting them direct from an RIR, particularly if their plans extend beyond the two-month window on offer. Leo

Sam Russell

1:08 p.m.

People will do it if it makes sense. Multicast was meant to solve the content distribution problem, but the people with money decided to put lots of servers everywhere and let them be clever instead of routers. If leasing IP space makes it easier to get to the whole internet than hoping everyone moves to the new protocol, then why waste time on the new protocol? As Jon mentioned, we already lease IP addresses, we just haven't taken it to the point where we route it to wherever we want. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Dean Pemberton wrote:

...

Hi All,

The subject line is a question I posed to Geoff Huston years ago in response to us both musing what the price to purchase address space would be.

I suggested that if it really got that bad, people would be asking about leasing by the hour rather than buying outright.

That time looks to be upon us. While not explicitly allowed, nor disallowed by APNIC policy, IP address leasing is becoming a hot topic of discussion on relevant APNIC lists.

Should it be allowed? Should it be disallowed? It it were disallowed would that actually stop it? What mechanisms need to be in place to keep it sane? A 'whowas' server for eg Should someone be able to be allocated addresses under a needs based policy just so they can make money leasing them? Does leasing addresses mean that you no longer need them? Should you be required to return the ?

These and many more issues are questions I'd like you all to give me feed back on.

This topic will come up in APRICOT 2014 in Thailand. I'd like to know a lot more about what you all think about it before I take the mic.

Regards

Dean

-- -- Dean Pemberton

Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) dean(a)internetnz.net.nz

To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

4099

Age (days ago)

4100

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

41 comments

20 participants

participants (20)

bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com
Dean Pemberton
Dobbins, Roland
Geraint Jones
jamie baddeley
Jamie Baddeley
Jed Laundry
Joel Wirāmu Pauling
Jonathan Brewer
Juha Saarinen
Leo Vegoda
Lindsay Hill
Michael Fincham
Nathan Ward
neals5
Peter Mott
Phil Regnauld
Richard Hector
Sam Russell
Tony Wicks