Subject: Re: accusations of cluelessness

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:04:24 -0400 (EDT)

> If you can convince the RIRs that it's feasible to relax the
> allocation criteria for IPv4 blocks,

Keith

Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing?

The basic rule is now - if you (the requester) can show you are going to 
use the space you can get it.

Relaxing from that would seem to indicate that the RIR should provide
more space than the requester thinks they can use.

That does not seem like a real good idea.

Scott

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:48:23 -0400 (EDT)

> use the space you can get it.

If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.

> That does not seem like a real good idea.

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:08:29 -0400

> If you have $2500 to ante up for the allocation.

If the $2,500 is a stumbling block, you're probably WAY undercapitalized for
the project in the first place....

Why do you need your own allocation?  Either because you're getting pretty
big, or you want to multihome a /26 or some such tiny allocation.

Let's say you're getting big enough to want your own /19 - even if you're in a /
20 and growing, that's still 4,000 machines (either your own or customers)..
plus admin salaries, rent, etc, you're a fairly good sized business.  That $2500
shouldn't be a breaking cost - if it is, you're close to failing already and need to be
thinking about consolidating, not expanding...

If you're tiny and trying to multihome, and can't afford $2500, you're probably
not going to be able to afford the router and 2 or more leased lines, and the
expertise to do it - you probably should be looking at a colo instead.

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:56:22 -0400 (EDT)

Vladis,

> the project in the first place....

A situation I'm used to.

> big, or you want to multihome a /26 or some such tiny allocation.

Or you are building new infrastructure.

> thinking about consolidating, not expanding...

Actually just starting to do thing this way.  In the past I have found it
expedient to simply bypass any security measures and connect a machine
wherever necessary.  And the point is, who decided that IP addresses are a
commodity item anyway?

> expertise to do it - you probably should be looking at a colo instead.

No need to multihome.  In fact, for this PARTICULAR application, I can
probably use a free v6 /24 from a tunnel broker routed over a private
address network, although the users will probably notice the packet
latency from their terminal to the tunnel broker, and its a nasty kludge.

Router?  I can build that if necessary.

Colo?  Why when I have access to a Tier 1 NOC with backbone running
through it, though that is 600 miles away.

Scott

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:25:28 -0400

> Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing?

since I view this as a hypothetical situation anyway (and one that isn't
likely to happen in the real world) I don't think it's necessary to pin down
exactly how they'd go about relaxing the criteria - only to realize that it is
possible to relax those criteria.they could ask for less money, or less
supporting evidence, or they could give out bigger blocks.  whatever.  

note that I didn't say it was a good idea to do this.  but if, as some people
assert, the v4 address shortage is a myth - then I'd be happy to try to work
on getting people to move away from NAT.  personally I still believe there's
some substance to the address shortage.  but I'd love to find out that this
isn't the case.

---

From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:08:53 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Keith Moore
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:25 AM
> To: Scott Bradner
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: accusations of cluelessness
> 
> 
> possible to relax those criteria

There are currently several discussions in the ARIN region regarding
IPv4 allocations both in regard to minimum size and criteria.
Discussions about IPv4 policy and IPv6 policy are of a contiuous nature
in all of the RIRs reflecting changes in the operational community.

Ray

---

From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:52:00 -0400

For those who wish to become involved in the policy process or view the
archives:

	http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html

	http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html

	http://lacnic.net/en/discussion_boards.html

	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html

Ray

> Behalf Of Ray Plzak
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: accusations of cluelessness
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:25:28 -0400