We never asked for a ticket. All of you were telling me that if I submitted a ticket that the result might be a claw back. Our Company could not afford that risk.
Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" <[email protected]> To: "Paul E McNary" <[email protected]> Cc: "arin-ppml" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 1:32:52 PM Subject: {Spam?} Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6 Paul - ARIN is not infallible. Please reply with the ticket number and we’ll review it to see if everything was handled properly. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers > On 15 Sep 2021, at 11:24 AM, arin-ppml <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can I at least get my 1 Legacy /24 that my dear colleague/friend gave me > transferred to me with minimal documentation? > See you proved my point nobody works together inside the beltway. > Especially for some of us pioneers. > :-( > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: "Paul E McNary" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]>, "arin-ppml" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:01:35 AM > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment > Requirements for IPv6 > > The only thing that ARIN can really do in your business plan is provide > numbering resources. The problems with sites, bandwidth, and other > providers have little to do with ARIN. However, other than the dedicated > pools for IX's and IPv6, the pot is nearly dry so this is not going to > help with your needs. It is going to get expensive to get IPv4 space. The > free pool ran out in February, 2011 and it is going to keep getting worse. > Nothing that ARIN can do can produce more numbers from thin air. > > I also happen to use a WISP for network connectivity. They have been in > business for about 15 years, so they already had enough IPv4 space to > operate their small customers. Prior to the free pool exhaust, they would > send their commercial customers to ARIN for space. Now there is a limit > of 1 IPv4 per circuit. If you need more, they will be glad to route, but > you have to bring your own IPv4. > > It sounds like your WISP business is more recent. Without enough IPv4, > you have clearly discovered that it is very hard to operate. I am > guessing that in another 5 years or so, it might be possible to operate a > good IPv6 service, with a CGnat for the then limited amount of IPv4 sites. > > To solve the medical providers access properly, you need to try to get the > hospital and pharmacies and others that they need to communicate with onto > IPv6. Some of this has already been happening indirectly, as those > institutions choose to move to the cloud. Most cloud providers are IPv6 > compatible. > > Centurylink and Windstream here offer dual stack over their circuits. > There must be some kind of technical limitation at your end, maybe > involving their upstream to the backbones. Being in the 3rd largest > state, we do not have as much issue, as competition has more or less > forced all Internet Exchanges to adopt dual stack. > > Are you licensed, or are your radios Part 15? My WISP is licensed, and > that makes a BIG difference. Unlicensed works when there are not others, > but as you have discovered it does not protect you from interference. > Even if you move to another tower that you own, there is no assurance that > the interference will stop, especially if you operate point to multipoint > like most WISPS. I would suggest that you instead try to move at least > some of your links to licensed, which may allow you to stay put. Start > with the ones that have the most interference problems. If possible, > unloading backhaul from microwave to fiber can also help with reliability. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML wrote: > >> Owen you did not even comprehend what I said. >> That's the whole problem >> You and ARIN never solved or advised me on I what I needed to do just a lot >> of side stepping like you just twisted completely incorrectly. >> I guess Midwest English is too different than your and Washington DC's >> English. >> Go back and translate to Midwest English. >> Even Centurylink doesn't provide local DSL IPv6. >> Between Centurylink and WindStream they have been our best sales people >> until the COOP's started overbuilding. >> The 2 of them cover 90% of our coverage area and rural DSL from both of them >> do not offer IPv6 >> We offer more than the big companies you so talk about. >> Some commercial fiber customers can get either IPv6 or IPv4 but not dual >> stack out here in the sticks. >> Our Fiber supplier network was built out for hospitals and schools. Big >> money contract. >> The last independent doctor had us switch our from the hospital's DSL to our >> Wireless because Centurylink could take days >> to get his connection to the hospital network. Now all the Doctor's are >> hospital slaves. They are always in different hospital >> clinics many miles apart and sometime 2 clinics a day. >> Where the Independent Doctor, I was on his cell phone and he had my personal >> cell phone. >> If he had a problem we would usually be there in less than an hour. >> As fast as I could get there or a tech. >> Unfortunately he passed away. >> >> At one time last year all the pharmacies and business were out of Internet >> for 3 days. >> Everything has to be connected to the Internet of they can't file any >> prescriptions even in an emergency. >> Banks couldn't process deposit or automated payments. Many people had late >> charges on their automatic payments. >> All anybody said, sorry, it wasn't our fault we couldn't deliver your >> automatic payments and no we will not cover the late fees. >> Also people trying to pay the banks were hit with bank late fees and >> overdraft fees they would not back out. >> So tell me again how you are helping rural area except to give resources to >> the big players whose local techs could be a 100 miles away. >> And CenturyLink customer service is in Louisiana and says we can have >> someone there in 2 weeks. >> The Internet has gotten so bad in the last 10 years and ARIN is a part of >> the problem. >> Owen you blame slow adopters. We started trying way before Centirylink and >> Windstream. >> Owen you quick twistwd and went sideway when I said ARIN cost us $750,000. >> The volunteers and the staff always divert the blame. >> Everyone is to blame. And nobody is responsible. >> CenturyLink 10 years ago had 10-20 tech and to service crews for mainline >> and at least 6 CO techs in our town. >> We also had a local service office. >> Techs made it to business accounts in less than an hour. >> Personal accounts were no later than next day. >> Now the same number of people are involved but for the entire Sate of >> Missouri. >> I talked to Windstream's tech manager I knew since acquired many of the >> local phone mutual. >> His coverage area is the the stae of Missouri. >> Same as Windstrem. His tech territory even extends into neighboring states >> now. >> We are a golden opportunity if ARIN hadn't slow tracked us small guys. >> Now the electric coop's get all the government money and don't even have to >> go through the bidding process. >> They use rural REC funding to created subsidies that also get heavy >> discounted interest rates. >> Recent the University of Missouri S&T announced a $300,000 project with >> government money. >> We found out they were going on the same grain elevator leg we have been on >> for almost 20 years. >> We called the owner and he said that they agreed to work work with. >> They said no you aren't being kicked off. >> The location is also a small town but it is a backhaul hub to 25% of our >> network. >> The coop's company never called us for coordination like they promised. >> We read on face book. They were promising to serve 20 to 30 customers for >> free for 6 months. >> We serve 50 close to town and have a further reach with many micropops and >> backhaul to major towers maybe to 250 of our subscribers. >> We are in the process of completing a $10,000 dollar fork lift to that tower. >> There is no 5 Gig available. We have the entire spectrum going though there. >> And they are going to do LTE 5 Gig which wipes out our spectrum. >> They are using 80 mhz channels to subscribers and only promising 10 meg to >> the subscribing. >> We have close to 750 Mhz going through there and can supplu up to 100 meg >> plans and deliver. >> After $300,000 where the our entire cost to upgrade is somewhat less than >> $20,000. To deliver better bandwidth and faster service, >> the COOP will take over after being paid to do the install foe no charge. >> They said revolutionary. >> Overbuilt by COOP. The grain leg owner says we are not being put off. >> The COOP just ignored his conditions to work with us. >> So now we have to build a $15,000 tower near there to get out of the COOP's >> interference to our backhauls tp save 200 subscribers. >> The government throw $300,000 dollars that we already deliver for a fraction. >> You inside the Beltway people can even see or are paid to not see it that >> the locals that took the risk 20 years ago on rural, just get pushed off the >> map by the inside the beltway and yes that includes ARIN dien't it. >> Without the big players fees you can't exist. No problem if it takes out >> many of us that risked everything to help the community. >> We still have $20 plans for rural poor people. >> Every plan the COOP has start usually at $100 but they will consider $50 >> plans in certain situations. >> Now Nathan at Wisper is over building at least 4 other WISPA members. Again >> a big player and has great conflicting interests in his WISPA positions. >> He has some single track acquisitions across our territory. The WISPA member >> Nathan has half of his territory covered. >> And the WISPA member has fillings that he covers them. They still let him >> bid on and acquire subsidies to build out. >> The COOP's don't even care if they overbuild Centurylink and Windstream. >> They just build over and hide under REA/REC or Touchstone Energy these days. >> The Touchstone Energy funding is even better than the bidding process and >> they have no rules the have to follow. >> Because they are inside the Beltway. They can also get government IP >> resources for nothing. >> So twist this all around and be inside the beltway Teflon. >> Oh Teflon that would kill them now. What is the new non-stick that everyone >> inside the Beltway uses. >> Not our problem, not our problem, continuous circle jerk. >> John will probably kick me off for improper comment. >> More non-stick. >> How much funding does ARIN get from the government, the big players vs. the >> SMB's? >> That should be something ARIN should provide to members. Percentage and >> Dollars by fee size classes... Then the picture becomes clear how the policy >> is developed by fee size classes. >> And the relevant discounts in the fee structure. >> Us small fee members don't pay you salary John. Some County's annual budget >> around here is less than your salary. >> I know because I was a IT Consultant to them for 28 years until I >> semi-retired. >> They wanted me to stay but they had 911 government grants that would pay for >> the assessor's office, the collector's office, the county clerk's office and >> the treasurer's office. >> Most of the office holder's were getting ready to retire or move on to >> better paying jobs, I said you are stupid not to do it. >> They were promised 6 month changeover. I still had to maintain my system as >> primary for 2 years. >> The assessor who is a young BSRN was making twice much as a PRN Nurse >> outside of Courthouse. >> She now is the County Health Department Manager and a regional subsided >> healthcare clinic provider. >> She had a baby when she was appointed Assessor when the original assessor I >> had worked for 18 years. >> I worked for this Assessor for 10 years. >> However the downside was the annual maintenance fees went from $12,000 to >> $50,000. Upfront was almost nothing. >> Again the big boys games.The last collector is still in office and we talk >> quit often and talks about how bad the system is compared to what I did. >> Took almost almost all the automation between office away and files have to >> be manually transferred between office >> quadrupling employee labor required. They had to pay massive overtime for >> the 2 years they still had to use my system and for 4 years getting the new >> system to work. >> New and improved sort of like what you are asking for with the non existent >> support of IPv6. >> Now they are trapped by vendor lockout even though the have to bid it out. >> The specs are written so that only the one vendor can bid. >> That's all we see from inside the beltway. >> Another example our newly elected state representative just installed our >> internet service to his rural remote farm. >> Even though he has to use our service he is voting to give all the big >> player's state broadband grants. >> The big boys will still not do last mile to his farm when they put us out of >> business. >> He will have voted against his best interests to get campaign funding. >> Missouri does not pay representatives and senator much. >> To get elected you have to have about 20 times what their pay is. >> We installed last mile to about 10 customers near him. >> >> Are subscribers make Missouri's minimum wage. We have let some subscribers >> slide but we don't make that much in profit. >> And COVID has made trying to get a rural work from home into a valley that >> even the phone don't have o provide last mile. >> Who's going to serve them >> >> Owen you teflon-ed any responsibility because you are a volunteer. (no >> responsibility) >> New and improved >> Simple and cheap >> The facts are not on your side. >> >> Thank for all your help ARIN (Much sarcasm if you couldn;t tell) >> >> Paul McNary >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]> >> To: "Paul E McNary" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Dan Oachs" <[email protected]>, "arin-ppml" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:34:37 PM >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment >> Requirements for IPv6 >> >> I understand your frustration. In part, every WISPA event the answers about >> policy changed because ARIN policy is >> not a static immutable thing. It’s constantly evolving in response to >> community input into the policy development >> process and that was a time of a lot of policy proposals coming through the >> AC. >> >> Sounds like most of your problems relate to vendors failing to provide good >> IPv6 support. I empathize. I’ve been doing >> pretty much everything I can think of to achieve that for many years now. >> >> As to your IPv4 situation, that’s a pretty classic example of why I say that >> the people refusing to deploy good IPv6 >> capabilities in their {product, content, network} are causing pain for the >> rest of us. >> >> I don’t think I ever claimed ARIN helped you or even had a good solution for >> you. I’m not sure how you came to the >> conclusion that it was ARIN’s or my duty to conjure additional IPv4 >> resources from thin air after runout or how the >> failure of others to deploy IPv6 was our fault, but you’re entitled to your >> opinion. >> >> My role at ARIN was as a volunteer trying to help the community develop >> policies that met the needs of the >> community in a fair and equitable manner. I resigned from that role in June >> and now my relationship to ARIN >> is that of victim^wcustomer too. >> >> Owen >> >> >>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 15:41 , Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yes Owen you have valid points. >>> We are WISP in rural area. >>> Our problem was we were using /24 and /22 we had with the datacenter for >>> years. >>> We also had /24 with low cost with that data center. >>> We had another provider that could provide us bandwidth through the other >>> Datacenter in the same building. >>> We thought we had everything OK. >>> Then the DataCenter moved out and decided to no longer to offer colo and >>> cancelled our long term contracts. >>> We were microwaving 60 mile from the top of this building. >>> Then are Microwave links got too much interference. >>> Licensed links were not in the budget. >>> Finally we found a company that had a fiber run on the opposite side of our >>> network area from were our homing was. >>> So by the the time we got an ASN for multi-homing and jumping through the >>> hoops that ARIN put in the way. >>> Our fiber provider gave us a /28 >>> I got a /24 from a long term college/dear friend. >>> I talked to you Owen at WISPA events. >>> Someone on here I also talked to. >>> I also talked to ARIN staff at WISPA. >>> The young lady that was pregnant at the time was ARIN staff. >>> But by the time we got our ASN. No IPv4 remained. >>> So we did get IPv6 directly from ARIN. >>> However our fiber provider did not have IPv6 available. >>> When they finally did it couldn't be dual stack. >>> At the time the IPv6 routing was split to the major players and still is. >>> We had to forklift upgrade our entire network to use IPv6. >>> Cheap Huh! >>> The only place our network from our fiber provide and us crossed paths was >>> near a water tower in a town of 90 people. >>> So all our backhauls had to be replaced. >>> Everything to our towers had to be completely engineered. >>> We finally got 1 /24 from ARIN under the IPv6 conversion rules. >>> Everthing had to be Double NATTED to get to these rural low density >>> customers. >>> At one WISPA event John and I had a heated argument and he blew me off >>> without any answers. >>> Owen you and John speak a version of English we don't speak here. Very >>> circular and if this, not that but if this maybe that. >>> I could never get clear answers. >>> We still can't get dual stack on our fiber provider at this location. >>> Oh the problems with ROKU, Smart TV's, Video surveillance. >>> The video surveillance people can get around here in IPv4 only and they >>> what a static or a port forward at our headend fiber. >>> $1000's of dollars in "free" service calls because all these device sellers >>> blamed us for not giving them a static IPv4 or a port forward to the >>> customer. >>> We do not have enough IPv4 to do this. >>> Simple and free. No way in hell. >>> And looking through ARIN justification which I reached out for help and >>> ARIN said we had to this that and the other that did not work with our WISP >>> model. >>> So the clock ran out to get direct assignments and /24's were out of site >>> to buy. Or I guess acquire (because we can't own). >>> So ARIN helping gets resources to rural low density areas is a joke for >>> SMB's like us. >>> >>> So ARIN told me that if I had acquired legacy resources, I would have to >>> have the state's incorporation papers that I acquired. >>> Many of the legacy resource holders were are small consultants who were >>> sole proprietors in the 90's and never changed. >>> Or they moved and let their corporations go stale and retired to others >>> states. >>> On a handshake deal the resources changed hands. All I got from Owen and >>> ARIN staff was that these resources could be clawed back. >>> The answer I got from Owen and ARIN staff was that ARIN might claw these >>> legacy resources back in these cases. >>> Some of these legacy resource holder had given their legacy resources to >>> other people, have retired and died. >>> Many sole proprietors of the pre ARIN period and the ARIN policies don't >>> address this situation except that ARIN can claw back these resources. >>> And every WISPA event Owen and the ARIN staff would change the answers >>> about policy. >>> After I was able to get these list, I saw why. Always arguing. >>> One time the policy was we were going to have to transfer every single IP >>> that a ISP subscriber had in the registration system. >>> >>> So tell me how ARIN has helped our company out so much again. >>> Heck many of our low income customers we had to switch all their equipment >>> that couldn't do IPv6 with our routers. >>> Cheap huh! >>> >>> Then the equipment could do IPv6. Heck I have a fairly new tv that can not >>> do IPv6. >>> My current DISH Hopper equipment can't do it without dual stack they told >>> use. >>> I have have IPv6 available at my house but not dual stack. >>> And from this conversation I see that even dual stack probably isn't >>> workable yet. >>> We had 1 fiber provide that was available in our area. >>> Now the Local COOP's are subsidizing their sub companies who can get all >>> the grant money we can't and are overbuilding use. >>> The offered to let use use their fiber for $10000 a month for 1 gig fiber >>> hand off. >>> Then when they started overbuilding that offer basically went away. >>> We do last mile where no one will go and the cream of small towns has been >>> taken away. >>> So all this arguing I have been involved with since we had to get an ASN, >>> has been been very enlightening about ARIN's bureaucratic shit to jump >>> through. >>> >>> That's how ARIN has helped our company. >>> Cheap and inexpensive hell no. >>> >>> So please explain >>> >>> Paul McNary >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Dan Oachs" <[email protected]> >>> To: "arin-ppml" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:19:40 PM >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment >>> Requirements for IPv6 >>> >>> I agree with everything Owen and Albert have been saying in these >>> latest threads. Keep up the good fight. >>> >>> I've been running a dual stacked network for a college for over 10 >>> years now and the rest of the world just needs to hurry up already. >>> Heck, my home ISP (Mediacom) has given me IPv6 addresses for around 4 >>> years too. You can't expect to keep running the same stuff for >>> decades without a firmware/hardware upgrade. The "internet" is no >>> different. Time to apply the upgrade, reboot, and more on. :) >>> >>> --Dan >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:47 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The point is that at this time, we should not have to justify nat in >>>>> order to permit its standardization. Standardize it and let users figure >>>>> it out. >>>> >>>> Why? It’s a local application only technology not useful on the broader >>>> internet, so why bother to standardize it? Why waste time of the standards >>>> bodies? >>>> >>>>>> Nat also assumes that noone wants to run their own internet services. >>>>>> While many things like cameras use a remote server to bypass the NAT >>>>>> leading to vendor tiein, things are clearly cleaner if each workstation >>>>>> or other device like a camera can run its own publically accessable >>>>>> services. Note that this does not mean that firewalls cannot be in place >>>>>> to block things that are not intended to be world readable. NAT is NOT a >>>>>> substitute for a firewall. >>>>> >>>>> It is in IPv4. And lets not encourage camera server and devices to be >>>>> globally accessible, we already know that is a disaster. >>>> >>>> Actually, I’d suggest the following: >>>> 1. NAT Is NOT a substitution for a firewall. It might be >>>> integral in the firewall in IPv4, but that’s not the same thing. >>>> 2. Are cameras on the public internet a disaster because it was >>>> allowed, or are they a disaster because MFRs were >>>> able to assume that NAT would protect them from bad >>>> engineering and somehow everyone bought into the idea >>>> that such an assumption and bad engineering was acceptable? >>>> 3. I’d argue that switching the expectation from “Everything is >>>> behind NAT, so it’s OK to be security-careless” to >>>> “Everything is publicly addressable and might be reachable, >>>> therefore security is important” would be very >>>> good for the industry as a whole, not to mention end users. >>>> Yes, there will be some pain points as this >>>> transition occurs, but the end result is highly desirable. >>>> >>>>>> If you want NAT on the networks you manage, go for it. All the tech >>>>>> bits to make NAT work in IPv6 are there. Just do not expect the rest of >>>>>> us that would like to get back to the end-to-end model to support your >>>>>> choice, and I am sure some of your users will wish you did not make that >>>>>> choice, because of things they want that may not work in this enviroment. >>>>> >>>>> I expect exactly that. I expect you to support peoples ability to make >>>>> this choice, since the current alternative is >>>> >>>> So you expect everyone else to put in effort to support your choice of >>>> technology because you don’t like our choice… Sounds a lot like your >>>> reasons earlier claiming we shouldn’t expect v6 to be widely deployed any >>>> time soon. >>>> >>>> You’ve successfully argued against yourself here. The advantage goes to v6 >>>> without NAT because it is further along in deployment than any effort to >>>> standardize NATv6 (fortunately). >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
