From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Oct 1 09:20:07 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: A copy of a message sent to the ARIN public policy mailing list on September 30, 2002, is provided at the bottom of this message. The author intended this message to become a new policy proposal. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting. This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2002-9: To Allow Micro-Assignments for End-user Organizations Specific language to be adopted: Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language except to change in third paragraph change /20 to /24: The new paragraph will read: The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue: I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred employees. I left the company last year and started a new company. My old company still has the class C that I registered. (/24) My new company is growing but does not support the use of a /20 address space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now. We should have a policy in place that supports small businesses and does not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large ISP's charge for each IP used. Proposed Timetable for Implementation: To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation. ## END ## From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Tue Oct 1 11:49:37 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:49:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A98FB@ONTARIO> on 9/26/2002 Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) wrote: >Again this entire reasoning doesn't have much weight because anyone in >the general public that has concern about ARIN policies can be involved >in shaping them. I also believe that if ARIN did start to assign blocks >longer then a /20 you would find that there are many ISPs that would >filter them out. This is not something that can be voted on or discussed. >It is up to the individual organizations on how they set up there filters. >I'm not sure how it would help companies to get smaller blocks that >probably are not going to be routable anyway. I know routing is not an >ARIN concern but I think if we are going to change an existing guideline >we should take it in consideration. Since I am a member of the general public, I propose the following real life scenario... CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private IP addresses as described in RFC1918. Both Companies are connected independently to the internet via their ISP of choice. Both companies wish to connect to each other directly (not through the internet). Since there is a conflict in IP addresses, NAT is necessary. CompanyA needs about 100 distinct IP addresses (to start anyway). To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no way to get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy these requirements. As for routablility, neither company needs or wants these addresses routed. How many other currently silent small businesses out there have a similar situation? How many of them know about ARIN, this mailing list, etc... IOW, how would they know when, how and where to discuss or vote? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cottay at qconline.com Tue Oct 1 12:07:56 2002 From: cottay at qconline.com (George Cottay) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:07:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c26964$b575d680$020d010a@cottay> Based on my limited knowledge and experience, Policy Proposal 2002-9 seems to address a potentially real problem in a perhaps less-than-efficient way. 2002-9 seems to address the problems of at least one company being asked to pay what at least one person seems as excessive fees for address space. My operating assumptions are that the problem does in fact exist and that more than one organization is paying excessive charges. Before any remedial action were taken, it would seem wise to have in hand 1) some reasonably accurate research indicating the fees new being levied for address space, and 2) some collective agreement on the reasonable changes for netblocks of various small sizes. If customers were, for example, being charged $50 or even $100 a year for the legitimate use of a /28, I would see no need for action. That seems like a reasonable fee for local administration and the shared support of ARIN's overall work. Here in the world of one smallish ISP, only a few of our customers have use for more than two or four public /32s. We charge them a small fee and all is well. Sometimes a bit of education has been required, but most find themselves happy with using 10.x and 192.168.x for their appropriate purposes. One client in particular was sure they needed at least a couple /24s. Their actual need was for a /30. If the present fee structure were found onerous, perhaps 2002-9 would be beneficial, even with the obvious increase in ARIN workload and resulting legitimate fees that would be faced by /24 applicants. I have my doubts, but the initiations acknowledged in graph one are still present so no particular wisdom is changed. If there is a significant problem found, perhaps it would be wiser for ARIN to set a cap on what organizations granted an allocation may charge their downstream customers for the use of address space. This would give ARIN-related customers protection against overcharge, and provide responsible providers some potential relief from customers with a firm belief in netspace as free lunch. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 12:14:35 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:14:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] How many of them know about ARIN ? References: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A98FB@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <042f01c26965$a3108f20$617d2b41@repligate> RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Urmann To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no way to get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy these requirements. As for routablility, neither company needs or wants these addresses routed. How many other currently silent small businesses out there have a similar situation? How many of them know about ARIN, this mailing list, etc... IOW, how would they know when, how and where to discuss or vote? ==== ARIN is not the only Registry... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html 0:0 .ARPA is not the only routable Address Space... Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.netfilter.org/ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Tue Oct 1 12:23:10 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:23:10 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c26966$d5feee30$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Isn't this virtually the same thing as 2002-3??? (The difference is that 2002-9 does not require multi-homing). *** Again I ask.. ARIN moved away from giving /24s to *** individual companies years ago, and decided to let *** the upstream ISPs handle it. There must have been *** a reason for this. Does anyone know why? Were the *** reasons recorded? I'd hate to see this motion pass, only to repeat history again and move back to where we are now. As for people complaining about their ISP charging for IP space; either: 1) Find a different ISP (Capitalism at it's finest..) 2) Use it as a bargaining tool to get your monthly fees reduced. (I'm paying $X a month in IP fees.. I want my monthly fees reduced by $X as well. EVERYTHING is negotiable.) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of > Member Services > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:20 AM > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > A copy of a message sent to the ARIN public policy mailing list > on September 30, 2002, is provided at the bottom of this message. > The author intended this message to become a new policy proposal. > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting > in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback > received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be > included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming > Public Policy Meeting. > > This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public > Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is > available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ### * ### > > Policy Proposal 2002-9: To Allow Micro-Assignments for End-user > Organizations > > Specific language to be adopted: > Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language > except to change > in third paragraph change /20 to /24: > The new paragraph will read: > The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If > assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should > contact their > upstream provider. > > Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue: > I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. > Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred > employees. I left the > company last year and started a new company. My old company still has > the class C that I registered. (/24) > My new company is growing but does not support the use of a > /20 address > space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid > for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now. > We should have a policy in place that supports small > businesses and does > not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large > ISP's charge for each IP used. > > Proposed Timetable for Implementation: > To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation. > > ## END ## > > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 12:26:56 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:26:56 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "...accurate research indicating the fees new being levied for address space..." References: <001701c26964$b575d680$020d010a@cottay> Message-ID: <043d01c26967$5d38b2a0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Cottay" > > Before any remedial action were taken, it would seem wise to have in > hand 1) some reasonably accurate research indicating the fees new being > levied for address space, and 2) some collective agreement on the > reasonable changes for netblocks of various small sizes. > 1. $10 to $15 per month per /32 for Retail Customers...Check all the ISPs 2. Do you think there should be a Wholesale Price different from other standard Real Estate fees of one month on an annual basis ? 3. Do you think the Registries in the U.S. should engage in Price Fixing ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 4. What percentage should go to the ICANN Directors and Staff ? Jim Fleming http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.netfilter.org/ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.yi.org http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.org http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://ipv8.ods.org From beran at beranpeter.com Tue Oct 1 12:59:02 2002 From: beran at beranpeter.com (Beran) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:59:02 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <000b01c26966$d5feee30$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: I think this Policy Proposal is a great one and would like to see it passed at the end of the month. Trevor Paquette wrote: >Isn't this virtually the same thing as 2002-3??? > >(The difference is that 2002-9 does not require multi-homing). Well you answered your own questions. It is NOT the same as 2002-3 because it does NOT require mulit-homing. >*** Again I ask.. ARIN moved away from giving /24s to >*** individual companies years ago, and decided to let >*** the upstream ISPs handle it. There must have been >*** a reason for this. Does anyone know why? Were the >*** reasons recorded? I do not know the reasons for this. However I do know that many of these ISPs are: 1) difficult to deal with 2) Merging, going out of business, etc. 3) Changing policy's often 4) Charging for IP numbers at high prices which now has become a trend 5) The only companies they do charge this to are companies that don't qualify for /20 address space... sticking it to the little guy! >I'd hate to see this motion pass, only to repeat >history again and move back to where we are now. I disagree completely. I'd like to see this motion pass. Share the /24 responsibility with the ISP's. It will add some work for ARIN but it will also provide better control and will likely result in many /20 trade-ins. It will also help keep prices in check for ip address space below /20 sizes when customers have a choice. >As for people complaining about their ISP charging for >IP space; either: >1) Find a different ISP (Capitalism at it's finest..) >2) Use it as a bargaining tool to get your monthly >fees reduced. (I'm paying $X a month in IP fees.. >I want my monthly fees reduced by $X as well. EVERYTHING is negotiable.) Well, It's an overall trend. The ISP's know that companies are stuck and cannot qualify for a /20 so they end up taking advantage of this. Geographic location often has an impact of availability of providers. Also trying to negotiate with a provider when you are a small company is not as easy as a larger business opportunity where you have the ability to go and register your own /20. The smaller ISP's are often held hostage by the bigger ones asking for a per $ per month for any IP given to their customers. Just my .02 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of > Member Services > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:20 AM > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > A copy of a message sent to the ARIN public policy mailing list > on September 30, 2002, is provided at the bottom of this message. > The author intended this message to become a new policy proposal. > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting > in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback > received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be > included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming > Public Policy Meeting. > > This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public > Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is > available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ### * ### > > Policy Proposal 2002-9: To Allow Micro-Assignments for End-user > Organizations > > Specific language to be adopted: > Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language > except to change > in third paragraph change /20 to /24: > The new paragraph will read: > The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If > assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should > contact their > upstream provider. > > Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue: > I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. > Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred > employees. I left the > company last year and started a new company. My old company still has > the class C that I registered. (/24) > My new company is growing but does not support the use of a > /20 address > space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid > for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now. > We should have a policy in place that supports small > businesses and does > not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large > ISP's charge for each IP used. > > Proposed Timetable for Implementation: > To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation. > > ## END ## > > > > From ddiller at cogentco.com Tue Oct 1 13:23:08 2002 From: ddiller at cogentco.com (Dave Diller) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:23:08 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <001701c26964$b575d680$020d010a@cottay> <043d01c26967$5d38b2a0$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <3D99D9FC.A6951986@cogentco.com> > > 1. $10 to $15 per month per /32 for Retail Customers...Check all the ISPs Call me skeptical. Can I get a show of hands for how many ISPs out there charge $2,560 - $3,840 _PER MONTH_ to allow a customer to use a /24? Volume pricing, it's a simple concept. From ahp at hilander.com Tue Oct 1 13:30:39 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:30:39 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> I personally do not believe that we should be basing ARIN policy on the pricing practices of ISPs for address space (or any resource for that matter). Our policies need to be based on the needs of _all_ of our members, taking into account the impact that the policies will have on the operation of the Internet (as far as routing table size and available address space are concerned). Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 13:39:01 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:39:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <001701c26964$b575d680$020d010a@cottay> <043d01c26967$5d38b2a0$617d2b41@repligate> <3D99D9FC.A6951986@cogentco.com> Message-ID: <050001c26971$6faa5510$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Diller" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > 1. $10 to $15 per month per /32 for Retail Customers...Check all the ISPs > > Call me skeptical. > > Can I get a show of hands for how many ISPs out there charge $2,560 - $3,840 > _PER MONTH_ to allow a customer to use a /24? > > > Volume pricing, it's a simple concept. That would be the revenue from 256 customers, not one customer. For ICANN and ARIN, why does it matter if you have 1 customer or 256 ? Isn't the amount of **work** the same for them ? Assuming one month goes to ARIN ($2,560 - $3,840) what percentage should go to ICANN ? Note, the U.S. Government has said it wants ICANN to be well-funded. When the U.S. Government created ARIN, it knew it would be well-funded. Everything was gold-plated from day one. ICANN will likely need a ranch overlooking the Pacific Ocean with some horses to attract the people (workes) in that area. How will they fund that ? At the moment, they have to look out over the harbor where their yachts are maintained. Don't you think they should have another place up in the hills overlooking Malibu ? Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From mury at goldengate.net Tue Oct 1 13:41:50 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:41:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: Amen. On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > I personally do not believe that we should be basing ARIN policy on the > pricing practices of ISPs for address space (or any resource for that > matter). Our policies need to be based on the needs of _all_ of our > members, taking into account the impact that the policies will have on the > operation of the Internet (as far as routing table size and available > address space are concerned). > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From mury at goldengate.net Tue Oct 1 13:41:12 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:41:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <3D99D9FC.A6951986@cogentco.com> Message-ID: In our area most don't charge anything extra for IPs for a business class dedicated line. We give you as many as you request up to the amount that you can justify [meaning the lesser of the two]. It's the same price whether someone wants 4 IPs or needs 4 class Cs. We do charge more on personal accounts for static and small routed blocks because those customers typically use more bandwidth. It's the easiest way to charge for that extra usage, and has nothing to do with our cost to ARIN. I have a tough time believing that a customer could not shop around if this was truely an issue. If there is no competition in an area, does it really matter how the charges are broken out? If they don't charge you by IP they will charge you somewhere else. Mury GoldenGate Internet Services 763-784-2800 * The Twin Cities Largest Locally Owned Internet Provider * * Multiple DS3s and POPs for Redundancy * * DSL, T1s, DS3s, ISDN, Web Hosting, Colocation, Web Design, and more * On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Dave Diller wrote: > > > > 1. $10 to $15 per month per /32 for Retail Customers...Check all the ISPs > > Call me skeptical. > > Can I get a show of hands for how many ISPs out there charge $2,560 - $3,840 > _PER MONTH_ to allow a customer to use a /24? > > > Volume pricing, it's a simple concept. > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 13:47:13 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:47:13 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ASNs have been allocated to ARIN as of September 2002 Message-ID: <051201c26972$94122300$617d2b41@repligate> What does ARIN pay ICANN for a block of ASNs ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Thomas" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:37 PM Subject: [isp-bgp] Updated ASN allocation to ARIN > Hi, ISP BGP folks. > > [ Apologies to those of you who have seen this post in other fora. ] > > A range of ASNs have been allocated to ARIN as of September 2002. The > range is 26624 - 27647. You may wish to adjust your filters. The > definitive list can be found here: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers > > I have updated my bogus ASN monitoring to reflect these changes. You > can see the list of networks that leak bogus ASNs here: > > http://www.cymru.com/BGP/asnbogusrep.html > > Thanks, > Rob. > -- > Rob Thomas > http://www.cymru.com > ASSERT(coffee != empty); > > > > _______________  The ISP-BGP Discussion List  ______________ > To Join: mailto:join-isp-bgp at isp-bgp.com > To Remove: mailto:remove-isp-bgp at isp-bgp.com > Archives: http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-bgp/archives/ From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 1 13:50:19 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:50:19 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <3D99D9FC.A6951986@cogentco.com> Message-ID: <007001c26973$089ae680$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> most providers charge for static IP space to offset various costs in administration. In addition ISP's charge these fees as a way of limiting the number of kiddies that want statics. john brown > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Dave Diller > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:23 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > 1. $10 to $15 per month per /32 for Retail > Customers...Check all the > > ISPs > > Call me skeptical. > > Can I get a show of hands for how many ISPs out there charge > $2,560 - $3,840 > _PER MONTH_ to allow a customer to use a /24? > > > Volume pricing, it's a simple concept. > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 13:53:52 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:53:52 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <052401c26973$8155baf0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alec H. Peterson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > I personally do not believe that we should be basing ARIN policy on the > pricing practices of ISPs for address space (or any resource for that > matter). Our policies need to be based on the needs of _all_ of our > members, taking into account the impact that the policies will have on the > operation of the Internet (as far as routing table size and available > address space are concerned). > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com ======================================== Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. Can you do that ? Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From ahp at hilander.com Tue Oct 1 13:58:45 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:58:45 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <052401c26973$8155baf0$617d2b41@repligate> References: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> <052401c26973$8155baf0$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <2147483647.1033473525@macleod.hilander.com> --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming wrote: > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > Can you do that ? Jim, I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head for pricing as far as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs to charge to make ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should focus on the technical and operational issues. I see no need why money needs to be a part of that discussion, it can happen separately once the policy itself has been decided. ALec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 14:00:13 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:00:13 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> <052401c26973$8155baf0$617d2b41@repligate> <2147483647.1033473525@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <053601c26974$64aa7250$617d2b41@repligate> The ICANN CEO is paid $250,000 per year plus travel and other expenses. What is the CEO of ARIN paid ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alec H. Peterson" To: "Jim Fleming" ; Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming > wrote: > > > > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless > > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? > > > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as > > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors > > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per > > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > > Can you do that ? > > Jim, > > I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head for pricing as far > as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs to charge to make > ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should focus on the > technical and operational issues. I see no need why money needs to be a > part of that discussion, it can happen separately once the policy itself > has been decided. > > ALec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From ahp at hilander.com Tue Oct 1 14:02:30 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:02:30 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <053601c26974$64aa7250$617d2b41@repligate> References: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> <052401c26973$8155baf0$617d2b41@repligate> <2147483647.1033473525@macleod.hilander.com> <053601c26974$64aa7250$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <2147483647.1033473750@macleod.hilander.com> --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 13:00 -0500 Jim Fleming wrote: > The ICANN CEO is paid $250,000 per year plus travel and other expenses. > > What is the CEO of ARIN paid ? The ARIN CEO's salary is not an issue for the ARIN Public Policy mailing list. I suggest you join ARIN and bring this up on the ARIN members mailing list if you are this concerned about how ARIN is spending its money. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 1 14:07:41 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:07:41 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <2147483647.1033471838@macleod.hilander.com> <052401c26973$8155baf0$617d2b41@repligate> <2147483647.1033473525@macleod.hilander.com> <053601c26974$64aa7250$617d2b41@repligate> <2147483647.1033473750@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <054c01c26975$6ffd5a40$617d2b41@repligate> If ICANN operates at a 10% level in the Multi-Level-Marketing-Machine, then that would seem to place the CEO's compensation at ARIN closer to $2.5 million per year. That might be a good enough starting point for budget purposes. Directors at $2 million per year would be part-timers of course. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alec H. Peterson" To: "Jim Fleming" ; Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 13:00 -0500 Jim Fleming > wrote: > > > The ICANN CEO is paid $250,000 per year plus travel and other expenses. > > > > What is the CEO of ARIN paid ? > > The ARIN CEO's salary is not an issue for the ARIN Public Policy mailing > list. I suggest you join ARIN and bring this up on the ARIN members > mailing list if you are this concerned about how ARIN is spending its money. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From mury at goldengate.net Tue Oct 1 14:14:44 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:14:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1033473750@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: As a matter of policy, if one is a member of ARIN do you have access to any financial statements and more specific questions such as that one? Not that I'd have time to look them over anyway, but I would like to know if that info is available. Mury On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 13:00 -0500 Jim Fleming > wrote: > > > The ICANN CEO is paid $250,000 per year plus travel and other expenses. > > > > What is the CEO of ARIN paid ? > > The ARIN CEO's salary is not an issue for the ARIN Public Policy mailing > list. I suggest you join ARIN and bring this up on the ARIN members > mailing list if you are this concerned about how ARIN is spending its money. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Tue Oct 1 14:07:37 2002 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:07:37 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1904DD3E65@usresms03.teleglobe.com> I would suggest that this is a situation better served by the local Better Business Bureau. ARIN has no power over the business practices of their members, only over the way they justify and use IP addresses on the public internet. ARIN's scope should remain limited to its stated responsibilities "....ARIN promotes the conservation of IP address space, maintains impartiality while determining the size of address blocks to be allocated or assigned, and supports efforts to keep the global routing tables to a manageable size to ensure information can be routed over the Internet. Continued operation of the Internet depends, in part, upon the conservation and efficient use of IP address space." The policies that are in place today have been developed over the last 5 years by the members and general public and not by the entity "ARIN". ARIN staff only enforces the policies that have evolved. I agree that the issues listed below are real and need to be dealt with but I do not think they can be solved just by giving /24's out to anyone that asks for one. -----Original Message----- From: Beran [mailto:beran at beranpeter.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:59 PM To: Trevor Paquette; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 I think this Policy Proposal is a great one and would like to see it passed at the end of the month. Trevor Paquette wrote: >Isn't this virtually the same thing as 2002-3??? > >(The difference is that 2002-9 does not require multi-homing). Well you answered your own questions. It is NOT the same as 2002-3 because it does NOT require mulit-homing. >*** Again I ask.. ARIN moved away from giving /24s to >*** individual companies years ago, and decided to let >*** the upstream ISPs handle it. There must have been >*** a reason for this. Does anyone know why? Were the >*** reasons recorded? I do not know the reasons for this. However I do know that many of these ISPs are: 1) difficult to deal with 2) Merging, going out of business, etc. 3) Changing policy's often 4) Charging for IP numbers at high prices which now has become a trend 5) The only companies they do charge this to are companies that don't qualify for /20 address space... sticking it to the little guy! >I'd hate to see this motion pass, only to repeat >history again and move back to where we are now. I disagree completely. I'd like to see this motion pass. Share the /24 responsibility with the ISP's. It will add some work for ARIN but it will also provide better control and will likely result in many /20 trade-ins. It will also help keep prices in check for ip address space below /20 sizes when customers have a choice. >As for people complaining about their ISP charging for >IP space; either: >1) Find a different ISP (Capitalism at it's finest..) >2) Use it as a bargaining tool to get your monthly >fees reduced. (I'm paying $X a month in IP fees.. >I want my monthly fees reduced by $X as well. EVERYTHING is negotiable.) Well, It's an overall trend. The ISP's know that companies are stuck and cannot qualify for a /20 so they end up taking advantage of this. Geographic location often has an impact of availability of providers. Also trying to negotiate with a provider when you are a small company is not as easy as a larger business opportunity where you have the ability to go and register your own /20. The smaller ISP's are often held hostage by the bigger ones asking for a per $ per month for any IP given to their customers. Just my .02 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of > Member Services > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:20 AM > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > A copy of a message sent to the ARIN public policy mailing list > on September 30, 2002, is provided at the bottom of this message. > The author intended this message to become a new policy proposal. > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting > in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback > received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be > included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming > Public Policy Meeting. > > This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public > Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is > available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ### * ### > > Policy Proposal 2002-9: To Allow Micro-Assignments for End-user > Organizations > > Specific language to be adopted: > Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language > except to change > in third paragraph change /20 to /24: > The new paragraph will read: > The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If > assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should > contact their > upstream provider. > > Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue: > I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. > Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred > employees. I left the > company last year and started a new company. My old company still has > the class C that I registered. (/24) > My new company is growing but does not support the use of a > /20 address > space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid > for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now. > We should have a policy in place that supports small > businesses and does > not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large > ISP's charge for each IP used. > > Proposed Timetable for Implementation: > To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation. > > ## END ## > > > > From beran at beranpeter.com Tue Oct 1 14:19:25 2002 From: beran at beranpeter.com (Beran) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:19:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1033473525@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: Alec. I quote from the ARIN web site: "As a nonprofit organization with a bottom-up, community-based structure, our focus is completely on serving our members and the Internet community at large." Serving the members that operate ARIN is important but their goal and ARIN's goal is to serve the Internet community at large. Your "technical and operational issues" are important but do NOT include other aspects of serving the Internet community at large. Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at large. This should be a TOP priority! It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly utilized/horded/charged for etc. Why not allow /24 address space allocations? I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process and the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not for /24. ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month for EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify a couple years ago is terrible. Usage can be metered and is metered so the usage argument per IP is not a good one. Beran Beran Peter Beran at BeranPeter.com 617-803-3658 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:59 PM To: Jim Fleming; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming wrote: > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > Can you do that ? Jim, I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head for pricing as far as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs to charge to make ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should focus on the technical and operational issues. I see no need why money needs to be a part of that discussion, it can happen separately once the policy itself has been decided. ALec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From mury at goldengate.net Tue Oct 1 14:25:15 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:25:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1904DD3E65@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: With all due respect, especially in light of agreeing with everything else you said, the BBB is not going to be much help in solving a dispute for a business that is being jacked around on IP space by an upstream provider. I think there should be some consideration on ARIN's part to address some of these issues, even though I agree with you that their primary concerns are elsewhere (as you listed). Mury On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Sweeting, John wrote: > I would suggest that this is a situation better served by the local Better > Business Bureau. ARIN has no power over the business practices of their > members, only over the way they justify and use IP addresses on the public > internet. ARIN's scope should remain limited to its stated responsibilities > "....ARIN promotes the conservation of IP address space, maintains > impartiality while determining the size of address blocks to be allocated or > assigned, and supports efforts to keep the global routing tables to a > manageable size to ensure information can be routed over the Internet. > Continued operation of the Internet depends, in part, upon the conservation > and efficient use of IP address space." The policies that are in place today > have been developed over the last 5 years by the members and general public > and not by the entity "ARIN". ARIN staff only enforces the policies that > have evolved. I agree that the issues listed below are real and need to be > dealt with but I do not think they can be solved just by giving /24's out to > anyone that asks for one. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Beran [mailto:beran at beranpeter.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:59 PM > To: Trevor Paquette; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > I think this Policy Proposal is a great one and would like to see it passed > at the end of the month. > > Trevor Paquette wrote: > > >Isn't this virtually the same thing as 2002-3??? > > > >(The difference is that 2002-9 does not require multi-homing). > > Well you answered your own questions. It is NOT the same as 2002-3 because > it does NOT require mulit-homing. > > >*** Again I ask.. ARIN moved away from giving /24s to > >*** individual companies years ago, and decided to let > >*** the upstream ISPs handle it. There must have been > >*** a reason for this. Does anyone know why? Were the > >*** reasons recorded? > > I do not know the reasons for this. However I do know that many of these > ISPs are: > 1) difficult to deal with > 2) Merging, going out of business, etc. > 3) Changing policy's often > 4) Charging for IP numbers at high prices which now has become a trend > 5) The only companies they do charge this to are companies that don't > qualify for /20 address space... sticking it to the little guy! > > >I'd hate to see this motion pass, only to repeat > >history again and move back to where we are now. > > I disagree completely. I'd like to see this motion pass. Share the /24 > responsibility with the ISP's. It will add some work for ARIN but it will > also provide better control and will likely result in many /20 trade-ins. It > will also help keep prices in check for ip address space below /20 sizes > when customers have a choice. > > >As for people complaining about their ISP charging for > >IP space; either: > >1) Find a different ISP (Capitalism at it's finest..) > >2) Use it as a bargaining tool to get your monthly > >fees reduced. (I'm paying $X a month in IP fees.. > >I want my monthly fees reduced by $X as well. EVERYTHING is negotiable.) > > Well, It's an overall trend. The ISP's know that companies are stuck and > cannot qualify for a /20 so they end up taking advantage of this. > Geographic location often has an impact of availability of providers. Also > trying to negotiate with a provider when you are a small company is not as > easy as a larger business opportunity where you have the ability to go and > register your own /20. The smaller ISP's are often held hostage by the > bigger ones asking for a per $ per month for any IP given to their > customers. > > Just my .02 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of > > Member Services > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:20 AM > > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > > > A copy of a message sent to the ARIN public policy mailing list > > on September 30, 2002, is provided at the bottom of this message. > > The author intended this message to become a new policy proposal. > > > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy > > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting > > in Eugene, Oregon, scheduled for October 30-31, 2002. All feedback > > received on the mailing list about this policy proposal will be > > included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming > > Public Policy Meeting. > > > > This policy proposal discussion will take place on the ARIN Public > > Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net). Subscription information is > > available at http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > > > > Richard Jimmerson > > Director of Operations > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > ### * ### > > > > Policy Proposal 2002-9: To Allow Micro-Assignments for End-user > > Organizations > > > > Specific language to be adopted: > > Keep all the current IPV4 End-user Assignments language > > except to change > > in third paragraph change /20 to /24: > > The new paragraph will read: > > The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If > > assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should > > contact their > > upstream provider. > > > > Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue: > > I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. > > Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred > > employees. I left the > > company last year and started a new company. My old company still has > > the class C that I registered. (/24) > > My new company is growing but does not support the use of a > > /20 address > > space. My ISP is charging me for every ip address I use. I never paid > > for ip address in the past and do not feel good about it now. > > We should have a policy in place that supports small > > businesses and does > > not promote ripping off the small business's by the letting the large > > ISP's charge for each IP used. > > > > Proposed Timetable for Implementation: > > To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation. > > > > ## END ## > > > > > > > > > From Scott.Whipple at cox.com Tue Oct 1 14:29:53 2002 From: Scott.Whipple at cox.com (Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:29:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <4B8EA05057E49E4F940B74AC3AEC23F40BB6A9@CATL0MS03.corp.cox.com> I think all of ARIN's financial statements that are public information can be found on the website. Here is the link for the 2001 annual report that show ARIN financial report. This info is available if you are a member or not. You can find how much ARIN has spent on salaries but you can't find out individual salaries. -----Original Message----- From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:15 AM To: Alec H. Peterson Cc: Jim Fleming; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 As a matter of policy, if one is a member of ARIN do you have access to any financial statements and more specific questions such as that one? Not that I'd have time to look them over anyway, but I would like to know if that info is available. Mury On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 13:00 -0500 Jim Fleming > wrote: > > > The ICANN CEO is paid $250,000 per year plus travel and other expenses. > > > > What is the CEO of ARIN paid ? > > The ARIN CEO's salary is not an issue for the ARIN Public Policy mailing > list. I suggest you join ARIN and bring this up on the ARIN members > mailing list if you are this concerned about how ARIN is spending its money. > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From ahp at hilander.com Tue Oct 1 14:44:09 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:44:09 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2147483647.1033476249@macleod.hilander.com> --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 14:19 -0400 Beran wrote: > > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at > large. This should be a TOP priority! There are other priorities at work. If ARIN allocates a /24 to anybody who asks for one, there will be a massive land grab. The supply we have now will seem even smaller than it is now, and routing table size will get completely out of control. > > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the > current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly > utilized/horded/charged for etc. > Why not allow /24 address space allocations? I don't quite follow how relaxing our allocation policy will change the issues you percieve with hoarding and utilization. > I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process and > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not > for /24. For exactly the same reasons that the InterNIC decided to only allocate /19 and shorter blocks in the mid 90s. Because address space is a very limited resource. I encourage you to look at the discussions on the PAGAN, CIDRD and NANOG lists that took place when these policies were first introduced. Back then, at the rate of consumption that we saw address space was not going to last more than a few more years. There are many more things that we need to consider. The fact that some small businesses claim they are being gouged by their service providers is unfortunate, but it is not an issue that ARIN can or should address. In the mid 90s there were extremely good reasons to put restrictions on who can get address space. Having ARIN only allocate large blocks of address space (/20) accomplishes a lot. Even though multi-homed customers are sometimes announcing their PA space as a more specific, that address space is still aggregatable. So a service provider can make a decision to only accept /20 and shorter announcements in ARIN-allocated address space and can still reach the entire Internet. Were ARIN to begin allocating /24s this would no longer be possible. > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month for > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify a > couple years ago is terrible. If you are unhappy with what your service provider is charging you, I suggest you complain to your service provider or find a new one. Service providers have real costs associated with the services that they provide. How they charge for them is their business, and if they charge too much then open market forces will correct it. Do you complain to your provider's upstream provider when they charge you too much for the bandwidth you are purchasing? Do you complain to the VeriSign Registry when your registrar charges you too much for a domain name? Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From mury at goldengate.net Tue Oct 1 14:44:58 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:44:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Beran, I have to admit I pretty much disagree with everything you just said. 1) As Alec said, ARIN should not base policies on the billing policies of ISPs. a) ISPs aren't exactly making money hand over foot. b) There is still tremendous competition, so if an ISPs billing policies are out of wack they simply won't get customers. c) It doesn't seem to me that you have thought through how ISPs need to market and sell products. The typical user does not want to have weird mysterious bandwidth charges showing up. They won't buy what the don't understand. Why do you think no one sells DSL or cable that way? d) If an ISPs needs to make a certain amount of money to pay the bills, they will find a way to make up that money elsewhere if that is where they were deriving it from. And whether you want to admit it or not, the fact remains that users with static/routed IPs use more resources than other customers. ISPs are hoarding IP space???!!! Good lord! ARIN rakes me over the coals every time I ask for space. I have to fit .252 networks in all over my network to properly utilize all my space until ARIN graciously gives me the IPs I need. I've lost customers because I haven't had enough IPs to help a customer. I don't have one single IP wasted out of our block. I have an extremely difficult time believing that other ISPs are being treated with less scrutiny, since I don't remember personally pissing anyone off at ARIN to make them treat me different. Sounds like you have had some poor experiences with some ISPs... but that is just speculation. > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > ISP's on average have not been any of these. Hmmm, maybe my suspicions have been confirmed. Whether or not I think it's a good thing to hand out smaller blocks and with less criteria, I know that your reasons strike me as being completely off base. Regards, Mury PS, sometimes emails come across the wrong way. I'm not trying to insult you or start some sort of war, but after re-reading it I know it could be interpreted that way. I simply think you are off-base. On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Beran wrote: > Alec. > I quote from the ARIN web site: > "As a nonprofit organization with a bottom-up, community-based structure, > our focus is completely on serving our members and the Internet community at > large." > > Serving the members that operate ARIN is important but their goal and ARIN's > goal is to serve the Internet community at large. > Your "technical and operational issues" are important but do NOT include > other aspects of serving the Internet community at large. > > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at > large. This should be a TOP priority! > > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the > current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly > utilized/horded/charged for etc. > Why not allow /24 address space allocations? > I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process and > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not for > /24. > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month for > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify a > couple years ago is terrible. > Usage can be metered and is metered so the usage argument per IP is not a > good one. > > Beran > > Beran Peter > Beran at BeranPeter.com > 617-803-3658 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec > H. Peterson > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:59 PM > To: Jim Fleming; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming > wrote: > > > > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless > > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? > > > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as > > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors > > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per > > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > > Can you do that ? > > Jim, > > I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head for pricing as far > as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs to charge to make > ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should focus on the > technical and operational issues. I see no need why money needs to be a > part of that discussion, it can happen separately once the policy itself > has been decided. > > ALec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From lee.howard at wcom.com Tue Oct 1 14:47:43 2002 From: lee.howard at wcom.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1033473525@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: Alec, I want to be clear that as Treasurer and a member of the Board, I do solicit member input on pricing. I agree that questions about how much ARIN should charge for what services should be on the members' list. Questions about how ARIN collects and spends money is also information members should have. Audited financial statements are on ARIN's web site. I will be happy to take up these issues on the members' list. Lee On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Alec H. Peterson wrote: > Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:58:45 -0600 > From: Alec H. Peterson > To: Jim Fleming , ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming > wrote: > > > > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless > > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? > > > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as > > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors > > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per > > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > > Can you do that ? > > Jim, > > I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head for pricing as far > as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs to charge to make > ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should focus on the > technical and operational issues. I see no need why money needs to be a > part of that discussion, it can happen separately once the policy itself > has been decided. > > ALec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From beran at beranpeter.com Tue Oct 1 17:49:13 2002 From: beran at beranpeter.com (beran at beranpeter.com) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:49:13 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: Message-ID: <001c01c26994$61f81600$6701a8c0@hermes> Mury, BTW - No offense taken. I think that everyone should be "raked over the coals every time they ask for space". I do not advocate less criteria.. as you mention. I even support more scrutiny. The little guy is getting SCREWED right now by big business. The little guy is the small and medium sized businesses that have a legitimate need for /24 address space. We do NOT have equal access to IP space like an ISP or large company does. An ISP sometimes pays an initial registration fee for IP number then a nominal fee per year... if at all for. Some ISP do not pay anything for IP's they have. For that matter some users like me pay or paid nothing to get the /24 and CONTINUE to pay nothing. So... they are charging customers for a product (IP address) they have or get for free. NO FAIR! I'm fine with charging more for internet connectivity. I'm fine with paying for a couple IP numbers. I'm not ok with paying for something they get for essentially free. Take the fee that many ISP want to charge per IP. $5 per month times 255 = $1,275 per month x 12 months = $15,300 per year! Thats a cost that any company that has a legitamate usage for a /20 space does not have to pay. Yes they pay registration (much much less then this amount) then the nominal $30 per year maintenance fee. Which is fair? This issue and policy proposal is about equal access to IP space for one of the most important users of the Internet. Small and medium size businesses that have a legitimate need for /24 address space. Equal access does involve $$. IP space is not owned and is not a commodity that can be bought and sold. It is to be used by companies that have a legitimate usage for them. ARIN is the organization that makes sure it's being used properly. There is no reason they cannot do the same for /24 space. Small businesses are what drives the North American economy... it is one of the most important segments of the Internet community. This is what ARIN has been put in place for... to support the Internet community at large. I'm putting a stake in the ground and trying to look out for the little guy who is getting screwed right now. Vote to PASS this policy proposal, Beran ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mury" To: "Beran" Cc: "Alec H. Peterson" ; "Jim Fleming" ; Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:44 PM Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > Beran, > > I have to admit I pretty much disagree with everything you just said. > > 1) As Alec said, ARIN should not base policies on the billing policies of > ISPs. > a) ISPs aren't exactly making money hand over foot. > b) There is still tremendous competition, so if an ISPs billing > policies are out of wack they simply won't get customers. > c) It doesn't seem to me that you have thought through how ISPs > need to market and sell products. The typical user does not > want to have weird mysterious bandwidth charges showing up. > They won't buy what the don't understand. Why do you think > no one sells DSL or cable that way? > d) If an ISPs needs to make a certain amount of money to pay the > bills, they will find a way to make up that money elsewhere > if that is where they were deriving it from. And whether > you want to admit it or not, the fact remains that users with > static/routed IPs use more resources than other customers. > > ISPs are hoarding IP space???!!! Good lord! ARIN rakes me over the coals > every time I ask for space. I have to fit .252 networks in all over my > network to properly utilize all my space until ARIN graciously gives me > the IPs I need. I've lost customers because I haven't had enough IPs to > help a customer. I don't have one single IP wasted out of our block. I > have an extremely difficult time believing that other ISPs are being > treated with less scrutiny, since I don't remember personally pissing > anyone off at ARIN to make them treat me different. Sounds like you have > had some poor experiences with some ISPs... but that is just speculation. > > > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > > ISP's on average have not been any of these. > > Hmmm, maybe my suspicions have been confirmed. > > Whether or not I think it's a good thing to hand out smaller blocks and > with less criteria, I know that your reasons strike me as being completely > off base. > > Regards, > > Mury > > PS, sometimes emails come across the wrong way. I'm not trying to insult > you or start some sort of war, but after re-reading it I know it could be > interpreted that way. I simply think you are off-base. > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Beran wrote: > > > Alec. > > I quote from the ARIN web site: > > "As a nonprofit organization with a bottom-up, community-based structure, > > our focus is completely on serving our members and the Internet community at > > large." > > > > Serving the members that operate ARIN is important but their goal and ARIN's > > goal is to serve the Internet community at large. > > Your "technical and operational issues" are important but do NOT include > > other aspects of serving the Internet community at large. > > > > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at > > large. This should be a TOP priority! > > > > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the > > current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly > > utilized/horded/charged for etc. > > Why not allow /24 address space allocations? > > I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process and > > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not for > > /24. > > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > > ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month for > > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify a > > couple years ago is terrible. > > Usage can be metered and is metered so the usage argument per IP is not a > > good one. > > > > Beran > > > > Beran Peter > > Beran at BeranPeter.com > > 617-803-3658 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Alec > > H. Peterson > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:59 PM > > To: Jim Fleming; ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > > > > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to run a homeless > > > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be paying for that ? > > > > > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and their "staffers" as > > > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and ARIN Directors > > > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a $2,000,000 dollar per > > > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > > > > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > > > Can you do that ? > > > > Jim, > > > > I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head for pricing as far > > as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs to charge to make > > ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should focus on the > > technical and operational issues. I see no need why money needs to be a > > part of that discussion, it can happen separately once the policy itself > > has been decided. > > > > ALec > > > > -- > > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > > Chief Technology Officer > > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > > > > From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 1 18:18:19 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:18:19 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <001c01c26994$61f81600$6701a8c0@hermes> Message-ID: <008801c26998$79101dc0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Is it fair to ask providers across the globe to carry your route? The prime issue here is about routing table size. Memory is cheap, CPU is even fairly cheap today. Yet there is a point at which it is "costly" to lookup your route. Even using some of the new Radix methods its still costly in the sense of latency and other metrics. There are 33,000 registered business in New Mexico (my home state). We are a small state. If we say that the average state has 15,000 businesses that should have a /24, that would create a routing table around 750,000 entries. That doesn't scale well. Memory requirements far exceed current in production routing equipment. Further route flap from all of these prefix's could cause more BGP traffic than SPAM does. :) Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every business that comes along is not in the best interest of the global internet. john brown > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of beran at beranpeter.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:49 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Cc: Mury > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > Mury, > BTW - No offense taken. > > I think that everyone should be "raked over the coals every > time they ask for space". I do not advocate less criteria.. > as you mention. I even support more scrutiny. > > The little guy is getting SCREWED right now by big business. > The little guy is the small and medium sized businesses that > have a legitimate need for /24 address space. We do NOT have > equal access to IP space like an ISP or large company does. > An ISP sometimes pays an initial registration fee for IP > number then a nominal fee per year... if at all for. Some ISP > do not pay anything for IP's they have. For that matter some > users like me pay or paid nothing to get the /24 and CONTINUE > to pay nothing. So... they are charging customers for a > product (IP address) they have or get for free. NO FAIR! > > I'm fine with charging more for internet connectivity. I'm > fine with paying for a couple IP numbers. I'm not ok with > paying for something they get for essentially free. Take the > fee that many ISP want to charge per IP. $5 per month times > 255 = $1,275 per month x 12 months = $15,300 per year! Thats > a cost that any company that has a legitamate usage for a /20 > space does not have to pay. Yes they pay registration (much > much less then this amount) then the nominal $30 per year > maintenance fee. Which is fair? > > This issue and policy proposal is about equal access to IP > space for one of the most important users of the Internet. > Small and medium size businesses that have a legitimate need > for /24 address space. > > Equal access does involve $$. > IP space is not owned and is not a commodity that can be > bought and sold. It is to be used by companies that have a > legitimate usage for them. ARIN is the organization that > makes sure it's being used properly. There is no reason they > cannot do the same for /24 space. > > Small businesses are what drives the North American > economy... it is one of the most important segments of the > Internet community. This is what ARIN has been put in place > for... to support the Internet community at large. > > I'm putting a stake in the ground and trying to look out for > the little guy who is getting screwed right now. Vote to PASS > this policy proposal, > > Beran > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mury" > To: "Beran" > Cc: "Alec H. Peterson" ; "Jim Fleming" > ; > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:44 PM > Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > Beran, > > > > I have to admit I pretty much disagree with everything you > just said. > > > > 1) As Alec said, ARIN should not base policies on the > billing policies of > > ISPs. > > a) ISPs aren't exactly making money hand over foot. > > b) There is still tremendous competition, so if an ISPs billing > > policies are out of wack they simply won't get customers. > > c) It doesn't seem to me that you have thought through how ISPs > > need to market and sell products. The typical user does not > > want to have weird mysterious bandwidth charges showing up. > > They won't buy what the don't understand. Why do you think > > no one sells DSL or cable that way? > > d) If an ISPs needs to make a certain amount of money to pay the > > bills, they will find a way to make up that money elsewhere > > if that is where they were deriving it from. And whether > > you want to admit it or not, the fact remains that users with > > static/routed IPs use more resources than other customers. > > > > ISPs are hoarding IP space???!!! Good lord! ARIN rakes me > over the > > coals every time I ask for space. I have to fit .252 > networks in all > > over my network to properly utilize all my space until ARIN > graciously > > gives me the IPs I need. I've lost customers because I haven't had > > enough IPs to help a customer. I don't have one single IP > wasted out > > of our block. I have an extremely difficult time believing > that other > > ISPs are being treated with less scrutiny, since I don't remember > > personally pissing anyone off at ARIN to make them treat me > different. > > Sounds like you have had some poor experiences with some > ISPs... but > > that is just speculation. > > > > > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and > > > responsive. ISP's on average have not been any of these. > > > > Hmmm, maybe my suspicions have been confirmed. > > > > Whether or not I think it's a good thing to hand out smaller blocks > > and with less criteria, I know that your reasons strike me as being > > completely off base. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mury > > > > PS, sometimes emails come across the wrong way. I'm not trying to > > insult you or start some sort of war, but after re-reading > it I know > > it could be interpreted that way. I simply think you are off-base. > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Beran wrote: > > > > > Alec. > > > I quote from the ARIN web site: > > > "As a nonprofit organization with a bottom-up, community-based > structure, > > > our focus is completely on serving our members and the Internet > community at > > > large." > > > > > > Serving the members that operate ARIN is important but their goal > > > and > ARIN's > > > goal is to serve the Internet community at large. > > > Your "technical and operational issues" are important but do NOT > > > include other aspects of serving the Internet community at large. > > > > > > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the > Internet community > > > at large. This should be a TOP priority! > > > > > > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of > operation in > > > the current format to understand that IP space is still being > > > improperly utilized/horded/charged for etc. Why not allow /24 > > > address space allocations? I see and have heard NO good > reasons not > > > to allow it. The same process > and > > > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well > now so why > > > not > for > > > /24. > > > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and > > > responsive. ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to > > > charge EVERY month > for > > > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to > > > justify > a > > > couple years ago is terrible. > > > Usage can be metered and is metered so the usage argument > per IP is > > > not > a > > > good one. > > > > > > Beran > > > > > > Beran Peter > > > Beran at BeranPeter.com 617-803-3658 > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Alec > > > H. Peterson > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:59 PM > > > To: Jim Fleming; ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > > > > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 12:53 -0500 Jim Fleming > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Can you convert all that to dollars and sense ? > > > > > > > > As an example, if you determine that your needs are to > run a homeless > > > > shelter, what will that cost ? and why should ISPs be > paying for that > ? > > > > > > > > Also, what are the needs of all of the Directors and > their "staffers" > as > > > > they are called in D.C. ? Do you think the ICANN and > ARIN Directors > > > > should each maintain an office with staff ? Would a > $2,000,000 dollar > per > > > > year budget per Director handle all their **needs** ? > > > > > > > > You seem to want to start with **needs** and then work to costs. > > > > Can you do that ? > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > I will be the first to admit that I do not have a head > for pricing as > far > > > as what any entity (and ISP, ARIN or anything else) needs > to charge to > make > > > ends meet. I believe that the policy discussions should > focus on the > > > technical and operational issues. I see no need why > money needs to be a > > > part of that discussion, it can happen separately once > the policy itself > > > has been decided. > > > > > > ALec > > > > > > -- > > > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > > > Chief Technology Officer > > > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > > > > > > > > From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Tue Oct 1 19:25:45 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 18:25:45 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9900@ONTARIO> On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:18 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net) wrote: >Is it fair to ask providers across the globe to carry your >route? Absolutely. IP (the internet) has been around for more than three decades. It is the responsibility of an internet router to route ip traffic. The internet belongs to the world. If a provider chooses to not route traffic, then that is their loss. They will not last long. It should not be ARIN`s responsibility to keep only providers happy. A compromise must be found. >The prime issue here is about routing table size. Memory is >cheap, CPU is even fairly cheap today. Yet there is a point >at which it is "costly" to lookup your route. Even using >some of the new Radix methods its still costly in the sense >of latency and other metrics. I would like to have a non-routable /24. Since you think the prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could set aside address space for non-routable /24s. Then both of us would be extremely happy. How`s that for a compromise? >There are 33,000 registered business in New Mexico (my home >state). We are a small state. >If we say that the average state has 15,000 businesses that >should have a /24, that would create a routing table around >750,000 entries. >That doesn't scale well. Memory requirements far exceed current >in production routing equipment. Further route flap from all >of these prefix's could cause more BGP traffic than SPAM does. :) So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ forever? Or only available to the fortune100? All because routers are slow? Make /24s available to small businesses and router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. >Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. Which companies did you poll? My numbers would be significantly different. But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. >Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works >well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every >business that comes along is not in the best interest of the >global internet. Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their routers. ;) So what if we run out of IP addresses. If I can`t get one because it is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent. Don`t punish me. Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations to get unused space back. All of these addresses are currently in the routing tables; aren`t they? Maybe providers should remove these addresses from their tables. That should speed things up a bit??? Jeffery D. Urmann - Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.Org Network Analyst Hennepin Faculty Associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 1 19:49:30 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:49:30 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9900@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <009101c269a5$36544d50$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> See below -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:26 PM To: 'john at chagres.net' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:18 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net) wrote: >>The prime issue here is about routing table size. Memory is >>cheap, CPU is even fairly cheap today. Yet there is a point >>at which it is "costly" to lookup your route. Even using >>some of the new Radix methods its still costly in the sense >>of latency and other metrics. >I would like to have a non-routable /24. Since you think the >prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could >set aside address space for non-routable /24s. Then both of >us would be extremely happy. How`s that for a compromise? The IETF and the IANA (parent to the RIR's) has already set aside address space for exactly this use. Please READ RFC-1918 on Private IP Space. Your choices are: 10.0.0.0/8 172.16.0.0/12 192.168.0.0/16 >There are 33,000 registered business in New Mexico (my home >state). We are a small state. >If we say that the average state has 15,000 businesses that >should have a /24, that would create a routing table around >750,000 entries. >That doesn't scale well. Memory requirements far exceed current >in production routing equipment. Further route flap from all >of these prefix's could cause more BGP traffic than SPAM does. :) >So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ >forever? Or only available to the fortune100? All because >routers are slow? Make /24s available to small businesses and >router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. The addresses are not "reserved" forever. If you look at the allocation trends you will see that many /8's have been moved from the IANA_RESERVED status to being allocated to a RIR. Those RIR's then have allocated them to providers. Your comment about "will be forced to make it scale well" is like saying. If you want a VW-Bug to go faster, put a larger engine in it. There is a point where you can no longer put a larger engine in the car. e.g it does scale well beyond a 351. >>Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. >Which companies did you poll? My numbers would be significantly >different. But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. 2000 of 2800 members of the Greater ABQ Chamber of Commerce report less than 15 FTE's or are in a business where their FTE's do not need access to computer (eg retail sales, etc) If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will be significantly different. :) >>Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works >>well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every >>business that comes along is not in the best interest of the >>global internet. >Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their >routers. ;) Can't upgrade what doesn't exist. Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade" their routers??? Not even talking about the large providers. >So what if we run out of IP addresses. If I can`t get one because it >is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent. Don`t punish me. >Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations >to get unused space back. All of these addresses are currently in >the routing tables; aren`t they? Maybe providers should remove >these addresses from their tables. That should speed things up >a bit??? Running out and reserved is apples and oranges. No the reserved space is not in the routing table. Only the announced and currently used space is in the table. john brown From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Tue Oct 1 20:22:48 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 18:22:48 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <001c01c26994$61f81600$6701a8c0@hermes> Message-ID: <002801c269a9$d6bf83a0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> >.. >.. >.. >.. >.. < to pay for it > Um.. do you pay for your water? Yes? Thought so. And who does the water company get their water from?? NO-ONE! It's FREE!!! Then why do they charge for it!!! Because they have to pay for the support infrastructure to deliver it to you! ISP must collect revenue for pay for their salaries, benefits, hardware, software, marketing, upstream costs, peering costs, billing systems, financial systems, collections systems, web servers, mail servers, web software, mail software, their phone bills, their long distance charges, heating for their offices, leasing for their offices... need I go on??? If they don't charge for it, they might not be around next year.. If they do charge for it, you might not use them as your ISP. ISP are having a tough enough time as it is trying to stay alive. GET OVER IT. Welcome to the free market! If I can get someone to pay for something that I got for free; more power to me. If you don't like it.. go somewhere else. What is the difference between free and $1000.00? Just because I paid $1000.00 does that make it any better then if I paid $100.00? Or if I paid $1.00? Or if I got it for free? The point is this.. we live in a capitalistic society. Fair only counts when we were kids (even then that's debatable). Unfortunately, fair has little to do with pricing policies. The market will dictate the going rate, if no-ones buys.. then the prices go down. This is the law of supply and demand. If you don't like the prices you pay.. go somewhere else. An ISPs pricing policy should NOT be the issue here. For the record, I work for an ISP and we do NOT charge for IP space, no matter what size the block. The issue here is if there is a viable reason for allocating a /24 to an entity. Past history shows that this was the case, but for some reason it was changed to a /20. This motion had to be brought to the ARIN members before. So why was it changed from a /24 to a /20?? ** Before any policy is brought to a vote to the ARIN members, I strongly urge ARIN to dig up the history on this and present it to this list. From david.conrad at nominum.com Wed Oct 2 02:30:27 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 23:30:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <002801c269a9$d6bf83a0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: Hi, Speaking personally, not as an ARIN board member, and apologies in advance for the length... On 10/1/02 5:22 PM, "Trevor Paquette" wrote: > The issue here is if there is a viable reason for allocating a /24 to an > entity. Past history shows that this was the case, Actually, the registry allocation of /24s (as with the /8s to folks other than registries and pretty much all /16s in the "class B" space) occurred during the Internet's infancy, long before anyone thought this TCP/IP stuff would catch on like it did (after all, the governments and telcos were working on this stuff called OSI and, of course, it'd be much better than this stuff produced for/by the US Dept. of Defense). Address space was treated _much_ differently then than it is today. (Yes, this situation can be considered unfair by later entrants into the Internet, which is, of course, the vast majority. However, given (according to the routing summaries posted by APNIC) only 54% of the IPv4 address space has been allocated, I personally don't see a need to rush into the lawyer filled swamp of trying to force people to give back address space they don't want to (voluntary return of address space should be encouraged). The issues the registries try to deal with are not exclusively conservation of address space, but rather balancing address space conservation and limiting routing system bloat.) > but for some reason it was changed to a /20. A bit of history (at least as I remember it) might help here... In the early 90's, folks noticed the class B space was being consumed pretty quickly. Estimates of run out of the class B space (note, not all the address space, just the class B space) was something like 1996. This caused some concern within the IETF and elsewhere as class Bs were the preferred allocation unit, given class Cs were too small for most and class As were too large. After lots of discussion within the IETF, the IEPG, the regional-techs (network operators involved with the NSFNet), and other venues, the IANA decided to have InterNIC allocate blocks of class Cs instead of class Bs. Since the Internet was still classful, this caused a different (and not unexpected) problem -- the routing tables grew much too fast, threatening the NSFNet core routers. CIDR was deployed (pretty much just in the nick of time) to address the routing tables growing too fast problem, using aggregation of routing prefixes to reduce the number of routes in (and more importantly, the number of routing updates propagating through) the "default free zone". However, this aggregtion only works when you can take a bunch of routing tree leaves and hide them behind a shorter prefix. As such, address space needs to be allocated to providers (commercial ISPs or otherwise) who can aggregate a number of their "customers" into a single prefix. This is why there is a minimum block size and that "leaf" entities (in terms of network topology) should get address space from their upstream. It isn't, despite the bizarre assertions of a couple of individuals who have posted in this forum, a grand conspiracy on the part of (pick one or more) the large ISPs, the US government, ICANN, the RIRs, the Illuminati, or me personally. It is simply that we don't know how to scale up networks without hiding information and CIDR/provider-based addressing is how this information hiding has been implemnted. If you have better ideas, there are still a whole bunch of VCs with money in Silicon Valley desperately looking for startups with investable ideas... > This motion had to be brought to the ARIN members before. So > why was it changed from a /24 to a /20?? I believe (I wasn't directly involved with ARIN at the time, being busy with APNIC), ARIN's initial allocation policy was a /19, inherited from InterNIC's address allocation policy when ARIN was formed, changing to a /20 at the beginning of 1999 at the request of the membership. It is probably worth noting that the amount of address space ARIN initially allocated at its inception was inline with both APNIC and RIPE-NCC at the time. > ** Before any policy is brought to a vote to the ARIN members, I strongly urge > ARIN to dig up the history on this and present it to this list. Looking at the archives on ARIN's web site of past member meetings and the minutes of the AC and board can give you an idea of how ARIN's policies were established. The whole CIDR deployment stuff is probably best documented in the IEPG archives and the IETF CIDRD and ALE working group mailing list archives. Also, probably lots of relvant stuff in the NANOG archives (and its predecessor regional-techs, if archives of that exist anywhere). It is a lot to read through and you'll find the pretty much the same arguments repeated over and over again. The problem is that the registries are stuck in the middle between the desires of service providers (commercial or otherwise) to keep their infrastructures from falling over and the (entirely understandable) desires of service provider customers for address portability and/or multi-homing. It can be (and often is) argued that existing restrictions are too harsh, however the implications of overly generous allocation (namely routers being unable to handle updates and/or filtering of prefixes to avoid same) are such that it has historically been felt that it was better to err on the side of being conservative. However, address policies are established by forums such as this and if there is consensus that the policies should change, they will. It happened once already (when ARIN moved from /19 to /20)... Rgds, -drc From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 2 08:42:46 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 07:42:46 -0500 Subject: [ppml] An Apple for ARIN Message-ID: <06db01c26a11$35c4bf70$617d2b41@repligate> Many people do not seem to understand that ARIN has not been around very long. The I* society seems to have a knack for working behind the scenes to create private companies to serve their needs and as soon as those companies are formed, and Board members are "selected", and the cash is flowing the general public (and customers) are distracted from the basic questions of who gave these self-appointed insiders the right / authority / legitimacy to be doing what they are doing ? which is largely **nothing** more than what could be accomplished with some simple automation programs allowing ISPs to obtain and return blocks of numbers in an organized manner. ===== Why Names and Numbers Are Needed ===== The history of ARIN and all of the Address Space Registries (ASRs) is rooted in the design of the IPv4 IP layer Header which is 160 bits in length without options. Two of the fields in that 160 bits are 32 bits long and contain what are called IP Addresses. Many people now, young and old, can quickly tell you their IP Address and can tell you weather it is dynamic or static. Some consider it to be like a phone number and even put it on their business cards and other signatures. They understand that static is stable and persistent and allows them to use that for people to contact them. Because of the artificially inflated cost of managing IP Address Space, dynamic IP address allocations have become popular, and the DNS is used to allow people to have a persitent name (which may be long but FREE), and that name can always be used to look up the dynamic IP address. To complicate matters even more, DNS names can be made to look a lot like phone numbers or static IP addresses, so people start to see the name and number spaces blurring together. Inside telephone systems, there is a notion of LEN - Line Equipment Number which is separate from the logical "phone number" which is largely now a database index. 800 numbers have of course created another layer which are mapped to underlying phone numbers which eventually end up with an LEN. Because of the circuit-switched nature of phone systems, each end does not have to know the LEN of the other end. That is not the case in packet-switched systems, where each end, ultimately, has a raw 32-bit, or larger, value for itself and the other end. ====================================== Returning to the real issue, why do certain insiders think they have the exclusive rights to be the Trustees or Stewards of the 32-bit values?? Why are they any different from any other human on Earth?? There are many answers to these questions. Most answers fall into the categories of: 1. They were there first. 2. They are the ones with the clues. 3. They care about the Internet. 4. They make lots of money from it. 5. It gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors. 6. They happened to know the right person at the right time. 7. They are control freaks. 8. They like to travel and party and hand out favors. 9. Their religion teaches them that they are special. 10. They have no clue how they got on the following list, but they will look into it. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Trusteeship can be separated from Allocationship in various ways. Many people seem to think that ARIN is the top level trustee for all of the 32-bit values. Because the ICANN Board and Staff are mostly clueless, and distracted with domain name debates, they have allowed ARIN to become the main allocator of **all** of the 32-bit values, partly, because of the management of the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone, and the out-sourced arrangement to Nominum, David Conrad (ARIN), Paul Vixie, and Paul Mockapetris who all worked closely with the late Jon Postel (IANA) who went to the same high-school as Vinton Cerf (ICANN) who was a DARPA funding manager that funded people to work their way up thru the I* society labor union or political party. http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html http://www.nominum.com/news/articles-mentions/svbizink-article.html RIPE and APNIC are under ARIN, yet are parallel (peers) in some ways, because they appear in this list. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Each line in the list is worth $1 to $2 billion dollars and the large commercial companies in the list remain largely silent, keeping ICANN in place as a well-funded and clueless overseer, and ARIN as the enforcer, with RIPE and APNIC as the go-along with anything sheep, and the always present *emerging" wannabees (LACNIC, AFRICANIC, etc.) that can't wait to get in on the game of handing out numbers in return for http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html large sums of money to fund their travel, connections to the Internet, etc. all while telling everyone that they are doing this for the good of the community and saving the router tables from being overflowed, which is total nonsense, because leasing out numbers says nothing about how those numbers will be used. It should be noted that ARIN does not guarantee routability with the blocks leased. Other Registries, such as AT&T, may be able to imply some potential for routability because they also operate equipment that forms the network. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories Jun 95 ====================================== Blocks of numbers without routability are largely worthless. Anyone can stand on a street corner and try to sell index cards with unique numbers on them. Most people would not buy one or lease one because it means nothing to them and therefore has no value. For people that do not want to collide, and want to engage in creating a cooperative network, having a unique id or block of numbers can be the key to participating or not. With 32-bits, in theory, there could be 4,294,967,296 owners. Some owners may want to use the unique ids for one purpose and others may want to use them for routing. Some people are narrow-minded and can not imagine why someone would want to own a unique id. [ As a bit of disclosure, in 1981 I started a company selling Unique IDs with signed, framed certificates. That was 21 years ago. A lot has happened since and there is more to come.] Stepping back and looking at the Internet with a fresh-start approach, one can imagine having a large land area (let's say Montana) and imagine having to divide it into 256 Trustees. Imagine one arrives in Montana and they just happen to land on Acre #17. They look around and they see that the land is covered with Apple trees, so they call it the Apple Acre. They also happen to notice a huge building on the land that makes computers, but they ignore that. Let's say that these people who landed on Acre #17 just so happened to have Tribal Names such as BBS, KIDS, SPACE and APPRAISERS. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. Jul 92 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 0:136 PICTURES 0:137 BBS 0:138 PLACE 0:139 KIDS 0:140 SPACE 0:141 APPRAISERS 0:142 CHANGE 0:143 CREATED ========================================== Let's say years and years go by and Acre #17 just sits there and is hardly used. Contrary to what some may think, Acre #17 does not come and go with an entry in a file. It exists because of the way ranges are numbered, because of the way all humans have learned to count and to order things. On each side of Acre #17 is Acre #16 and Acre #18. Each Acre is exactly the same size. Let's say that over time, the Tribal visitors to Acre #17 and the company there making computers all learn to get along and they eat the apples from the trees, and life is wonderful. Let's say they divide up the land and all learn to live with their "allocations" and one person from each of the tribes and one person from the computer company periodically meet and make sure everything is "fair". No outsiders are involved or needed. Let's say that over time, the computer company folds up or loses interest and what remains are the tribal leaders who run their BBSes, or raise their KIDS, or play in cyber SPACE. Let's say that they are all happy with Acre #17 and they all learn to get along and to play fair. Imagine that these tribes are doing this and low and behold some people arrive from across some ocean and decide that the tribes must be organized. They take their Acre #17 from them and they give it back to the computer company. With land, it might be possible to take it from someone. With a totally abstract entity, such as a block of numbers, that is much harder. Imagine that all of the tribal leaders decide that they are very happy with Acre #17, and they all agree to tell each other and others that they live on Acre #17, the one with the apple trees. Who can stop them ? Via their strong bonds and their years of working together, they arrive at a view of the world that works for them and you can not change that view. They view that it is fair, that they have exclusive rights to Acre #17 and they are very happy to share some of the space with others. In fact, imagine that the tribal leaders are discover that they can lease part of the space to other people (who have no land) and make enough money to not do anything other than play, ride their horses, raise their kids, etc. They happen to be there first, at the right place and the right time, and they have the space and they prosper. ...to be continued... From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Wed Oct 2 12:13:43 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:13:43 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9901@ONTARIO> On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:50 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net) wrote: >>I would like to have a non-routable /24. Since you think the >>prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could >>set aside address space for non-routable /24s. Then both of >>us would be extremely happy. How`s that for a compromise? >The IETF and the IANA (parent to the RIR's) has already set >aside address space for exactly this use. >Please READ RFC-1918 on Private IP Space. >Your choices are: >10.0.0.0/8 >172.16.0.0/12 >192.168.0.0/16 In a previous message on this list I already indicated that I need *public* non-routable space. My apologies for not specifying it here. >>So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ >>forever? Or only available to the fortune100? All because >>routers are slow? Make /24s available to small businesses and >>router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. >The addresses are not "reserved" forever. If you look at the >allocation trends you will see that many /8's have been moved >from the IANA_RESERVED status to being allocated to a RIR. >Those RIR's then have allocated them to providers. Great! Now I`m asking for them to allocate me a public non-routable /24. This will not affect the routing table size issue. If I can`t get non-routable, then routable will be fine. Therefore I fight both battles here. >Your comment about "will be forced to make it scale well" is like >saying. If you want a VW-Bug to go faster, put a larger engine in >it. There is a point where you can no longer put a larger engine >in the car. e.g it does scale well beyond a 351. My comment was indeed naive. However, internal combustion technology and silicon technology are significantly different. Silicon technology has historically changed rapidly when the market has *forced* it. >>>Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. >>Which companies did you poll? My numbers would be significantly >>different. But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. >2000 of 2800 members of the Greater ABQ Chamber of Commerce report >less than 15 FTE's or are in a business where their FTE's do not >need access to computer (eg retail sales, etc) ARIN wouldn`t give them a /24 anyway; they wouldn`t meet the criteria. Others would, why turn them away. Since you do not believe that these numbers are large, then changing from /20 to /24 shouldn`t be that big of a burden on the routing tables. >If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will >be significantly different. :) My point was that I can pull numbers from the air too. Posting unsubstantiated statistics do not make statements true. My less than large company (and others that I am familiar with) do not jive with the numbers that were given. >>>Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works >>>well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every >>>business that comes along is not in the best interest of the >>>global internet. >>Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their >>routers. ;) >Can't upgrade what doesn't exist. >Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade" >their routers??? Not even talking about the large providers. So you are saying that it *is* about economics. A previous message from an ARIN member indicated that economics was not their concern. Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment. >>So what if we run out of IP addresses. If I can`t get one because it >>is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent. Don`t punish me. >>Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations >>to get unused space back. All of these addresses are currently in >>the routing tables; aren`t they? Maybe providers should remove >>these addresses from their tables. That should speed things up >>a bit??? >Running out and reserved is apples and oranges. True for some of the reserved (e.g. RFC1918). >No the reserved space is not in the routing table. Only the >announced and currently used space is in the table. I was not referring to the reserved space in reference to the routing table size. I was talking about the allocated unused space. Some large companies hold multiple /8-24s but most likely do not utilize any of them fully. They may get by with one /16 sub/super netted properly. >john brown Jeff Urmann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cottay at qconline.com Wed Oct 2 12:47:35 2002 From: cottay at qconline.com (George Cottay) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:47:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9901@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a@cottay> Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible inattention. I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference between public and private space. Is anyone inclined to explain? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 13:14:23 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a@cottay> Message-ID: Ditto. The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's responsibility. But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm curiously waiting for the answer. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible > inattention. > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other > than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially > given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an > organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of > the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with > which to play. > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that > are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference > between public and private space. > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 13:25:04 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:25:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9901@ONTARIO> Message-ID: > >Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade" > >their routers??? Not even talking about the large providers. > > So you are saying that it *is* about economics. A previous message > from an ARIN member indicated that economics was not their concern. > Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment. You are probably referring to Alec's comment stating that it should not be about ISP's pricing policies. That is different than the reality of existing infrastructure. I also highly doubt that there is available equipment that could handle routing tables that large at any price. The pricing policies of ISPs is purely based on supply and demand. There are enough ISPs out there where the market is dictating a fair price, which for the last years has been too low. Look at all the ISPs going out of business as proof. When the number of ISPs stabalize the pricing for Internet services will fall close to where they should be. If they rise too high we will see a influx of new opportunists to drive the price back down. On the other hand routing table sizes are a reality. You can't demand the government give you magic healing water from Jupiter when it doesn't exist. *And* even if it did you can't demand that you get some until it is largely available. It is poor logic to say that ISPs pricing policies and the situation of the routing tables are both economics so they should be treated the same. One is relevant and one isn't. Mury From sigma at smx.pair.com Wed Oct 2 13:31:50 2002 From: sigma at smx.pair.com (sigma at smx.pair.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Message-ID: <20021002173150.76188.qmail@smx.pair.com> The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 and so is Company B". But one or the other company would have to renumber, regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B renumbers to 192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some non-routed block of "public" IP space. I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing out /24's is short-sighted and disregards what has happened in the past. Kevin ----- Forwarded message from Mury ----- From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 13:14:23 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a@cottay> Message-ID: Ditto. The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's responsibility. But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm curiously waiting for the answer. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible > inattention. > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other > than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially > given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an > organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of > the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with > which to play. > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that > are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference > between public and private space. > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > ----- End of forwarded message from Mury ----- From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Wed Oct 2 13:37:40 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:37:40 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9902@ONTARIO> On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:48 AM, George Cottay (cottay at qconline.com) wrote: >I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. I haven`t see the above mentioned here. >I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference between public and private space. >Is anyone inclined to explain? I believe I started this. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Let me try again... I only mentioned non-routable to address the routing table size limitations. I thought I would lobby to get reserved space for that if /24 allocations were not possible. CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private IP addresses as described in RFC1918. Both Companies are connected independently to the internet via their ISP of choice with public space provided by their ISP. Both companies wish to connect to each other directly (not through the internet). Since there is a conflict in IP addresses, NAT with public IP addresses is necessary. CompanyB insists that CompanyA use public address space (internet routable or otherwise; neither Company cares). CompanyA needs about 100 distinct public IP addresses (to start anyway). To the best of my knowledge and experience, there is currently no way to get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy these requirements. ISPs claim CompanyA cannot justify, based on ARIN policy, more address space. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 2 13:40:50 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:40:50 -0500 Subject: [ppml] White House Town Hall Meeting...October 3, 2002, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm References: Message-ID: <079101c26a3a$da814eb0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mury" > > On the other hand routing table sizes are a reality. You can't demand the > government give you magic healing water from Jupiter when it doesn't > exist. *And* even if it did you can't demand that you get some until it > is largely available. > > It is poor logic to say that ISPs pricing policies and the situation of > the routing tables are both economics so they should be treated the > same. One is relevant and one isn't. > You do not have to demand the government, they will be demanding you. When BGP is removed from the picture, the routing table issue goes away. It has always been a non-issue, used by the Registries to spread FUD. Whitehouse Ready to Release Next Generation Internet Plan http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958159.html?tag=politech http://www.politechbot.com/p-03994.html http://www.uscryptomail.org/cybersecurity/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore032199.htm Gore Deserves Internet Credit, Some Say David J. Farber, a professor of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the early players in the Internet, said that along with the importance of his legislative initiatives, Gore popularized the emerging medium worldwide. Gore aligned himself with high tech long before every lawmaker boasted of his or her personal Web site. He helped popularize the term "information superhighway," drawing on the symbolism of his father's hand in creating the interstate highway system. Vinton G. Cerf, a senior vice president at MCI Worldcom and the person most often called "the father of the Internet" for his part in designing the network's common computer language, said in an e-mail interview yesterday, "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator." ===== http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html Dr. Dave Farber Bill Manning http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html Bill Manning ========================================================================== http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200209/msg00034.html White House Town Hall Meeting Regarding the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace To be held at the University of Pennsylvania October 3, 2002, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Annenberg Center Zellerbach Theatre 3680 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Howard Schmidt, Vice Chairman, President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board Orson Swindle, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission David J. Farber, Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems, University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Sciences ======================================================== http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb http://www.ilpf.org http://www.ilpf.org/conference2002/new_index.html Among the globally recognized experts who will be speaking at the conference are: Commissioner Orson Swindle of the US Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Strategy to Secure Cyberspace Howard Schmidt, Vice Chair, President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board The Vice Chair of the Board responsible for preparing the US Strategy for Securing Cyberspace, which was made public on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 http://www.ilpf.org/conference2002/schedule.html ========================================================================= ??????????????????? "This ought to play well with any company whose stock price is dependent on a well-functioning Internet." ??????????????????? http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9909/msg00035.html @05:19pm 07/06/99-0400, vinton g. cerf wrote: >folks, > >I have talked with John Sidgmore. We will try to get $500K >at least "backup" in case nothing else in the way of >fundraising works. Mike Nelson, I have copied John Patrick and >Irving Wladawsky-Berger on this message, as well as John Sidgmore. >If IBM and MCI Worldcom can come up with $1M in "bridge" funding, >to be paid back at a later time under reasonable terms that will >not harm ICANN, then perhaps we can begin a new fundraising campaign >knowing that we have the ability to back up the campaign with a >rescue effort in the short term. It will be easier for John Sidgmore >to make the case to the MCI Worldcom management if IBM is willing to go >into this with us and split the $1M cost. Is it possible? > >I would then launch a campaign with GIP, ITAA, Internet Society, >and other interested groups on the basis that ICANN must succeed >or Internet will be in jeopardy. This ought to play well with any >company whose stock price is dependent on a well-functioning Internet. > >Thoughts? > >Vint ================================================================== From sigma at smx.pair.com Wed Oct 2 13:49:21 2002 From: sigma at smx.pair.com (sigma at smx.pair.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9902@ONTARIO> from Jeff Urmann at "Oct 2, 2 12:37:40 pm" Message-ID: <20021002174921.77708.qmail@smx.pair.com> > CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private > IP addresses as described in RFC1918. Both Companies are connected > independently to the internet via their ISP of choice with public space > provided by their ISP. Both companies wish to connect to each other > directly (not through the internet). Since there is a conflict in IP > addresses, NAT with public IP addresses is necessary. CompanyB insists > that CompanyA use public address space (internet routable or otherwise; > neither Company cares). Both companies are using all of the 10, 172, and 192 addresses?! That hardly seems likely. If they are, then surely they aren't actually utilizing all of it, and could trim their usage a bit so as to free up a block to use when routing to the other company? Kevin From sigma at smx.pair.com Wed Oct 2 13:50:21 2002 From: sigma at smx.pair.com (sigma at smx.pair.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] White House Town Hall Meeting...October 3, 2002, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm In-Reply-To: <079101c26a3a$da814eb0$617d2b41@repligate> from Jim Fleming at "Oct 2, 2 12:40:50 pm" Message-ID: <20021002175021.77749.qmail@smx.pair.com> > When BGP is removed from the picture, the routing table issue goes away. And... so does the Internet. Kevin From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 13:53:17 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:53:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20021002173150.76188.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: Are you saying that "they" are claiming the need for private non-routable /24's is in case of a merger? Nobody can be that silly, can they? On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 and so is > Company B". But one or the other company would have to renumber, > regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B renumbers to > 192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some > non-routed block of "public" IP space. > > I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing out /24's > is short-sighted and disregards what has happened in the past. > > Kevin > > ----- Forwarded message from Mury ----- > > >From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Oct 02 17:18:31 2002 > Delivered-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > X-Envelope-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > Delivered-To: sigma at pair.com > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mury > To: George Cottay > cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a at cottay> > Message-ID: > Sender: owner-ppml at arin.net > Precedence: bulk > > > Ditto. > > The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private > (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not > Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's > responsibility. > > But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm curiously > waiting for the answer. > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > > > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible > > inattention. > > > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other > > than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially > > given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an > > organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of > > the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with > > which to play. > > > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that > > are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference > > between public and private space. > > > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > > > > > ----- End of forwarded message from Mury ----- > From sigma at smx.pair.com Wed Oct 2 13:56:08 2002 From: sigma at smx.pair.com (sigma at smx.pair.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: from Mury at "Oct 2, 2 12:53:17 pm" Message-ID: <20021002175608.78398.qmail@smx.pair.com> Not in the case of a merger, I'm sorry. I meant in the case of the two companies wanting to connect their networks. Kevin > Are you saying that "they" are claiming the need for private non-routable > /24's is in case of a merger? > > Nobody can be that silly, can they? > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 and so is > > Company B". But one or the other company would have to renumber, > > regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B renumbers to > > 192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some > > non-routed block of "public" IP space. > > > > I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing out /24's > > is short-sighted and disregards what has happened in the past. > > > > Kevin > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Mury ----- > > > > >From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Oct 02 17:18:31 2002 > > Delivered-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > X-Envelope-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > Delivered-To: sigma at pair.com > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT) > > From: Mury > > To: George Cottay > > cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a at cottay> > > Message-ID: > > Sender: owner-ppml at arin.net > > Precedence: bulk > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private > > (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not > > Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's > > responsibility. > > > > But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm curiously > > waiting for the answer. > > > > Mury > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > > > > > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible > > > inattention. > > > > > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other > > > than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially > > > given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an > > > organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of > > > the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with > > > which to play. > > > > > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that > > > are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference > > > between public and private space. > > > > > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > > > > > > > > > ----- End of forwarded message from Mury ----- > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 2 13:55:06 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:55:06 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Does ARIN ensure (guarantee) "routability" now ? References: Message-ID: <07b501c26a3c$e0fa0960$617d2b41@repligate> Does ARIN ensure (guarantee) "routability" now ? Also, note APIPA address space which some claim is not routable. http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/APIPA.html "reserved especially for Microsoft. The IP address range is 169.254.0.1 through 169.254.255.254" ==== Apple and Microsoft just started using it, without the need for an IANA... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mury" To: "George Cottay" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > Ditto. > > The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private > (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not > Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's > responsibility. > > But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm curiously > waiting for the answer. > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > > > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible > > inattention. > > > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other > > than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially > > given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an > > organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of > > the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with > > which to play. > > > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that > > are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference > > between public and private space. > > > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > > > > From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Wed Oct 2 13:58:33 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:58:33 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9904@ONTARIO> On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:32 PM, sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: >The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 and so is >Company B". But one or the other company would have to renumber, >regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B renumbers to >192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some >non-routed block of "public" IP space. Neither company has to renumber if NAT is used. Which company should renumber? >I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing out /24's >is short-sighted and disregards what has happened in the past. Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 2 14:00:11 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:00:11 -0500 Subject: [ppml] White House Town Hall Meeting...October 3, 2002, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm References: <20021002175021.77749.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: <07db01c26a3d$8e1a41f0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] White House Town Hall Meeting...October 3, 2002, 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm > > > When BGP is removed from the picture, the routing table issue goes away. > > And... so does the Internet. > They will just lock down the "core", so no one can announce into it and it can not fail. http://cookreport.com/11.08-09.shtml "In North America the Tier 1's oligopoly of peering only with themselves is still well entrenched. Farooq Hussain has written for this issue a remarkably candid summary of the evolution of the Tier 1's peering policy. They are, he says, the Internet Core Networks that announced anonymously on December 5, 2001 their decision to move their peering to Equinix Exchanges. He identifies them as UUNET, Sprint, Cable and Wireless, Genuity, Level 3, Qwest, and AT&T. He also finds their peering requirements to be arbitrary beyond reason. For example, interconnection at OC48 is one thing, but to be forced to do so at 15 locations around the United States is something else again. " ==== From david.conrad at nominum.com Wed Oct 2 14:02:28 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:02:28 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a@cottay> Message-ID: Hi, Again, speaking personally, not as an ARIN board member... On 10/2/02 9:47 AM, "George Cottay" wrote: > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other than the > present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially given the size of > the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an organization needing > more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of the old class C, that leaves > upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. In a previous life (in the very early days of APNIC), I was the (equivalent of the) IP analyst at APNIC (as well as CEO, CFO, programmer, sys admin, and janitor :-)). I'd get two or three requests a month from organizations that wanted address space but who claimed they had no intention of ever connecting that address space to the Internet. When I asked why they couldn't use the RFC 1918 space, the requestors invariably told me they didn't want to have to renumber should they acquire another company/merge internal groups/etc. Don't know if ARIN IP analysts get these sort of requests, but it wasn't that uncommon in the AP region in the mid- to late-90's. As an aside, I will note that (last I checked) all of the organizations who claimed to me (back in the mid '90s) they'd never connect to the Internet are, in fact, connected to the Internet today. > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that are not > routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference between public > and private space. Uniqueness is the only attribute the registries can provide that separate the addresses they allocate from any randomly generated 32 (or 128) bit integer. That uniqueness is often of value independent of whether the address space is to be used on the Internet or not. I personally know of several very large organizations that are using the exact same 10/8 prefixes internally (perhaps an interesting study for CAIDA or whoever -- of the folks who use net 10 (et al), how many start with 0 and go up in subnets and how many assign subnets randomly). I also have seen the implications of renumbering when two large organizations using the same prefixes try to merge. Please note that I am not saying the allocation of unique address space not intended for use on the Internet is a good or bad idea, just trying to answer the question. I will, however, admit that I'm a bit skeptical that renumbering a private /24 is much of a hardship... Rgds, -drc From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 14:07:23 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:07:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9902@ONTARIO> Message-ID: I'm still confused. If they want to connect to each other why do they have to re-number to a public non-routable block? Why can't they re-number to a different block in the 10/172/192 space? Could they have forseen this need? I doubt it. If they had forseen the need, why didn't they use 10.175.122.0/24 or some other obsure /24 in the available ranges? Remember we are talking about a /24. The chances of two companies using /24's, needing to communicate with each other, and having the same block has to be pretty darn small. And it's a moot point anyway unless they foresaw the need enough to purchase a special public non-routable block from ARIN. This is further a moot point by the economic savings of VPNs and tunneling. If they aready have connectivity why the heck would they pay for a new link? Remember we are talking /24's! I can see the reason for larger companies. Public non-routable blocks make no sense. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Jeff Urmann wrote: > On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:48 AM, George Cottay (cottay at qconline.com) > wrote: > >I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other than > the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. Especially given the > size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an organization > needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of the old class C, > that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. > > I haven`t see the above mentioned here. > > >I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that are > not routed. I thought routing was the most significant difference between > public and private space. > > >Is anyone inclined to explain? > > I believe I started this. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. > Let me try again... > > I only mentioned non-routable to address the routing table size > limitations. I thought I would lobby to get reserved space for that > if /24 allocations were not possible. > > CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private > IP addresses as described in RFC1918. Both Companies are connected > independently to the internet via their ISP of choice with public space > provided by their ISP. Both companies wish to connect to each other > directly (not through the internet). Since there is a conflict in IP > addresses, NAT with public IP addresses is necessary. CompanyB insists > that CompanyA use public address space (internet routable or otherwise; > neither Company cares). > > CompanyA needs about 100 distinct public IP addresses (to start anyway). > To the best of my knowledge and experience, there is currently no way to > get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy these requirements. > ISPs claim CompanyA cannot justify, based on ARIN policy, more address > space. > From sigma at smx.pair.com Wed Oct 2 14:09:39 2002 From: sigma at smx.pair.com (sigma at smx.pair.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9904@ONTARIO> from Jeff Urmann at "Oct 2, 2 12:58:33 pm" Message-ID: <20021002180939.79304.qmail@smx.pair.com> > Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return them whenever possible. Kevin From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 14:15:23 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:15:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Re: Does ARIN ensure (guarantee) "routability" now ? In-Reply-To: <07b501c26a3c$e0fa0960$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: > Does ARIN ensure (guarantee) "routability" now ? Dude. Sometimes you have good points, but they are all wasted when you come up with crap like this. Of course ARIN does not guarantee routability. How could they? Of course ARIN bases it's policies on the realities of the Internet including trying to provide routable IP space to those purchasing it. To not do so is total folly. What good would it do anyone to "sell" some poor business person a /24 who isn't up on all the in's and out's of ARIN and routing policies of ISPs? ARIN would be getting an angry phone call and issuing a refund check. Mury From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 14:25:28 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:25:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20021002180939.79304.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come up a lot over the last couple years. It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking about it on some mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone to make some phone calls again. In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money pot, so maybe ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of that wasted IP space... half joking. ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because you don't want unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then there should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these space holders. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That > > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return > them whenever possible. > > Kevin > From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Wed Oct 2 14:41:55 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:41:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9906@ONTARIO> >> Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have >> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That >> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? >It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and >enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that >predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should >focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while >encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return >them whenever possible. So it`s a matter of doing the easy thing instead of the best thing? It is ARINs responsibility to do the right thing, isn`t it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msalim at localweb.com Wed Oct 2 14:53:09 2002 From: msalim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Mury, with respect, you seem to indicate that changing ISP's is like changing a pair of socks. If your ISP decides to jack up their IP price on you or suddenly start charging $10/mo per IP all you have to do is shop around a little and !poof! you are on a new ISP. Which planet does this happen on, just curious? I believe the whole lively discussion regarding /24 allocations stems from one basic fact: small ISP's feel very insecure about the fact that they have NO control over what their upstream ISP may decide to do from one month to the next, or from one renewal period to the next, regarding allocation and charging for IP space. Upstream ISP's are already charging for, and we small ISP's are already happily paying for all the internet and services being provided such as bandwidth, routing etc. so the argument that charging an additional amount for IP's is somehow justified is very weak at best. Even $1 per IP per year could be considered high by many let alone the astronomical $10 or $15 per month that has been talked about on this list. I can certainly understand justifying IP allocations. But not IP fees, over and above what is being paid to ARIN by the upstream ISP in the form of annual dues, processing fees etc. Small ISP's need some assurance or price protection against such tactics. Maybe ARIN is not the right platform, but ARIN has set a precedent by charging for IP's in the first place (directly or indirectly) so ARIN is a good starting point for this discussion. True there are lot of ISP's out there, competition is tight etc. but in many markets you have little choice who your ISP is going to be, and even less choice in changing ISP's as it is costly and time consuming proposition to change ISP's, possibly moving all your equipment and renumbering all your networks. best regards Mike Salim On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Mury wrote: > The pricing policies of ISPs is purely based on supply and demand. There > are enough ISPs out there where the market is dictating a fair price, > which for the last years has been too low. Look at all the ISPs going out > of business as proof. When the number of ISPs stabalize the pricing for > Internet services will fall close to where they should be. If they rise > too high we will see a influx of new opportunists to drive the price back > down. From JNewton at corp.untd.com Wed Oct 2 14:57:12 2002 From: JNewton at corp.untd.com (Newton, Justin) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:57:12 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Message-ID: <746DC3BFE2AFD411AB8D0090279CC7180C24D355@exchange2.int.netzero.net> I do not believe that ARIN has been given the authority by ICANN to do "forced revocation" of IP space on legacy addresses. If you believe that this is something that ARIN should be doing, it should probably be addressed at the ICANN level, and we can then discuss whether and how we want to implement that authority here. In the past anything other than urging people to return space they are not using has not been something that the Internet community as a whole has consented to. Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:42 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) >> Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have >> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That >> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? >It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and >enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that >predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should >focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while >encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return >them whenever possible. So it`s a matter of doing the easy thing instead of the best thing? It is ARINs responsibility to do the right thing, isn`t it? __________________________________________ Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! http://www.netzerolongdistance.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sigma at smx.pair.com Wed Oct 2 14:58:11 2002 From: sigma at smx.pair.com (sigma at smx.pair.com) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9906@ONTARIO> from Jeff Urmann at "Oct 2, 2 01:41:55 pm" Message-ID: <20021002185811.82096.qmail@smx.pair.com> > >It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and > >enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that > >predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should > >focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while > >encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return > >them whenever possible. > > So it`s a matter of doing the easy thing instead of the best thing? It is > ARINs responsibility to do the right thing, isn`t it? I'm sorry, "easy" isn't the word I should have used. "Possible" would be more fitting. Or "appropriate", at least. I'm saying that ARIN may well run into trouble trying to retroactively apply policies to allocations that predate ARIN's existence. I'm just being realistic. Kevin From JNewton at corp.untd.com Wed Oct 2 15:00:31 2002 From: JNewton at corp.untd.com (Newton, Justin) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:00:31 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <746DC3BFE2AFD411AB8D0090279CC7180C24D356@exchange2.int.netzero.net> Mike, What is the difference between suddenly charging a customer an incremental cost for servicing an IP allocation, or an ISP suddenly jacking up the price on a service they are already charging you for? An ISP needs to recoup the total costs for providing service to you. What line item they bill those costs as should not impact ARIN policies. -----Original Message----- From: A. M. Salim [mailto:msalim at localweb.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:53 AM To: 'ppml at arin.net' Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Hi, Mury, with respect, you seem to indicate that changing ISP's is like changing a pair of socks. If your ISP decides to jack up their IP price on you or suddenly start charging $10/mo per IP all you have to do is shop around a little and !poof! you are on a new ISP. Which planet does this happen on, just curious? I believe the whole lively discussion regarding /24 allocations stems from one basic fact: small ISP's feel very insecure about the fact that they have NO control over what their upstream ISP may decide to do from one month to the next, or from one renewal period to the next, regarding allocation and charging for IP space. Upstream ISP's are already charging for, and we small ISP's are already happily paying for all the internet and services being provided such as bandwidth, routing etc. so the argument that charging an additional amount for IP's is somehow justified is very weak at best. Even $1 per IP per year could be considered high by many let alone the astronomical $10 or $15 per month that has been talked about on this list. I can certainly understand justifying IP allocations. But not IP fees, over and above what is being paid to ARIN by the upstream ISP in the form of annual dues, processing fees etc. Small ISP's need some assurance or price protection against such tactics. Maybe ARIN is not the right platform, but ARIN has set a precedent by charging for IP's in the first place (directly or indirectly) so ARIN is a good starting point for this discussion. True there are lot of ISP's out there, competition is tight etc. but in many markets you have little choice who your ISP is going to be, and even less choice in changing ISP's as it is costly and time consuming proposition to change ISP's, possibly moving all your equipment and renumbering all your networks. best regards Mike Salim On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Mury wrote: > The pricing policies of ISPs is purely based on supply and demand. There > are enough ISPs out there where the market is dictating a fair price, > which for the last years has been too low. Look at all the ISPs going out > of business as proof. When the number of ISPs stabalize the pricing for > Internet services will fall close to where they should be. If they rise > too high we will see a influx of new opportunists to drive the price back > down. __________________________________________ Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! http://www.netzerolongdistance.com From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Wed Oct 2 15:24:04 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:24:04 -0600 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003701c26a49$460eb100$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise.. Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Mury > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > up a lot over > the last couple years. > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > about it on some > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > to make some > phone calls again. > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > pot, so maybe > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > that wasted IP > space... half joking. > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > you don't want > unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then there > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > space holders. > > Mury > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > multiple /8-24s have > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > criteria)? That > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > is to impose and > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > allocations that > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > ARIN should > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > space, while > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > assignments return > > them whenever possible. > > > > Kevin > > > From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 15:36:33 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:36:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Mury, with respect, you seem to indicate that changing ISP's is like > changing a pair of socks. If your ISP decides to jack up their IP price > on you or suddenly start charging $10/mo per IP all you have to do is shop > around a little and !poof! you are on a new ISP. > > Which planet does this happen on, just curious? Mike, you do make a good point. We have went through the renumbering scheme a few times. We were and still are basically a small ISP. We have purchased bandwidth from numerous Tier I providers and a few local/regional ISPs. In the early days we were getting IPs from those local ISPs and when we renumbered it wasn't the funnest thing to do. However, we did make it through it and we renumbered out of multiple /22's and /21's. I know that renumbering out of a /24 is not the end of the world. Especially because in most cases those IPs are in dynamic IP pools and in other easily changed areas. Also it is not difficult to have your new provider announce your old block for 3-6 months so you can work through the renumbering at a reasonable pace. But you are correct that you can't just snap your fingers. Perhaps it would make sense to allocate /24's to ISPs, being defined as having the need to further allocate space to customers. I still don't think so, but maybe there is a compromise somewhere in there. > I believe the whole lively discussion regarding /24 allocations stems from > one basic fact: small ISP's feel very insecure about the fact that they > have NO control over what their upstream ISP may decide to do from one > month to the next, or from one renewal period to the next, regarding > allocation and charging for IP space. I know, I have been there. It was an unpleasant feeling. For the record we still do have assigned space in markets where we are expanding in, so we are still there. So as one being in the situation I still don't think ARIN should hand out /24's. > Upstream ISP's are already charging for, and we small ISP's are already > happily paying for all the internet and services being provided such as > bandwidth, routing etc. so the argument that charging an additional amount > for IP's is somehow justified is very weak at best. Even $1 per IP per > year could be considered high by many let alone the astronomical $10 or > $15 per month that has been talked about on this list. I can certainly > understand justifying IP allocations. But not IP fees, over and above > what is being paid to ARIN by the upstream ISP in the form of annual dues, > processing fees etc. In some cases we have and still do pay extra for IPs. We shopped around and took what we thought was the best value with all things considered. Customers thinking about buying from us do the same thing. > Small ISP's need some assurance or price protection against such tactics. > Maybe ARIN is not the right platform, but ARIN has set a precedent by > charging for IP's in the first place (directly or indirectly) so ARIN is a > good starting point for this discussion. True there are lot of ISP's out > there, competition is tight etc. but in many markets you have little > choice who your ISP is going to be, and even less choice in changing ISP's > as it is costly and time consuming proposition to change ISP's, possibly > moving all your equipment and renumbering all your networks. All your points are valid and well spoken. I still think the downsides outweigh the benefits for the community as a whole. But perhaps there is a compromise in there. I haven't thought it through, and I don't have the numbers to even start. Mury From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Wed Oct 2 15:36:29 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:36:29 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003801c26a4b$01df5460$3102a8c0@teraint.net> > Small ISP's need some assurance or price protection against > such tactics. > Maybe ARIN is not the right platform, but ARIN has set a precedent by > charging for IP's in the first place (directly or indirectly) > so ARIN is a > good starting point for this discussion. True there are lot > of ISP's out > there, competition is tight etc. but in many markets you have little > choice who your ISP is going to be, and even less choice in > changing ISP's > as it is costly and time consuming proposition to change > ISP's, possibly > moving all your equipment and renumbering all your networks. I hate to say this.. but that is part of the cost of doing business. If I go and buy a satellite dish, and then change satellite companies down the road because my current provider decides to start charging extra for some of the channels that I have; I'm probably going to also have to buy a new dishes, and reprogram my TV to accept the new dish. What a pain! But I have no choice.. it's part of the consequences of doing business with someone else. (Could you flow through IP costs to your subscribers?) From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 15:39:01 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:39:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <746DC3BFE2AFD411AB8D0090279CC7180C24D355@exchange2.int.netzero.net> Message-ID: >From what I have read in the past it does sound like an ICANN issue. I'm not so sure, however, that the Internet community as a whole does not want this done. It comes up all the time with most people, outside of the ARIN insiders, wanting justification rules applied to all IP space. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Newton, Justin wrote: > I do not believe that ARIN has been given the authority by ICANN to do > "forced revocation" of IP space on legacy addresses. If you believe that > this is something that ARIN should be doing, it should probably be addressed > at the ICANN level, and we can then discuss whether and how we want to > implement that authority here. In the past anything other than urging > people to return space they are not using has not been something that the > Internet community as a whole has consented to. > > Thoughts? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:42 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > >> Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have > >> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That > >> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > >It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and > > >enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that > >predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should > >focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while > >encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return > >them whenever possible. > > So it`s a matter of doing the easy thing instead of the best thing? It is > ARINs responsibility to do the right thing, isn`t it? > > > > __________________________________________ > Introducing NetZero Long Distance > Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! > Sign Up Today! http://www.netzerolongdistance.com > From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 15:41:37 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:41:37 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9901@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <00c501c26a4b$bf82ff80$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Please explain why you need "public" but non routable address space ?? The difference between Public and Private is all about routability. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Urmann Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:14 AM To: 'ppml at arin.net' Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:50 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net) wrote: >>I would like to have a non-routable /24. Since you think the >>prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could >>set aside address space for non-routable /24s. Then both of >>us would be extremely happy. How`s that for a compromise? >The IETF and the IANA (parent to the RIR's) has already set >aside address space for exactly this use. >Please READ RFC-1918 on Private IP Space. >Your choices are: >10.0.0.0/8 >172.16.0.0/12 >192.168.0.0/16 In a previous message on this list I already indicated that I need *public* non-routable space. My apologies for not specifying it here. >>So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ >>forever? Or only available to the fortune100? All because >>routers are slow? Make /24s available to small businesses and >>router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. >The addresses are not "reserved" forever. If you look at the >allocation trends you will see that many /8's have been moved >from the IANA_RESERVED status to being allocated to a RIR. >Those RIR's then have allocated them to providers. Great! Now I`m asking for them to allocate me a public non-routable /24. This will not affect the routing table size issue. If I can`t get non-routable, then routable will be fine. Therefore I fight both battles here. >Your comment about "will be forced to make it scale well" is like >saying. If you want a VW-Bug to go faster, put a larger engine in >it. There is a point where you can no longer put a larger engine >in the car. e.g it does scale well beyond a 351. My comment was indeed naive. However, internal combustion technology and silicon technology are significantly different. Silicon technology has historically changed rapidly when the market has *forced* it. >>>Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. >>Which companies did you poll? My numbers would be significantly >>different. But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. >2000 of 2800 members of the Greater ABQ Chamber of Commerce report >less than 15 FTE's or are in a business where their FTE's do not >need access to computer (eg retail sales, etc) ARIN wouldn`t give them a /24 anyway; they wouldn`t meet the criteria. Others would, why turn them away. Since you do not believe that these numbers are large, then changing from /20 to /24 shouldn`t be that big of a burden on the routing tables. >If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will >be significantly different. :) My point was that I can pull numbers from the air too. Posting unsubstantiated statistics do not make statements true. My less than large company (and others that I am familiar with) do not jive with the numbers that were given. >>>Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works >>>well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every >>>business that comes along is not in the best interest of the >>>global internet. >>Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their >>routers. ;) >Can't upgrade what doesn't exist. >Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade" >their routers??? Not even talking about the large providers. So you are saying that it *is* about economics. A previous message from an ARIN member indicated that economics was not their concern. Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment. >>So what if we run out of IP addresses. If I can`t get one because it >>is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent. Don`t punish me. >>Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations >>to get unused space back. All of these addresses are currently in >>the routing tables; aren`t they? Maybe providers should remove >>these addresses from their tables. That should speed things up >>a bit??? >Running out and reserved is apples and oranges. True for some of the reserved (e.g. RFC1918). >No the reserved space is not in the routing table. Only the >announced and currently used space is in the table. I was not referring to the reserved space in reference to the routing table size. I was talking about the allocated unused space. Some large companies hold multiple /8-24s but most likely do not utilize any of them fully. They may get by with one /16 sub/super netted properly. >john brown Jeff Urmann From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 15:44:49 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:44:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <003701c26a49$460eb100$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: ;) You are probably right. ARIN could hire an outside entity to retrieve unused space on a commission basis. I realize that's not going to happen, but it's just a thought. I'm certainly not going to attempt to prove you wrong, I don't have time, but why can't there at least be language drafted? Maybe there is a good samaritan at one of these companies that wants to start a trend and get some good press out of the deal. Draft some language and see where it goes. How can that hurt? Mury spell-checker broken On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote: > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > > Behalf Of Mury > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy > > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > > up a lot over > > the last couple years. > > > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > > about it on some > > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > > to make some > > phone calls again. > > > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > > pot, so maybe > > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > > that wasted IP > > space... half joking. > > > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this > > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > > you don't want > > unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then there > > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > > space holders. > > > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > multiple /8-24s have > > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > criteria)? That > > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > is to impose and > > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > allocations that > > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > ARIN should > > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > space, while > > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > assignments return > > > them whenever possible. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > From david.conrad at nominum.com Wed Oct 2 15:46:17 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:46:17 -0700 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <003701c26a49$460eb100$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: Stanford University returned a /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to return address space, it was fairly successful. Rgds, -drc On 10/2/02 12:24 PM, "Trevor Paquette" wrote: > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they > are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try > to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On >> Behalf Of Mury >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM >> To: sigma at smx.pair.com >> Cc: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy >> Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) >> >> >> >> Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come >> up a lot over >> the last couple years. >> >> It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking >> about it on some >> mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP >> space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone >> to make some >> phone calls again. >> >> In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money >> pot, so maybe >> ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of >> that wasted IP >> space... half joking. >> >> ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this >> wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because >> you don't want >> unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then there >> should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these >> space holders. >> >> Mury >> >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: >> >>> >>>> Why not make policy so that the current holders of >> multiple /8-24s have >>>> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current >> criteria)? That >>>> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? >>> >>> It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it >> is to impose and >>> enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about >> allocations that >>> predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? >> ARIN should >>> focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP >> space, while >>> encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy >> assignments return >>> them whenever possible. >>> >>> Kevin >>> >> > From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 15:46:00 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:46:00 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20021002173150.76188.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: <00c601c26a4c$5c5617c0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> and when I worked on a project that merged two very large Banking networks together, it was a PIA. They both used the same RFC-1918 space. The "buying bank" caused the "bought bank" to renumber. At the end of the day, both banks ended up renumbering from 192.168 space into 10.x space. There where other issues, like one bank used OSPF, the other some vendor proprietary routing update protocol. yes, the quick fix to someones engineering problem isn't within the scope of the RIR's. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of sigma at smx.pair.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:32 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using > 192.168.1.0 and so is Company B". But one or the other > company would have to renumber, regardless, so it hardly > seems to matter if Company B renumbers to 192.168.2.0 (or > 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some > non-routed block of "public" IP space. > > I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of > handing out /24's is short-sighted and disregards what has > happened in the past. > > Kevin > > ----- Forwarded message from Mury ----- > > From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Oct 02 17:18:31 2002 > Delivered-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > X-Envelope-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > Delivered-To: sigma at pair.com > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mury > To: George Cottay > cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a at cottay> > Message-ID: > > Sender: owner-ppml at arin.net > Precedence: bulk > > > Ditto. > > The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private > (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not > Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor > ARIN's responsibility. > > But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm > curiously waiting for the answer. > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > > > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible > > inattention. > > > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed > IP's other > > than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved. > Especially > > given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of > me imagine > > an organization needing more. Even if one were to divide on > the basis > > of the old class C, that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets > > with which to play. > > > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public > addresses that > > are not routed. I thought routing was the most significant > difference > > between public and private space. > > > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > > > > > ----- End of forwarded message from Mury ----- > From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Wed Oct 2 15:52:56 2002 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Allen Smith) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:52:56 -0400 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: "Trevor Paquette" "RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)" (Oct 2, 3:37pm) References: <003701c26a49$460eb100$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: <10210021552.ZM2657918@puck2.rutgers.edu> On Oct 2, 3:37pm, Trevor Paquette wrote: > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Halliburton (/8) isn't doing all _that_ well, and could use some good publicity (various scandals)... They also really aren't using said /8 - they haven't even bothered to keep up their contact info, as of the last time I checked (see http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=34.0.0.0/8&submitted=1021848674&table=ipwhois). -Allen -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 15:54:54 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:54:54 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20021002175608.78398.qmail@smx.pair.com> Message-ID: <00c801c26a4d$9a8eefc0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> These are internal engineering problems for those two organizations, and not a problem that public allocation policy should address. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of sigma at smx.pair.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:56 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > Not in the case of a merger, I'm sorry. I meant in the case > of the two companies wanting to connect their networks. > > Kevin > > > Are you saying that "they" are claiming the need for private > > non-routable /24's is in case of a merger? > > > > Nobody can be that silly, can they? > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > > > The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 > > > and so is Company B". But one or the other company would have to > > > renumber, regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B > > > renumbers to 192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if > > > they renumber to some non-routed block of "public" IP space. > > > > > > I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing > > > out /24's is short-sighted and disregards what has > happened in the > > > past. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Mury ----- > > > > > > >From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Oct 02 17:18:31 2002 > > > Delivered-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > > X-Envelope-To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > > Delivered-To: sigma at pair.com > > > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT) > > > From: Mury > > > To: George Cottay > > > cc: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a at cottay> > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Sender: owner-ppml at arin.net > > > Precedence: bulk > > > > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > > The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private > > > (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not > > > Internet/LAN/WAN related. And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's > > > responsibility. > > > > > > But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm > > > curiously waiting for the answer. > > > > > > Mury > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote: > > > > > > > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and > possible > > > > inattention. > > > > > > > > I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's > > > > other than the present 10, 172, and 192 space already > reserved. > > > > Especially given the size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot > for the life > > > > of me imagine an organization needing more. Even if one were to > > > > divide on the basis of the old class C, that leaves upwards of > > > > 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. > > > > > > > > I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public > addresses > > > > that are not routed. I thought routing was the most > significant > > > > difference between public and private space. > > > > > > > > Is anyone inclined to explain? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- End of forwarded message from Mury ----- > > > > > > From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed Oct 2 15:57:44 2002 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:57:44 -0400 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1904DD3E70@usresms03.teleglobe.com> There has been address space recovered through previous efforts.....ARIN staff would be the best place to get exact results. -----Original Message----- From: Trevor Paquette [mailto:Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:24 PM To: 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise.. Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Mury > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > up a lot over > the last couple years. > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > about it on some > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > to make some > phone calls again. > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > pot, so maybe > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > that wasted IP > space... half joking. > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > you don't want > unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then there > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > space holders. > > Mury > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > multiple /8-24s have > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > criteria)? That > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > is to impose and > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > allocations that > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > ARIN should > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > space, while > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > assignments return > > them whenever possible. > > > > Kevin > > > From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 16:03:12 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:03:12 -0600 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00ca01c26a4e$c3a02180$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> You have the issue, as JCK once explained to me, of legacy address holders having a letter issuing them the space with NO REQUIREMENT that they return it, or that they accept a new set of terms in the future. Thus from a legal perspective, the RIR wouldpotentially have some pretty big legal costs. You can't change the terms of a contract without both parties agreeing to it. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Mury > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] > ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > up a lot over the last couple years. > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > about it on some mailling list. What has ARIN done to > encourage the return of IP space? It seems to me that it > wouldn't hurt to pay someone to make some phone calls again. > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > pot, so maybe ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the > return of that wasted IP space... half joking. > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > addresses this wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a > policy because you don't want unenforable policies, but there > should be something. And then there should be a little bit > of money set aside to contact these space holders. > > Mury > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > multiple /8-24s > > > have to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > > criteria)? That would certainly yield same additional address > > > space, wouldn`t it? > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to > > impose and enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > allocations that predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take > > action? ARIN should focus on the best possible management of the > > remaining IP space, while encouraging and requesting that companies > > with legacy assignments return them whenever possible. > > > > Kevin > > > From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 16:05:46 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:05:46 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <746DC3BFE2AFD411AB8D0090279CC7180C24D355@exchange2.int.netzero.net> Message-ID: <00cb01c26a4f$1f07a2f0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Correct. "Forced Revocation" of pre ARIN space would cause some interesting legal issues, and thus cost ARIN substantial amounts of money in legal fees. I personally would rather see ARIN spending money on things that build, instead of defending or breaking things. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Newton, Justin Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:57 PM To: 'Jeff Urmann'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) I do not believe that ARIN has been given the authority by ICANN to do "forced revocation" of IP space on legacy addresses. If you believe that this is something that ARIN should be doing, it should probably be addressed at the ICANN level, and we can then discuss whether and how we want to implement that authority here. In the past anything other than urging people to return space they are not using has not been something that the Internet community as a whole has consented to. Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:42 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) >> Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have >> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That >> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? >It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it is to impose and >enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about allocations that >predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? ARIN should >focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP space, while >encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy assignments return >them whenever possible. So it`s a matter of doing the easy thing instead of the best thing? It is ARINs responsibility to do the right thing, isn`t it? __________________________________________ Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! http://www.netzerolongdistance.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 16:14:36 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:14:36 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00d001c26a50$5afec850$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Mike, I think that most of the conversations here have been about non-ISP users of IP space being charged for IP space by their ISP. It seems people think that the end-user org (the ISP's client) should beable to get address space directly from the RIR. As far as ISP's needing policies with resepect to IP alloction, thats a slightly different topic. First, ARIN moved the min alloc from a /19 to /20 to help more ISP's have better control over their networks and such. That helped thousands of small providers just like your self. Second, ARIN then created a policy that says, if you are a ISP and you are multi-homed, you can request a /20 from ARIN. Otherwords, multi-homed small providers can get space from ARIN even if they aren't using a full /20 today. I believe you need to be using at least 8 /24's to qualify. Both of these policies have been created by input from the membership, the community at large, and adopted by ARIN. I encourage any ISP to read each and every policy on allocations. ARIN does make it easy to get address space if you read the policies and follow the guidelines. Much easier than any of the other RIR's I might add. John Brown Personally Speaking > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of A. M. Salim > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:53 PM > To: 'ppml at arin.net' > Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > Hi, > > Mury, with respect, you seem to indicate that changing ISP's > is like changing a pair of socks. If your ISP decides to > jack up their IP price on you or suddenly start charging > $10/mo per IP all you have to do is shop around a little and > !poof! you are on a new ISP. > > Which planet does this happen on, just curious? > > I believe the whole lively discussion regarding /24 > allocations stems from one basic fact: small ISP's feel very > insecure about the fact that they have NO control over what > their upstream ISP may decide to do from one month to the > next, or from one renewal period to the next, regarding > allocation and charging for IP space. > > Upstream ISP's are already charging for, and we small ISP's > are already happily paying for all the internet and services > being provided such as bandwidth, routing etc. so the > argument that charging an additional amount for IP's is > somehow justified is very weak at best. Even $1 per IP per > year could be considered high by many let alone the > astronomical $10 or $15 per month that has been talked about > on this list. I can certainly understand justifying IP > allocations. But not IP fees, over and above what is being > paid to ARIN by the upstream ISP in the form of annual dues, > processing fees etc. > > Small ISP's need some assurance or price protection against > such tactics. Maybe ARIN is not the right platform, but ARIN > has set a precedent by charging for IP's in the first place > (directly or indirectly) so ARIN is a good starting point for > this discussion. True there are lot of ISP's out there, > competition is tight etc. but in many markets you have little > choice who your ISP is going to be, and even less choice in > changing ISP's as it is costly and time consuming proposition > to change ISP's, possibly moving all your equipment and > renumbering all your networks. > > best regards > Mike Salim > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Mury wrote: > > The pricing policies of ISPs is purely based on supply and demand. > > There are enough ISPs out there where the market is > dictating a fair > > price, which for the last years has been too low. Look at all the > > ISPs going out of business as proof. When the number of ISPs > > stabalize the pricing for Internet services will fall close > to where > > they should be. If they rise too high we will see a influx of new > > opportunists to drive the price back down. > From billd at cait.wustl.edu Wed Oct 2 16:27:41 2002 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which specifically requests the return of unused networks... RFC 1917 An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA Network Working Group Request for Comments: 1917 BCP: 4 Category: Best Current Practice P. Nesser II Nesser & Nesser Consulting February 1996 Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council 314 935-7575 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > Cc: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: Stanford > University returned a > /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > > The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to > return address > space, it was fairly successful. > > Rgds, > -drc > > On 10/2/02 12:24 PM, "Trevor Paquette" > wrote: > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount > of money that > > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a > company has it.. they > > are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove > otherwise.. > > > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who > are doing well. Try > > to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > >> Behalf Of Mury > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > >> To: sigma at smx.pair.com > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] > ARIN Policy > >> Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > >> > >> > >> > >> Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > >> up a lot over > >> the last couple years. > >> > >> It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > >> about it on some > >> mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > >> space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > >> to make some > >> phone calls again. > >> > >> In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > >> pot, so maybe > >> ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > >> that wasted IP > >> space... half joking. > >> > >> ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > addresses this > >> wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > >> you don't want > >> unenforable policies, but there should be something. And > then there > >> should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > >> space holders. > >> > >> Mury > >> > >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>> Why not make policy so that the current holders of > >> multiple /8-24s have > >>>> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > >> criteria)? That > >>>> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > >>> > >>> It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > >> is to impose and > >>> enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > >> allocations that > >>> predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > >> ARIN should > >>> focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > >> space, while > >>> encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > >> assignments return > >>> them whenever possible. > >>> > >>> Kevin > >>> > >> > > > From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 16:18:41 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:18:41 -0600 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <003701c26a49$460eb100$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: <00d201c26a50$ed2d6ba0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Well, in fact a number of companies have returned address space. I believe Stanford Univ has, The US DOD has and many others. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Trevor Paquette > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:24 PM > To: 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of > money that no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. > If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I > challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are > doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > > Behalf Of Mury > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] > ARIN Policy > > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > > up a lot over > > the last couple years. > > > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > > about it on some > > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > > to make some > > phone calls again. > > > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > > pot, so maybe > > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > > that wasted IP > > space... half joking. > > > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > addresses this > > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > you don't > > want unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then > > there should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > > space holders. > > > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > multiple /8-24s have > > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > criteria)? That > > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, > wouldn`t it? > > > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > is to impose and > > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > allocations that > > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > ARIN should > > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > space, while > > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > assignments return > > > them whenever possible. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Wed Oct 2 16:31:36 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:31:36 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9907@ONTARIO> Correct me if I am wrong, but what legal leg does any ip space holder have to stand on? Sure anybody can sue anybody for any reason. IP addresses are allocated, not owned. ICANN owns the numbers, don`t they? ARIN has been granted the rights to allocate/unallocate the space as they see fit (in the best interest of the global internet of course). Right? -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:06 PM To: 'Newton, Justin'; 'Jeff Urmann'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Correct. "Forced Revocation" of pre ARIN space would cause some interesting legal issues, and thus cost ARIN substantial amounts of money in legal fees. I personally would rather see ARIN spending money on things that build, instead of defending or breaking things. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 16:43:53 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:43:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: So could ARIN update that RFC with current allocation information and post that RFC on their web site and mail it to the more obvious parties? Why couldn't ARIN have an "appeal" along with their policies? Or am I missing that somewhere on the web site? Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bill Darte wrote: > FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which specifically requests the return > of unused networks... > > RFC 1917 > An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return > Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > Network Working Group > Request for Comments: 1917 > BCP: 4 > Category: Best Current Practice > > P. Nesser II > Nesser & Nesser Consulting > February 1996 > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > > 314 935-7575 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > > Cc: ARIN PPML > > Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: Stanford > > University returned a > > /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > > > > The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to > > return address > > space, it was fairly successful. > > > > Rgds, > > -drc > > > > On 10/2/02 12:24 PM, "Trevor Paquette" > > wrote: > > > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount > > of money that > > > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a > > company has it.. they > > > are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove > > otherwise.. > > > > > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who > > are doing well. Try > > > to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > > >> Behalf Of Mury > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > >> To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > > >> Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] > > ARIN Policy > > >> Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > > >> up a lot over > > >> the last couple years. > > >> > > >> It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > > >> about it on some > > >> mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > > >> space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > > >> to make some > > >> phone calls again. > > >> > > >> In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > > >> pot, so maybe > > >> ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > > >> that wasted IP > > >> space... half joking. > > >> > > >> ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > > addresses this > > >> wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > > >> you don't want > > >> unenforable policies, but there should be something. And > > then there > > >> should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > > >> space holders. > > >> > > >> Mury > > >> > > >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > >> multiple /8-24s have > > >>>> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > >> criteria)? That > > >>>> would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > >>> > > >>> It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > >> is to impose and > > >>> enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > >> allocations that > > >>> predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > >> ARIN should > > >>> focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > >> space, while > > >>> encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > >> assignments return > > >>> them whenever possible. > > >>> > > >>> Kevin > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 16:56:22 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:56:22 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9907@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <00db01c26a56$30fcf0d0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> IANAL Restraint of trade Interference with Interstate Commerce The original alloc (pre-arin) documents ( ie contract) say nothing about having to return it, or having to abide by a new contract at a later date as part of the terms. If you purchase a car on a fixed payment plan and 18 months into a 36 month loan they increase the payment 2x, what would you do ? If you original loan paperwork said nothing about future changes or payment increases, you have them for breach. If you loan paperwork did have language about changes and increases, then you would have to pay the new amount. I've simplified the example by not actually providing the language that would be in the contract. Otherwords, the original holders of IP allocations don't have a legal requirement to return, and neither do the RIR's have a legal abiltiy to take it back. I don't believe ICANN owns the space. The IANA is charged with management of the space on a global basis. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:32 PM To: 'john at chagres.net' Cc: 'ppml at arin.net' Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Correct me if I am wrong, but what legal leg does any ip space holder have to stand on? Sure anybody can sue anybody for any reason. IP addresses are allocated, not owned. ICANN owns the numbers, don`t they? ARIN has been granted the rights to allocate/unallocate the space as they see fit (in the best interest of the global internet of course). Right? -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:06 PM To: 'Newton, Justin'; 'Jeff Urmann'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Correct. "Forced Revocation" of pre ARIN space would cause some interesting legal issues, and thus cost ARIN substantial amounts of money in legal fees. I personally would rather see ARIN spending money on things that build, instead of defending or breaking things. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at chagres.net Wed Oct 2 16:58:55 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:58:55 -0600 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00e001c26a56$8c1fa110$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> RFC's once posted can't be changed. They can be replaced with new RFC's. You could create a ID (Internet-Draft) that would contain new language and then submit that to the correct IETF WG for consideration. I believe the IETF is always looking for new blood to help the processes along. Don't understand your comment about "Appeal" > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Mury > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:44 PM > To: Bill Darte > Cc: 'David Conrad'; Trevor Paquette; sigma at smx.pair.com; ARIN PPML > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > So could ARIN update that RFC with current allocation > information and post that RFC on their web site and mail it > to the more obvious parties? > > Why couldn't ARIN have an "appeal" along with their policies? > Or am I missing that somewhere on the web site? > > Mury > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bill Darte wrote: > > > FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which specifically > requests the > > return of unused networks... > > > > RFC 1917 > > An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return > > Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > Network Working Group > > Request for Comments: 1917 > > BCP: 4 > > Category: Best Current Practice > > > > P. Nesser II > > Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > February 1996 > > > > Bill Darte > > ARIN Advisory Council > > > > 314 935-7575 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > > To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > > > Cc: ARIN PPML > > > Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > [ppml] ARIN > > > Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > > > > I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: Stanford > > > University returned a > > > /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > > > > > > The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to > > > return address > > > space, it was fairly successful. > > > > > > Rgds, > > > -drc > > > > > > On 10/2/02 12:24 PM, "Trevor Paquette" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount > > > of money that > > > > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a > > > company has it.. they > > > > are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove > > > otherwise.. > > > > > > > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who > > > are doing well. Try > > > > to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net > [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf > > > >> Of Mury > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > > >> To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > > > >> Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] > > > ARIN Policy > > > >> Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language > come up a > > > >> lot over the last couple years. > > > >> > > > >> It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than > talking about > > > >> it on some mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the > > > >> return of IP space? It seems to me that it wouldn't > hurt to pay > > > >> someone to make some > > > >> phone calls again. > > > >> > > > >> In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN > money pot, > > > >> so maybe ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" > the return > > > >> of that wasted IP > > > >> space... half joking. > > > >> > > > >> ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > > > addresses this > > > >> wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy > because you > > > >> don't want unenforable policies, but there should be > something. > > > >> And > > > then there > > > >> should be a little bit of money set aside to contact > these space > > > >> holders. > > > >> > > > >> Mury > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > > >> multiple /8-24s have > > > >>>> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > > >> criteria)? That > > > >>>> would certainly yield same additional address space, > wouldn`t > > > >>>> it? > > > >>> > > > >>> It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > > >> is to impose and > > > >>> enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > > >> allocations that > > > >>> predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > > >> ARIN should > > > >>> focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > > >> space, while > > > >>> encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > > >> assignments return > > > >>> them whenever possible. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kevin > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > From msalim at localweb.com Wed Oct 2 17:12:21 2002 From: msalim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <10210021552.ZM2657918@puck2.rutgers.edu> Message-ID: Hi, > ... [XYZ] (/8) isn't doing all _that_ well, and could use some good > publicity ... If a company returns large chunks of IP space voluntarily, it could be good publicity or bad publicity. What if it were spun like this: "we are shrinking, our customer base is depleting so we don't need so many IP's any more". How is that good publicity? Nope, I just don't see big well known companies giving up IP space voluntarily for publicity. They might be much more inclined to be seen to be forced to give it up in accordance with such and such regulation which everyone else is also going along with, because that would prevent any one company being singled out and getting negative spins like the one above. best regards Mike From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Wed Oct 2 17:20:45 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:20:45 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <00db01c26a56$30fcf0d0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <004301c26a59$92f07160$3102a8c0@teraint.net> MessageJust on a side note.. ISPs do not 'have' to honor their BGP advertisements for that space either.. They could just program their routers to dishonor BGP advertisements of certain /8s with a certain ASN.. Anyone else having part of that that /8 they'll honor.. Forced reclamation.. on a global scale. Mwahahahahahahaha.... :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of John M. Brown Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:56 PM To: 'Jeff Urmann' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) IANAL Restraint of trade Interference with Interstate Commerce The original alloc (pre-arin) documents ( ie contract) say nothing about having to return it, or having to abide by a new contract at a later date as part of the terms. If you purchase a car on a fixed payment plan and 18 months into a 36 month loan they increase the payment 2x, what would you do ? If you original loan paperwork said nothing about future changes or payment increases, you have them for breach. If you loan paperwork did have language about changes and increases, then you would have to pay the new amount. I've simplified the example by not actually providing the language that would be in the contract. Otherwords, the original holders of IP allocations don't have a legal requirement to return, and neither do the RIR's have a legal abiltiy to take it back. I don't believe ICANN owns the space. The IANA is charged with management of the space on a global basis. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:32 PM To: 'john at chagres.net' Cc: 'ppml at arin.net' Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Correct me if I am wrong, but what legal leg does any ip space holder have to stand on? Sure anybody can sue anybody for any reason. IP addresses are allocated, not owned. ICANN owns the numbers, don`t they? ARIN has been granted the rights to allocate/unallocate the space as they see fit (in the best interest of the global internet of course). Right? -----Original Message----- From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:06 PM To: 'Newton, Justin'; 'Jeff Urmann'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) Correct. "Forced Revocation" of pre ARIN space would cause some interesting legal issues, and thus cost ARIN substantial amounts of money in legal fees. I personally would rather see ARIN spending money on things that build, instead of defending or breaking things. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scott at scottmarcus.com Wed Oct 2 17:32:48 2002 From: scott at scottmarcus.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:32:48 -0400 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <200210022132.POP47434@vmms5.verisignmail.com> Speaking only for myself... I agree with David Conrad on this. People have voluntarily returned large blocks in the past, notably including Stanford University and my former employer, BBN/GTE. ARIN's ability to recover legacy address space from unwilling holders is unclear, and the attempt might well be both painful and expensive. ARIN's ability to recover space _voluntarily_, however, is largely untested. It may be that folks have not returned IPv4 space because they have not persuasively been asked. In any case, it seems to me that the cost of making a preliminary experiment is not great. Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago showed that a significant fraction of that space is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not prove) that much of it might be underutilized. And only about fifty organizations hold that low hanging fruit. My understanding is that, at the time of the ALE work, it was felt that reclamation was not warranted. The exponential growth of address consumption would quickly overcome any possible reclamation. That does not seem to me to be the case today. The last data I know of showed the annual growth of IPv4 address consumption to be in the range between 3% and 7% per year, and declining over time. Relative to that rate of growth, address reclamation could perhaps extend the life of the IPv4 space by some years. I think that that would be a good thing, although some might legitimately argue otherwise... In any case, it seems to me that a targeted and prioritized pilot program for voluntary reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth attempting, would not need to be very expensive, and if done with sensitivity need not generate ill will between ARIN and the holders of these address blocks. ===== Does this make sense? Do people see either positive or negative incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the return of large, low utilization IPv4 address blocks? Best regards, - Scott ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 >From: Bill Darte >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 >To: "'David Conrad'" , Trevor Paquette , "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com >Cc: ARIN PPML > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which specifically requests the return >of unused networks... > >RFC 1917 >An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > >Network Working Group >Request for Comments: 1917 >BCP: 4 >Category: Best Current Practice > >P. Nesser II >Nesser & Nesser Consulting >February 1996 > >Bill Darte >ARIN Advisory Council > >314 935-7575 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com >> Cc: ARIN PPML >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 >> >> >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: Stanford >> University returned a >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. >> >> The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to >> return address >> space, it was fairly successful. >> >> Rgds, >> -drc >> >> >> <... snip ... > From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 18:01:11 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:01:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <00e001c26a56$8c1fa110$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: I basically meant take the already well written RFC, update the relevant allocation percentages which have certainly changed, and mold it into a document that ARIN would "publish." It probably should not be a policy, so I was just using the label "appeal." I may be way off base, but I know I do speak for quite a few people of similiar opinions that ARIN should make some low cost efforts to encourage the return of unused IP space. At least it would get the ball rolling in the right direction. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, John M. Brown wrote: > RFC's once posted can't be changed. They can be replaced > with new RFC's. > > You could create a ID (Internet-Draft) that would contain > new language and then submit that to the correct IETF WG > for consideration. I believe the IETF is always looking > for new blood to help the processes along. > > > Don't understand your comment about "Appeal" > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Mury > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:44 PM > > To: Bill Darte > > Cc: 'David Conrad'; Trevor Paquette; sigma at smx.pair.com; ARIN PPML > > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > > [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > > > So could ARIN update that RFC with current allocation > > information and post that RFC on their web site and mail it > > to the more obvious parties? > > > > Why couldn't ARIN have an "appeal" along with their policies? > > Or am I missing that somewhere on the web site? > > > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bill Darte wrote: > > > > > FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which specifically > > requests the > > > return of unused networks... > > > > > > RFC 1917 > > > An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return > > > Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > > > Network Working Group > > > Request for Comments: 1917 > > > BCP: 4 > > > Category: Best Current Practice > > > > > > P. Nesser II > > > Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > > February 1996 > > > > > > Bill Darte > > > ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > > 314 935-7575 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > > > To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > > > > Cc: ARIN PPML > > > > Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > > [ppml] ARIN > > > > Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: Stanford > > > > University returned a > > > > /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > > > > > > > > The last time an effort was undertaken to encourage people to > > > > return address > > > > space, it was fairly successful. > > > > > > > > Rgds, > > > > -drc > > > > > > > > On 10/2/02 12:24 PM, "Trevor Paquette" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount > > > > of money that > > > > > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a > > > > company has it.. they > > > > > are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove > > > > otherwise.. > > > > > > > > > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who > > > > are doing well. Try > > > > > to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: owner-ppml at arin.net > > [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf > > > > >> Of Mury > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > > > >> To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > > > >> Cc: ppml at arin.net > > > > >> Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] > > > > ARIN Policy > > > > >> Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language > > come up a > > > > >> lot over the last couple years. > > > > >> > > > > >> It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than > > talking about > > > > >> it on some mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the > > > > >> return of IP space? It seems to me that it wouldn't > > hurt to pay > > > > >> someone to make some > > > > >> phone calls again. > > > > >> > > > > >> In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN > > money pot, > > > > >> so maybe ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" > > the return > > > > >> of that wasted IP > > > > >> space... half joking. > > > > >> > > > > >> ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > > > > addresses this > > > > >> wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy > > because you > > > > >> don't want unenforable policies, but there should be > > something. > > > > >> And > > > > then there > > > > >> should be a little bit of money set aside to contact > > these space > > > > >> holders. > > > > >> > > > > >> Mury > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > > > >> multiple /8-24s have > > > > >>>> to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > > > >> criteria)? That > > > > >>>> would certainly yield same additional address space, > > wouldn`t > > > > >>>> it? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > > > >> is to impose and > > > > >>> enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > > > >> allocations that > > > > >>> predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > > > >> ARIN should > > > > >>> focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > > > >> space, while > > > > >>> encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > > > >> assignments return > > > > >>> them whenever possible. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Kevin > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lee.howard at wcom.com Wed Oct 2 18:25:21 2002 From: lee.howard at wcom.com (Lee Howard) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <003701c26a49$460eb100$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: The one time I had an unused, unaggregatable /16, I returned it. Not for publicity, not because of Chapter 11, but because I wanted to be a good citizen. "I" means "me, in my capacity as IP Guy for UUNET or WorldCom." Lee On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote: > Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:24:04 -0600 > From: Trevor Paquette > To: 'Mury' , sigma at smx.pair.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount of money that > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused IP space.. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > > Behalf Of Mury > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy > > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > > up a lot over > > the last couple years. > > > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > > about it on some > > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > > to make some > > phone calls again. > > > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > > pot, so maybe > > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > > that wasted IP > > space... half joking. > > > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that addresses this > > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > > you don't want > > unenforable policies, but there should be something. And then there > > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > > space holders. > > > > Mury > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > multiple /8-24s have > > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > criteria)? That > > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it? > > > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > is to impose and > > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > allocations that > > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > ARIN should > > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > space, while > > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > assignments return > > > them whenever possible. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Wed Oct 2 18:30:09 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:30:09 -0600 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005301c26a63$4503f8f0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> I stand corrected.. many examples of good netizens. They are unfortunately, more the exception then the rule. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lee.howard at wcom.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:25 PM > To: Trevor Paquette > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > The one time I had an unused, unaggregatable /16, I returned it. Not > for publicity, not because of Chapter 11, but because I wanted to be a > good citizen. > > "I" means "me, in my capacity as IP Guy for UUNET or WorldCom." > > Lee > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:24:04 -0600 > > From: Trevor Paquette > > To: 'Mury' , sigma at smx.pair.com > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount > of money that > > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a > company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I > challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who > are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused > IP space.. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > > > Behalf Of Mury > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > [ppml] ARIN Policy > > > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > > > up a lot over > > > the last couple years. > > > > > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > > > about it on some > > > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > > > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > > > to make some > > > phone calls again. > > > > > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > > > pot, so maybe > > > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > > > that wasted IP > > > space... half joking. > > > > > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > addresses this > > > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > > > you don't want > > > unenforable policies, but there should be something. And > then there > > > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > > > space holders. > > > > > > Mury > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > > multiple /8-24s have > > > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > > criteria)? That > > > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, > wouldn`t it? > > > > > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > > is to impose and > > > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > > allocations that > > > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > > ARIN should > > > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > > space, while > > > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > > assignments return > > > > them whenever possible. > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > From mury at goldengate.net Wed Oct 2 20:57:01 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:57:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <005301c26a63$4503f8f0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: Let's face it, some people are jerks, some people are lazy, some people don't care, but there are probably quite a few that just don't know. I still think an inexpensive campaign over a year would wield some good results. Do a little research and find the correct contact person at each entity and send them a letter once a quarter based on RFC 1917 with revised allocation data. Target 1000 of the top potential entities with probable unused space. Maybe 5-10 letters to each one. Follow up with a phone call or two. That can't cost more than $5-20K to research, setup, print, and mail. Why not try? We probably wasted more money than that in lost productivity writing and sending all these emails. Mury On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote: > I stand corrected.. many examples of good netizens. > > They are unfortunately, more the exception then the rule. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lee.howard at wcom.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:25 PM > > To: Trevor Paquette > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > The one time I had an unused, unaggregatable /16, I returned it. Not > > for publicity, not because of Chapter 11, but because I wanted to be a > > good citizen. > > > > "I" means "me, in my capacity as IP Guy for UUNET or WorldCom." > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote: > > > > > Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:24:04 -0600 > > > From: Trevor Paquette > > > To: 'Mury' , sigma at smx.pair.com > > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > > Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > Actually.. I would be willing to bet just about any amount > > of money that > > > no-one would 'voluntarily' return unused IP space. If a > > company has it.. they are going to keep it. Period. I > > challenge someone to prove otherwise.. > > > > > > Chapter 11, etc. does not count; these are companies who > > are doing well. Try to encourage them to return their unused > > IP space.. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > > > > Behalf Of Mury > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:25 PM > > > > To: sigma at smx.pair.com > > > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > > > Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > > [ppml] ARIN Policy > > > > Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I've seen this encouraging language come > > > > up a lot over > > > > the last couple years. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that "encouraging" takes more than talking > > > > about it on some > > > > mailling list. What has ARIN done to encourage the return of IP > > > > space? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt to pay someone > > > > to make some > > > > phone calls again. > > > > > > > > In fact, it seems that Jim wants a piece of the ARIN money > > > > pot, so maybe > > > > ARIN could contract with him to "encourage" the return of > > > > that wasted IP > > > > space... half joking. > > > > > > > > ARIN should draft a policy or something similiar that > > addresses this > > > > wasted IP space. It probably shouldn't be a policy because > > > > you don't want > > > > unenforable policies, but there should be something. And > > then there > > > > should be a little bit of money set aside to contact these > > > > space holders. > > > > > > > > Mury > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not make policy so that the current holders of > > > > multiple /8-24s have > > > > > > to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current > > > > criteria)? That > > > > > > would certainly yield same additional address space, > > wouldn`t it? > > > > > > > > > > It's much, much easier to set policy going forward than it > > > > is to impose and > > > > > enforce policy retroactively. When you're talking about > > > > allocations that > > > > > predate ARIN, how exactly is ARIN supposed to take action? > > > > ARIN should > > > > > focus on the best possible management of the remaining IP > > > > space, while > > > > > encouraging and requesting that companies with legacy > > > > assignments return > > > > > them whenever possible. > > > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 2 22:42:26 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:42:26 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <200210022132.POP47434@vmms5.verisignmail.com> Message-ID: <07fc01c26a86$83484a30$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Scott Marcus" > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, > ===== > > Does this make sense? > > Do people see either positive or negative > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > blocks? > In theory, ARIN does not control (own ?) the address blocks most likely underutilized. ARIN only has certain /8s, which supposedly come from the Wizard of IANA (aka ICANN). http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space In practice, the administration of IN-ADDR.ARPA could also be viewed as control or ownership of all of those address spaces. Apparently, ICANN does not play a very active role in managing that. The large /8 holders also apparently pay nothing to ICANN for that. ARIN pays a token amount, nothing compared to the $168 million per /8 per year which would match the market value. If ICANN starts sending bills to /8 holders for $168 million per year, one would likely see plenty of address space returned (or abandoned and reclaimed). For some, reclamation is not a high priority because selling new space brings in money to ARIN. Reclaiming space from bankrupt companies with no money is not an interesting problem when an organization operates to generate revenue to simply pay the people who collect it. If the entire system was automated with some simple web interfaces and data bases, the costs of the administration would drop dramatically. Non-profits have no incentive to keep costs low, just profits low. They do that by paying out everything they make. The money has to go somewhere. Just watch the new .ORG Registry try to deal with that next year. People will be lining up to help absorb the cash flow. Projects will have to be invented to do that. The customer base is already there and it does not cost much to run the core Registries. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 2 23:02:15 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:02:15 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd) References: <00db01c26a56$30fcf0d0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <083501c26a89$52bb5df0$617d2b41@repligate> Message----- Original Message ----- From: John M. Brown I don't believe ICANN owns the space. The IANA is charged with management of the space on a global basis. ========================================================== http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/DOC_28Apr2000.htm April 28, 2000 Mr. Louis Touton Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Re: Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020: Administration of the ARPA Top Level Domain Dear Mr. Touton: As noted in your organization's quotation of February 2, 2000, the ARPA Top Level Domain (TLD) exists in the root zone of the domain name system as a limited use domain currently consisting of one record, in- addrARPA. On April 14, 2000, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), formerly known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), officially signaled its disassociation with the ARPA domain and its understanding the domain would be used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN) and Numbers and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) for additional Internet infrastructure uses. In keeping with the DARPA understanding, we believe that the ARPA domain should be made available for this specific, limited purpose. The Department of Commerce considers this an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function and has requested that the WHOIS entry for the ARPA domain reflect IANA as the registrant. Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020 provides that "[ICANN] will perform other IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC." As such, the Department of Commerce requests that, as part of the IANA functions, ICANN undertake administration of the ARPA TLD in cooperation with the Internet technical community under the guidance of the IAB, as a limited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications, including the migration of Internet infrastructure applications that currently reside in the .int TLD. Further, as indicated by DARPA, the ARPA TLD string should be given a different expansion such as "Address and Routing Parameter Area" to avoid any implication that DARPA has operational responsibility for the domain. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Karen Rose Purchase Order Technical Representative From mailinglist at comentum.com Wed Oct 2 23:38:18 2002 From: mailinglist at comentum.com (Mailing List) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:38:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <2147483647.1033476249@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <019801c26a8e$50639900$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Can someone solve this mystery: If an organization is getting connections from two or more ISPs (Multihomed), the organization will receive am ASN and a /24 IP address from one of its ISPs, then, that organization and its ISPs will announce that /24 to the Internet. This will add an entry to the global routing table in the same way as if that organization received and announced its /24 IP space from ARIN. In the above situation (multihomed network), ARIN's argument of not assigning /24 for the reason of an increase in the global routing table does not make sense. Whether that organization received its /24 from one of its ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announced and added to the global routing table. What is the excuse of ARIN not assigning /24 to multihomed networks? Thanks, Bernard Kohan Comentum Corp. Tel 858/410-0700 Fax 858/410-0707 www.comentum.com support at comentum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alec H. Peterson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 14:19 -0400 Beran > wrote: > > > > > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at > > large. This should be a TOP priority! > > There are other priorities at work. If ARIN allocates a /24 to anybody who > asks for one, there will be a massive land grab. The supply we have now > will seem even smaller than it is now, and routing table size will get > completely out of control. > > > > > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the > > current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly > > utilized/horded/charged for etc. > > Why not allow /24 address space allocations? > > I don't quite follow how relaxing our allocation policy will change the > issues you percieve with hoarding and utilization. > > > I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process and > > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not > > for /24. > > For exactly the same reasons that the InterNIC decided to only allocate /19 > and shorter blocks in the mid 90s. Because address space is a very limited > resource. I encourage you to look at the discussions on the PAGAN, CIDRD > and NANOG lists that took place when these policies were first introduced. > Back then, at the rate of consumption that we saw address space was not > going to last more than a few more years. > > There are many more things that we need to consider. The fact that some > small businesses claim they are being gouged by their service providers is > unfortunate, but it is not an issue that ARIN can or should address. In > the mid 90s there were extremely good reasons to put restrictions on who > can get address space. Having ARIN only allocate large blocks of address > space (/20) accomplishes a lot. Even though multi-homed customers are > sometimes announcing their PA space as a more specific, that address space > is still aggregatable. So a service provider can make a decision to only > accept /20 and shorter announcements in ARIN-allocated address space and > can still reach the entire Internet. Were ARIN to begin allocating /24s > this would no longer be possible. > > > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > > ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month for > > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify a > > couple years ago is terrible. > > If you are unhappy with what your service provider is charging you, I > suggest you complain to your service provider or find a new one. Service > providers have real costs associated with the services that they provide. > How they charge for them is their business, and if they charge too much > then open market forces will correct it. Do you complain to your > provider's upstream provider when they charge you too much for the > bandwidth you are purchasing? Do you complain to the VeriSign Registry > when your registrar charges you too much for a domain name? > > Alec > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From ahp at hilander.com Thu Oct 3 00:46:31 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 22:46:31 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <019801c26a8e$50639900$0800a8c0@Bobcat> References: <2147483647.1033476249@macleod.hilander.com> <019801c26a8e$50639900$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: <2147483647.1033598791@macleod.hilander.com> --On Wednesday, October 2, 2002 20:38 -0700 Mailing List wrote: > Can someone solve this mystery: > > If an organization is getting connections from two or more ISPs > (Multihomed), the organization will receive am ASN and a /24 IP address > from one of its ISPs, then, that organization and its ISPs will announce > that /24 to the Internet. > > This will add an entry to the global routing table in the same way as if > that organization received and announced its /24 IP space from ARIN. > > In the above situation (multihomed network), ARIN's argument of not > assigning /24 for the reason of an increase in the global routing table > does not make sense. Whether that organization received its /24 from one > of its ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announced and > added to the global routing table. > > What is the excuse of ARIN not assigning /24 to multihomed networks? That's an easy one. If the customer decides to announce the /24, there is still a shorter aggregate that one of the providers is announcing. A provider can then filter based on ARIN's allocation policy (/20 minimum) and still reach the customer. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 08:17:44 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 07:17:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "Can someone solve this mystery...?" References: <2147483647.1033476249@macleod.hilander.com> <019801c26a8e$50639900$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: <088901c26ad6$ea8426b0$617d2b41@repligate> "Can someone solve this mystery...?" 1. Your assumptions may not be correct. 2. Engineering does not have to be a mystery. You can look at the code and connect machines and see what they do. 3. Anyone can "announce" anything to anyone. Do you think a reliable core IPv4 transport needs to listen to announcements ? 4. The "routing table size" is a totally bogus argument. It is promoted by the BGP/FUD people, who profit from gaming the system. ====== Place yourself inside of a router (forwarder) in the reliable core transport. A packet arrives, you inspect certain bits in the 160-bit header and you decide whether it is for yourself or one of the other members of the reliable core transport. If you inspect only 8 bits then, you might have (at most) 256 places to forward the packet. Is that a large router table ? 256 entries...??... NOTE WELL....I did not say WHICH 8 bits are inspected...one bit inspected could be the SNOOPY bit... 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mailing List" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > Can someone solve this mystery: > > If an organization is getting connections from two or more ISPs > (Multihomed), the organization will receive am ASN and a /24 IP address from > one of its ISPs, then, that organization and its ISPs will announce that /24 > to the Internet. > > This will add an entry to the global routing table in the same way as if > that organization received and announced its /24 IP space from ARIN. > > In the above situation (multihomed network), ARIN's argument of not > assigning /24 for the reason of an increase in the global routing table does > not make sense. Whether that organization received its /24 from one of its > ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announced and added to the > global routing table. > > What is the excuse of ARIN not assigning /24 to multihomed networks? > > Thanks, > > Bernard Kohan > Comentum Corp. > Tel 858/410-0700 > Fax 858/410-0707 > www.comentum.com > support at comentum.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alec H. Peterson" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:44 AM > Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 14:19 -0400 Beran > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at > > > large. This should be a TOP priority! > > > > There are other priorities at work. If ARIN allocates a /24 to anybody > who > > asks for one, there will be a massive land grab. The supply we have now > > will seem even smaller than it is now, and routing table size will get > > completely out of control. > > > > > > > > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the > > > current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly > > > utilized/horded/charged for etc. > > > Why not allow /24 address space allocations? > > > > I don't quite follow how relaxing our allocation policy will change the > > issues you percieve with hoarding and utilization. > > > > > I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process > and > > > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not > > > for /24. > > > > For exactly the same reasons that the InterNIC decided to only allocate > /19 > > and shorter blocks in the mid 90s. Because address space is a very > limited > > resource. I encourage you to look at the discussions on the PAGAN, CIDRD > > and NANOG lists that took place when these policies were first introduced. > > Back then, at the rate of consumption that we saw address space was not > > going to last more than a few more years. > > > > There are many more things that we need to consider. The fact that some > > small businesses claim they are being gouged by their service providers is > > unfortunate, but it is not an issue that ARIN can or should address. In > > the mid 90s there were extremely good reasons to put restrictions on who > > can get address space. Having ARIN only allocate large blocks of address > > space (/20) accomplishes a lot. Even though multi-homed customers are > > sometimes announcing their PA space as a more specific, that address space > > is still aggregatable. So a service provider can make a decision to only > > accept /20 and shorter announcements in ARIN-allocated address space and > > can still reach the entire Internet. Were ARIN to begin allocating /24s > > this would no longer be possible. > > > > > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive. > > > ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month > for > > > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify > a > > > couple years ago is terrible. > > > > If you are unhappy with what your service provider is charging you, I > > suggest you complain to your service provider or find a new one. Service > > providers have real costs associated with the services that they provide. > > How they charge for them is their business, and if they charge too much > > then open market forces will correct it. Do you complain to your > > provider's upstream provider when they charge you too much for the > > bandwidth you are purchasing? Do you complain to the VeriSign Registry > > when your registrar charges you too much for a domain name? > > > > Alec > > > > -- > > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > > Chief Technology Officer > > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 08:40:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 07:40:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: <2147483647.1033476249@macleod.hilander.com> <019801c26a8e$50639900$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: <089b01c26ada$06fa58c0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mailing List" > Can someone solve this mystery: > > If an organization is getting connections from two or more ISPs > (Multihomed), the organization will receive am ASN and a /24 IP address from > one of its ISPs, then, that organization and its ISPs will announce that /24 > to the Internet. > > This will add an entry to the global routing table in the same way as if > that organization received and announced its /24 IP space from ARIN. > > In the above situation (multihomed network), ARIN's argument of not > assigning /24 for the reason of an increase in the global routing table does > not make sense. Whether that organization received its /24 from one of its > ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announced and added to the > global routing table. > > What is the excuse of ARIN not assigning /24 to multihomed networks? > In the old days.... When you announce the /24 to your ISP, that ISP will then combine that with all of the other small announcements and will then "announce" the aggregate to "the Internet". In the old days...."the Internet" was viewed (from an ISP point of view) to be.... ...."the Big Dogs"....who run the routers with the "Default Free Core...Routing Table"... Announcements coming and going to those Big Dogs take processing time....memory to store the results of those announcements is only part of the problem.... Now...a Big Dog would not listen to an announcement....why should they ? ...they will only run with the other Big Dogs and they can tell each other about their routing plans well in advance....and will then dictate to the Puppies what those plans are... The entire world reverses, with the Big Dogs running the core network... ....but....one problem.....the Big Dogs can not control all of the Puppies..... ....and no one knows how to herd Cats.... Should we release the C at t ? http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9310/ Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 09:45:12 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:45:12 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Keep in mind that IPv4 TOS=0x00,0x0*,0x*0 allocations are very carefully controlled... Message-ID: <0a5b01c26ae3$191c4a00$617d2b41@repligate> Keep in mind that IPv4 TOS=0x00,0x0*,0x*0 allocations are very carefully controlled... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/1007/042.html "...they were delighted when I returned later, bringing with me a platoon of Internet gurus, including Esther Dyson, Mitch Kapor, Tony Rutkowski, and Vint Cerf. They sealed us into an electronically impenetrable room to discuss the radical possibility that a good first step in lifting their blackout would be for the CIA to put up a Web site." ===== Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From billd at cait.wustl.edu Thu Oct 3 10:21:48 2002 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:21:48 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address reclamation falls out like this.... Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for widespread Internet application? If yes, then... Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of unallocated IPv4 space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption of IPv6? If yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all. If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately (soon). Making a case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for such return provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) in the future if need be. Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement ought to be underway. Bill Darte ARIN AC > > > > Speaking only for myself... > > I agree with David Conrad on this. People have > voluntarily returned large blocks in the past, > notably including Stanford University and my > former employer, BBN/GTE. > > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address space > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the attempt > might well be both painful and expensive. > > ARIN's ability to recover space _voluntarily_, > however, is largely untested. It may be that > folks have not returned IPv4 space because they > have not persuasively been asked. > > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of > making a preliminary experiment is not great. > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago > showed that a significant fraction of that space > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not prove) > that much of it might be underutilized. And only > about fifty organizations hold that low hanging > fruit. > > My understanding is that, at the time of the ALE > work, it was felt that reclamation was not > warranted. The exponential growth of address > consumption would quickly overcome any possible > reclamation. > > That does not seem to me to be the case today. > The last data I know of showed the annual growth > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the range > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining over > time. Relative to that rate of growth, address > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of the > IPv4 space by some years. I think that that would > be a good thing, although some might legitimately > argue otherwise... > > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted and > prioritized pilot program for voluntary > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth > attempting, would not need to be very expensive, > and if done with sensitivity need not generate ill > will between ARIN and the holders of these address > blocks. > > > > ===== > > Does this make sense? > > Do people see either positive or negative > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > blocks? > > Best regards, > - Scott > > > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 > >From: Bill Darte > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > >To: "'David Conrad'" , > Trevor Paquette , > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com > >Cc: ARIN PPML > > > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which > specifically requests the return > >of unused networks... > > > >RFC 1917 > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > >Network Working Group > >Request for Comments: 1917 > >BCP: 4 > >Category: Best Current Practice > > > >P. Nesser II > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting > >February 1996 > > > >Bill Darte > >ARIN Advisory Council > > > >314 935-7575 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: David Conrad > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > >> Cc: ARIN PPML > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 > >> > >> > >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: > Stanford > >> University returned a > >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > >> > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to > encourage people to > >> return address > >> space, it was fairly successful. > >> > >> Rgds, > >> -drc > >> > >> > >> <... snip ... > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 10:36:15 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:36:15 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: Message-ID: <0b9401c26aea$3af261d0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Darte" To: "ARIN PPML" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:21 AM Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address reclamation falls out > like this.... > > Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for widespread Internet > application? If yes, then... > > Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of unallocated IPv4 > space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption of IPv6? If > yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all. > > If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an > aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately (soon). Making a > case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for such return > provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) in the future if > need be. > > Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet > application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement > ought to be underway. > > Bill Darte > ARIN AC > > The protocol does not matter....128-bit DNS is a given...32-bit DNS is too small...64-bit is not interesting... IPv6 is a protocol looking for a solution....it has numerous, show-stopper problems.... 1. The IPv6 Privacy Problem 2. 320-bit Bloated Headers and Chained Headers that are Slow to transport and Process... 3. Numerous transition plans which fragment the net people, services, etc. It is not evolution, it is revolution. 4. Removal of Fragmentation from the basic Header 5. Incorrect Ordering of the Routing Header which is needed BEFORE not AFTER the main header. The list goes on an on...IPv6 is a camel....a horse designed by committee...and it is a two-headed camel at that... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: camelv650j.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24528 bytes Desc: not available URL: From uibekwe at earthlink.net Thu Oct 3 10:52:25 2002 From: uibekwe at earthlink.net (Uchenna Ibekwe) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 07:52:25 -0700 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: Irrespective of IPv6, the return of legacy space will foster better management of the Ipv4 space, a few points to consider are: - Legacy IP space allocated to Latin America, considering the establishment of LACNIC. - Companies that are longer in operation, but still have Ip space allocated to them. - Enables us to build a better and current database in the process. - Serve as a process to provide forecasts for IPv6 as we would have a better grasp of usage. On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:21:48 -0500 Bill Darte wrote: > Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 > address reclamation falls out > like this.... > > Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable > protocol for widespread Internet > application? If yes, then... > > Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous > blocks of unallocated IPv4 > space sufficient to last until there is > widespread adoption of IPv6? If > yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at > all. > > If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is > NO, then.... begin an > aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, > immediately (soon). Making a > case for why it is in the best interests of the > 'public' for such return > provides the basis for litigation (involuntary > reclamation) in the future if > need be. > > Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for > widespread Internet > application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 > modification or replacement > ought to be underway. > > Bill Darte > ARIN AC > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself... > > > > I agree with David Conrad on this. People > have > > voluntarily returned large blocks in the > past, > > notably including Stanford University and my > > former employer, BBN/GTE. > > > > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address > space > > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the > attempt > > might well be both painful and expensive. > > > > ARIN's ability to recover space > _voluntarily_, > > however, is largely untested. It may be that > > > folks have not returned IPv4 space because > they > > have not persuasively been asked. > > > > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of > > making a preliminary experiment is not great. > > > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and > nearly a > > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up > in > > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > > represent low hanging fruit - if memory > serves, > > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago > > showed that a significant fraction of that > space > > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not > prove) > > that much of it might be underutilized. And > only > > about fifty organizations hold that low > hanging > > fruit. > > > > My understanding is that, at the time of the > ALE > > work, it was felt that reclamation was not > > warranted. The exponential growth of address > > > consumption would quickly overcome any > possible > > reclamation. > > > > That does not seem to me to be the case > today. > > The last data I know of showed the annual > growth > > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the > range > > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining > over > > time. Relative to that rate of growth, > address > > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of > the > > IPv4 space by some years. I think that that > would > > be a good thing, although some might > legitimately > > argue otherwise... > > > > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted > and > > prioritized pilot program for voluntary > > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth > > attempting, would not need to be very > expensive, > > and if done with sensitivity need not > generate ill > > will between ARIN and the holders of these > address > > blocks. > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Do people see either positive or negative > > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage > the > > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > > > blocks? > > > > Best regards, > > - Scott > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 > > >From: Bill Darte > > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy > space > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > >To: "'David Conrad'" , > > Trevor Paquette , > > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com > > >Cc: ARIN PPML > > > > > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which > > specifically requests the return > > >of unused networks... > > > > > >RFC 1917 > > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to > Return > > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > > >Network Working Group > > >Request for Comments: 1917 > > >BCP: 4 > > >Category: Best Current Practice > > > > > >P. Nesser II > > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > >February 1996 > > > > > >Bill Darte > > >ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > >314 935-7575 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: David Conrad > > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; > sigma at smx.pair.com > > >> Cc: ARIN PPML > > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy > space > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > >> > > >> > > >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data > points: > > Stanford > > >> University returned a > > >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I > believe. > > >> > > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to > > encourage people to > > >> return address > > >> space, it was fairly successful. > > >> > > >> Rgds, > > >> -drc > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 11:00:16 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:00:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "...an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement ought to be underway." References: Message-ID: <0bf601c26aed$96061690$617d2b41@repligate> From: "Bill Darte" "Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement ought to be underway." ====== How "aggressive" ? IPv4++ ? IPv5 ? IPv7 ? IPv8 ? IPv16 ? Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Darte" To: "ARIN PPML" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:21 AM Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address reclamation falls out > like this.... > > Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for widespread Internet > application? If yes, then... > > Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of unallocated IPv4 > space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption of IPv6? If > yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all. > > If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an > aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately (soon). Making a > case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for such return > provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) in the future if > need be. > > Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet > application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement > ought to be underway. > > Bill Darte > ARIN AC > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself... > > > > I agree with David Conrad on this. People have > > voluntarily returned large blocks in the past, > > notably including Stanford University and my > > former employer, BBN/GTE. > > > > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address space > > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the attempt > > might well be both painful and expensive. > > > > ARIN's ability to recover space _voluntarily_, > > however, is largely untested. It may be that > > folks have not returned IPv4 space because they > > have not persuasively been asked. > > > > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of > > making a preliminary experiment is not great. > > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a > > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in > > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > > represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, > > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago > > showed that a significant fraction of that space > > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not prove) > > that much of it might be underutilized. And only > > about fifty organizations hold that low hanging > > fruit. > > > > My understanding is that, at the time of the ALE > > work, it was felt that reclamation was not > > warranted. The exponential growth of address > > consumption would quickly overcome any possible > > reclamation. > > > > That does not seem to me to be the case today. > > The last data I know of showed the annual growth > > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the range > > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining over > > time. Relative to that rate of growth, address > > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of the > > IPv4 space by some years. I think that that would > > be a good thing, although some might legitimately > > argue otherwise... > > > > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted and > > prioritized pilot program for voluntary > > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth > > attempting, would not need to be very expensive, > > and if done with sensitivity need not generate ill > > will between ARIN and the holders of these address > > blocks. > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Do people see either positive or negative > > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the > > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > > blocks? > > > > Best regards, > > - Scott > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 > > >From: Bill Darte > > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > >To: "'David Conrad'" , > > Trevor Paquette , > > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com > > >Cc: ARIN PPML > > > > > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which > > specifically requests the return > > >of unused networks... > > > > > >RFC 1917 > > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return > > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > > >Network Working Group > > >Request for Comments: 1917 > > >BCP: 4 > > >Category: Best Current Practice > > > > > >P. Nesser II > > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > >February 1996 > > > > > >Bill Darte > > >ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > >314 935-7575 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: David Conrad > > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > > >> Cc: ARIN PPML > > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > >> > > >> > > >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: > > Stanford > > >> University returned a > > >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > > >> > > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to > > encourage people to > > >> return address > > >> space, it was fairly successful. > > >> > > >> Rgds, > > >> -drc > > >> > > >> > > >> <... snip ... > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 11:02:09 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:02:09 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: Message-ID: <0c0001c26aed$d9765700$617d2b41@repligate> Keep in mind that IPv4 TOS=0x00,0x0*,0x*0 allocations are very carefully controlled... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/1007/042.html "...they were delighted when I returned later, bringing with me a platoon of Internet gurus, including Esther Dyson, Mitch Kapor, Tony Rutkowski, and Vint Cerf. They sealed us into an electronically impenetrable room to discuss the radical possibility that a good first step in lifting their blackout would be for the CIA to put up a Web site." ===== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Uchenna Ibekwe" To: "Bill Darte" Cc: "ARIN PPML" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > Irrespective of IPv6, the return of legacy space will foster better management > of the Ipv4 space, a few points to consider are: > - Legacy IP space allocated to Latin America, considering the establishment of > LACNIC. > - Companies that are longer in operation, but still have Ip space allocated to > them. > - Enables us to build a better and current database in the process. > - Serve as a process to provide forecasts for IPv6 as we would have a better > grasp of usage. > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:21:48 -0500 Bill Darte wrote: > > > Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 > > address reclamation falls out > > like this.... > > > > Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable > > protocol for widespread Internet > > application? If yes, then... > > > > Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous > > blocks of unallocated IPv4 > > space sufficient to last until there is > > widespread adoption of IPv6? If > > yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at > > all. > > > > If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is > > NO, then.... begin an > > aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, > > immediately (soon). Making a > > case for why it is in the best interests of the > > 'public' for such return > > provides the basis for litigation (involuntary > > reclamation) in the future if > > need be. > > > > Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for > > widespread Internet > > application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 > > modification or replacement > > ought to be underway. > > > > Bill Darte > > ARIN AC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself... > > > > > > I agree with David Conrad on this. People > > have > > > voluntarily returned large blocks in the > > past, > > > notably including Stanford University and my > > > former employer, BBN/GTE. > > > > > > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address > > space > > > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the > > attempt > > > might well be both painful and expensive. > > > > > > ARIN's ability to recover space > > _voluntarily_, > > > however, is largely untested. It may be that > > > > > folks have not returned IPv4 space because > > they > > > have not persuasively been asked. > > > > > > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of > > > making a preliminary experiment is not great. > > > > > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and > > nearly a > > > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up > > in > > > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > > > represent low hanging fruit - if memory > > serves, > > > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago > > > showed that a significant fraction of that > > space > > > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not > > prove) > > > that much of it might be underutilized. And > > only > > > about fifty organizations hold that low > > hanging > > > fruit. > > > > > > My understanding is that, at the time of the > > ALE > > > work, it was felt that reclamation was not > > > warranted. The exponential growth of address > > > > > consumption would quickly overcome any > > possible > > > reclamation. > > > > > > That does not seem to me to be the case > > today. > > > The last data I know of showed the annual > > growth > > > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the > > range > > > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining > > over > > > time. Relative to that rate of growth, > > address > > > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of > > the > > > IPv4 space by some years. I think that that > > would > > > be a good thing, although some might > > legitimately > > > argue otherwise... > > > > > > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted > > and > > > prioritized pilot program for voluntary > > > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth > > > attempting, would not need to be very > > expensive, > > > and if done with sensitivity need not > > generate ill > > > will between ARIN and the holders of these > > address > > > blocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > > > Do people see either positive or negative > > > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage > > the > > > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > > > > > blocks? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > - Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 > > > >From: Bill Darte > > > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy > > space > > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > >To: "'David Conrad'" , > > > Trevor Paquette , > > > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com > > > >Cc: ARIN PPML > > > > > > > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which > > > specifically requests the return > > > >of unused networks... > > > > > > > >RFC 1917 > > > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to > > Return > > > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > > > > >Network Working Group > > > >Request for Comments: 1917 > > > >BCP: 4 > > > >Category: Best Current Practice > > > > > > > >P. Nesser II > > > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > > >February 1996 > > > > > > > >Bill Darte > > > >ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > > > >314 935-7575 > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: David Conrad > > > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; > > sigma at smx.pair.com > > > >> Cc: ARIN PPML > > > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy > > space > > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data > > points: > > > Stanford > > > >> University returned a > > > >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I > > believe. > > > >> > > > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to > > > encourage people to > > > >> return address > > > >> space, it was fairly successful. > > > >> > > > >> Rgds, > > > >> -drc > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 11:09:58 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:09:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] LACNIC References: Message-ID: <0c1401c26aee$f16a9550$617d2b41@repligate> From: "Uchenna Ibekwe" > - Legacy IP space allocated to Latin America, considering the establishment of > LACNIC. ===== LACNIC is "under" ARIN Do you see any LACNIC allocations here ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Also, do you think LACNIC (or ARIN) can pay ICANN $168 million per year per /8 ? http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html "On 2 September 2002, customers in the emerging LACNIC region will begin to receive invoices from LACNIC. Monies will be payable in US dollars. All monies collected by LACNIC will be transferred to ARIN. ARIN in turn will return a portion of those monies to LACNIC to help sustain LACNIC operations. Upon final recognition, the transfer of monies will cease. The target date for the cessation of money transfer is 18 November 2002." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Uchenna Ibekwe" To: "Bill Darte" Cc: "ARIN PPML" Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > Irrespective of IPv6, the return of legacy space will foster better management > of the Ipv4 space, a few points to consider are: > - Legacy IP space allocated to Latin America, considering the establishment of > LACNIC. > - Companies that are longer in operation, but still have Ip space allocated to > them. > - Enables us to build a better and current database in the process. > - Serve as a process to provide forecasts for IPv6 as we would have a better > grasp of usage. > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:21:48 -0500 Bill Darte wrote: > > > Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 > > address reclamation falls out > > like this.... > > > > Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable > > protocol for widespread Internet > > application? If yes, then... > > > > Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous > > blocks of unallocated IPv4 > > space sufficient to last until there is > > widespread adoption of IPv6? If > > yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at > > all. > > > > If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is > > NO, then.... begin an > > aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, > > immediately (soon). Making a > > case for why it is in the best interests of the > > 'public' for such return > > provides the basis for litigation (involuntary > > reclamation) in the future if > > need be. > > > > Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for > > widespread Internet > > application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 > > modification or replacement > > ought to be underway. > > > > Bill Darte > > ARIN AC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself... > > > > > > I agree with David Conrad on this. People > > have > > > voluntarily returned large blocks in the > > past, > > > notably including Stanford University and my > > > former employer, BBN/GTE. > > > > > > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address > > space > > > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the > > attempt > > > might well be both painful and expensive. > > > > > > ARIN's ability to recover space > > _voluntarily_, > > > however, is largely untested. It may be that > > > > > folks have not returned IPv4 space because > > they > > > have not persuasively been asked. > > > > > > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of > > > making a preliminary experiment is not great. > > > > > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and > > nearly a > > > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up > > in > > > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > > > represent low hanging fruit - if memory > > serves, > > > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago > > > showed that a significant fraction of that > > space > > > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not > > prove) > > > that much of it might be underutilized. And > > only > > > about fifty organizations hold that low > > hanging > > > fruit. > > > > > > My understanding is that, at the time of the > > ALE > > > work, it was felt that reclamation was not > > > warranted. The exponential growth of address > > > > > consumption would quickly overcome any > > possible > > > reclamation. > > > > > > That does not seem to me to be the case > > today. > > > The last data I know of showed the annual > > growth > > > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the > > range > > > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining > > over > > > time. Relative to that rate of growth, > > address > > > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of > > the > > > IPv4 space by some years. I think that that > > would > > > be a good thing, although some might > > legitimately > > > argue otherwise... > > > > > > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted > > and > > > prioritized pilot program for voluntary > > > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth > > > attempting, would not need to be very > > expensive, > > > and if done with sensitivity need not > > generate ill > > > will between ARIN and the holders of these > > address > > > blocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > > > Do people see either positive or negative > > > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage > > the > > > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > > > > > blocks? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > - Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 > > > >From: Bill Darte > > > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy > > space > > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > >To: "'David Conrad'" , > > > Trevor Paquette , > > > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com > > > >Cc: ARIN PPML > > > > > > > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which > > > specifically requests the return > > > >of unused networks... > > > > > > > >RFC 1917 > > > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to > > Return > > > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > > > > >Network Working Group > > > >Request for Comments: 1917 > > > >BCP: 4 > > > >Category: Best Current Practice > > > > > > > >P. Nesser II > > > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > > >February 1996 > > > > > > > >Bill Darte > > > >ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > > > >314 935-7575 > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: David Conrad > > > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; > > sigma at smx.pair.com > > > >> Cc: ARIN PPML > > > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy > > space > > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data > > points: > > > Stanford > > > >> University returned a > > > >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I > > believe. > > > >> > > > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to > > > encourage people to > > > >> return address > > > >> space, it was fairly successful. > > > >> > > > >> Rgds, > > > >> -drc > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Thu Oct 3 11:30:40 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:30:40 -0600 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c26af1$d5ae0790$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Just a quick comment on my thoughts regarding IPv6 and IPv4.. Those waiting for IPv6 to take hold.. don't hold your breath. There will not be an adoption of IPv6 (in North America anyway) for at least the next 4-5 years on a large scale; there may be pockets of it here and there.. but anything significant, especially down to the end-user level is wishful thinking. Why? Simple. End users won't do it until most, if not all of the Internet backbone and distribution networks (read: the end-user's upstream) are IPv6. The telcos no longer have the time, people, resources or revenues to go down that road. They need to make money on what they have implemented today; that being IPv4. If the ISP/telco industry has any sort of significant turn around before then, then we might see a larger adoptation of IPv6. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Bill > Darte > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:22 AM > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address > reclamation falls out > like this.... > > Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for > widespread Internet > application? If yes, then... > > Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of > unallocated IPv4 > space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption > of IPv6? If > yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all. > > If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an > aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately > (soon). Making a > case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for > such return > provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) > in the future if > need be. > > Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet > application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification > or replacement > ought to be underway. > > Bill Darte > ARIN AC > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking only for myself... > > > > I agree with David Conrad on this. People have > > voluntarily returned large blocks in the past, > > notably including Stanford University and my > > former employer, BBN/GTE. > > > > ARIN's ability to recover legacy address space > > from unwilling holders is unclear, and the attempt > > might well be both painful and expensive. > > > > ARIN's ability to recover space _voluntarily_, > > however, is largely untested. It may be that > > folks have not returned IPv4 space because they > > have not persuasively been asked. > > > > In any case, it seems to me that the cost of > > making a preliminary experiment is not great. > > Nearly a quarter of all IPv4 space, and nearly a > > half of all allocated IPv4 space, is tied up in > > blocks 003/8 to 057/8. These seem to me to > > represent low hanging fruit - if memory serves, > > the CAIDA data presented a few meetings ago > > showed that a significant fraction of that space > > is "dark", which seems to suggest (but not prove) > > that much of it might be underutilized. And only > > about fifty organizations hold that low hanging > > fruit. > > > > My understanding is that, at the time of the ALE > > work, it was felt that reclamation was not > > warranted. The exponential growth of address > > consumption would quickly overcome any possible > > reclamation. > > > > That does not seem to me to be the case today. > > The last data I know of showed the annual growth > > of IPv4 address consumption to be in the range > > between 3% and 7% per year, and declining over > > time. Relative to that rate of growth, address > > reclamation could perhaps extend the life of the > > IPv4 space by some years. I think that that would > > be a good thing, although some might legitimately > > argue otherwise... > > > > In any case, it seems to me that a targeted and > > prioritized pilot program for voluntary > > reclamation of IPv4 addresses would be worth > > attempting, would not need to be very expensive, > > and if done with sensitivity need not generate ill > > will between ARIN and the holders of these address > > blocks. > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Do people see either positive or negative > > incentives that ARIN could use to encourage the > > return of large, low utilization IPv4 address > > blocks? > > > > Best regards, > > - Scott > > > > > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:41 -0500 > > >From: Bill Darte > > >Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > >To: "'David Conrad'" , > > Trevor Paquette , > > "'Mury'" , sigma at smx.pair.com > > >Cc: ARIN PPML > > > > > >FYI on this issue, there is RFC 1917 which > > specifically requests the return > > >of unused networks... > > > > > >RFC 1917 > > >An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return > > >Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA > > > > > >Network Working Group > > >Request for Comments: 1917 > > >BCP: 4 > > >Category: Best Current Practice > > > > > >P. Nesser II > > >Nesser & Nesser Consulting > > >February 1996 > > > > > >Bill Darte > > >ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > >314 935-7575 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: David Conrad > > [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:46 PM > > >> To: Trevor Paquette; 'Mury'; sigma at smx.pair.com > > >> Cc: ARIN PPML > > >> Subject: Re: Encouraging return of legacy space > > WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN > > >> Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > >> > > >> > > >> I think you'd be surprised. Two data points: > > Stanford > > >> University returned a > > >> /8. BBN returned a couple of /8s I believe. > > >> > > >> The last time an effort was undertaken to > > encourage people to > > >> return address > > >> space, it was fairly successful. > > >> > > >> Rgds, > > >> -drc > > >> > > >> > > >> <... snip ... > > > > From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Thu Oct 3 11:31:19 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:31:19 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9909@ONTARIO> ARIN has no control over the deployment of any IPvN. ARIN must assume that IPv4 is here for the foreseeable future. ARIN`s policies must not rely on any replacement to the current IPv4. All my opinion of course. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:22 AM To: ARIN PPML Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Seems to me that ultimately the issue of IPv4 address reclamation falls out like this.... Question 1..... Is IPv6 really a viable protocol for widespread Internet application? If yes, then... Question 2..... Is the (relatively) contiguous blocks of unallocated IPv4 space sufficient to last until there is widespread adoption of IPv6? If yes, then.... Do not worry about reclamation at all. If the answer to Question 1 or Question 2 is NO, then.... begin an aggressive process of voluntary reclamation, immediately (soon). Making a case for why it is in the best interests of the 'public' for such return provides the basis for litigation (involuntary reclamation) in the future if need be. Oh, BTW, if IPv6 is not a viable protocol for widespread Internet application, then an aggressive process of IPv4 modification or replacement ought to be underway. Bill Darte ARIN AC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 11:50:47 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:50:47 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN's Focus References: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9909@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <0c7401c26af4$a48ffee0$617d2b41@repligate> RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Urmann ARIN has no control over the deployment of any IPvN. ARIN must assume that IPv4 is here for the foreseeable future. ARIN`s policies must not rely on any replacement to the current IPv4. All my opinion of course. ===== ARIN just needs to focus on paying ICANN the fair-market-value RENT each year for each of these /8s. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 067/8 ARIN May 01 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 ===== At $168 million dollars (each) per year, that is a lot to focus on... Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Thu Oct 3 12:09:21 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:09:21 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RE: ARIN's Focus Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A990C@ONTARIO> Although I would grant volume pricing, and a break on some of the reserved space, I like this policy. I heard from several on this list say that it should be expected that ISPs itemize their bills any way they wish. The same should be true for ARIN. How is it fair that some pay and others do not? Especially when the ones that do not pay, hold the most space. Some of that space not even used. Am I way off base here? I really do not want to join or start any conspiracy theories, but this is beginning to look like the working class is paying all the taxes while the rich get fatter. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:51 AM To: Jeff Urmann; 'Bill Darte' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: ARIN's Focus RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Urmann ARIN has no control over the deployment of any IPvN. ARIN must assume that IPv4 is here for the foreseeable future. ARIN`s policies must not rely on any replacement to the current IPv4. All my opinion of course. ===== ARIN just needs to focus on paying ICANN the fair-market-value RENT each year for each of these /8s. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 067/8 ARIN May 01 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 ===== At $168 million dollars (each) per year, that is a lot to focus on... Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 12:16:31 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:16:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN's Focus References: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A990C@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <0ca701c26af8$3d0e0d80$617d2b41@repligate> RE: ARIN's FocusFrom: Jeff Urmann "this is beginning to look like the working class is paying all the taxes while the rich get fatter." ==== Sort of.....actually....the Outsiders Pay....the Insiders do not Pay.....they Party...(Miami...Vegas....etc) ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Urmann To: 'Jim Fleming' Cc: ppml at arin.net Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:09 AM Subject: RE: ARIN's Focus Although I would grant volume pricing, and a break on some of the reserved space, I like this policy. I heard from several on this list say that it should be expected that ISPs itemize their bills any way they wish. The same should be true for ARIN. How is it fair that some pay and others do not? Especially when the ones that do not pay, hold the most space. Some of that space not even used. Am I way off base here? I really do not want to join or start any conspiracy theories, but this is beginning to look like the working class is paying all the taxes while the rich get fatter. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at ameritech.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:51 AM To: Jeff Urmann; 'Bill Darte' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: ARIN's Focus RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Urmann ARIN has no control over the deployment of any IPvN. ARIN must assume that IPv4 is here for the foreseeable future. ARIN`s policies must not rely on any replacement to the current IPv4. All my opinion of course. ===== ARIN just needs to focus on paying ICANN the fair-market-value RENT each year for each of these /8s. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 067/8 ARIN May 01 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 ===== At $168 million dollars (each) per year, that is a lot to focus on... Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From baptista at dot-god.com Thu Oct 3 13:30:46 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <000a01c26af1$d5ae0790$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Trevor Paquette wrote: > End users won't do it until most, if not all of the Internet backbone > and distribution networks (read: the end-user's upstream) are IPv6. i disagree - it has not been properly marketed by the companies who have supported it. and north america is going to be ipv6 backwards because of this minor oversight. i think icanns leading marketing engineer - mr conrad might have some opinions on that. regards joe baptista From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 13:37:27 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:37:27 -0500 Subject: [ppml] 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 Message-ID: <0ceb01c26b03$8aebac50$617d2b41@repligate> The $168 million can of course fund the 8 TLD Managers who jointly own 209.*.*.*. 209*8=1,672 1,672/256=6.53125 0.53125*256=136 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 6:136 MY (MALAYSIA) 6:137 WHOLESALE 6:138 SG (SINGAPORE) 6:139 AIRPLANE 6:140 MEAT 6:141 UM (UNITED-STATES-MINOR-OUTLYING-ISLANDS) 6:142 DIET 6:143 THAT ============================================== Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG Thu Oct 3 13:41:30 2002 From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:41:30 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A990E@ONTARIO> As many have pointed out, (thank you) RFC1918 is the correct approach for my unrealistic request for a non-routable public /24. I will just have to convince CompanyB to negotiate a private address for us to NAT; nobody will have to renumber. I`m not sure what I`ll do if they continue to insist on a public address. Although this has started other interesting threads, I do now realize that I can not waste any more of your time on this one issue. I hereby rescind my request for a non-routable public /24. Thank you for all of your very constructive feedback. --Jeff -----Original Message----- On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:50 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net) wrote: >>I would like to have a non-routable /24. Since you think the >>prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could >>set aside address space for non-routable /24s. Then both of >>us would be extremely happy. How`s that for a compromise? >The IETF and the IANA (parent to the RIR's) has already set >aside address space for exactly this use. >Please READ RFC-1918 on Private IP Space. >Your choices are: >10.0.0.0/8 >172.16.0.0/12 >192.168.0.0/16 In a previous message on this list I already indicated that I need *public* non-routable space. My apologies for not specifying it here. >>So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ >>forever? Or only available to the fortune100? All because >>routers are slow? Make /24s available to small businesses and >>router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. >The addresses are not "reserved" forever. If you look at the >allocation trends you will see that many /8's have been moved >from the IANA_RESERVED status to being allocated to a RIR. >Those RIR's then have allocated them to providers. Great! Now I`m asking for them to allocate me a public non-routable /24. This will not affect the routing table size issue. If I can`t get non-routable, then routable will be fine. Therefore I fight both battles here. >Your comment about "will be forced to make it scale well" is like >saying. If you want a VW-Bug to go faster, put a larger engine in >it. There is a point where you can no longer put a larger engine >in the car. e.g it does scale well beyond a 351. My comment was indeed naive. However, internal combustion technology and silicon technology are significantly different. Silicon technology has historically changed rapidly when the market has *forced* it. >>>Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. >>Which companies did you poll? My numbers would be significantly >>different. But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. >2000 of 2800 members of the Greater ABQ Chamber of Commerce report >less than 15 FTE's or are in a business where their FTE's do not >need access to computer (eg retail sales, etc) ARIN wouldn`t give them a /24 anyway; they wouldn`t meet the criteria. Others would, why turn them away. Since you do not believe that these numbers are large, then changing from /20 to /24 shouldn`t be that big of a burden on the routing tables. >If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will >be significantly different. :) My point was that I can pull numbers from the air too. Posting unsubstantiated statistics do not make statements true. My less than large company (and others that I am familiar with) do not jive with the numbers that were given. >>>Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works >>>well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every >>>business that comes along is not in the best interest of the >>>global internet. >>Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their >>routers. ;) >Can't upgrade what doesn't exist. >Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade" >their routers??? Not even talking about the large providers. So you are saying that it *is* about economics. A previous message from an ARIN member indicated that economics was not their concern. Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment. >>So what if we run out of IP addresses. If I can`t get one because it >>is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent. Don`t punish me. >>Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations >>to get unused space back. All of these addresses are currently in >>the routing tables; aren`t they? Maybe providers should remove >>these addresses from their tables. That should speed things up >>a bit??? >Running out and reserved is apples and oranges. True for some of the reserved (e.g. RFC1918). >No the reserved space is not in the routing table. Only the >announced and currently used space is in the table. I was not referring to the reserved space in reference to the routing table size. I was talking about the allocated unused space. Some large companies hold multiple /8-24s but most likely do not utilize any of them fully. They may get by with one /16 sub/super netted properly. >john brown Jeff Urmann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 14:01:05 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:01:05 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "north america is going to be ipv6 backwards" References: Message-ID: <0d1601c26b06$d8cb67a0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Baptista" "north america is going to be ipv6 backwards" === It seems that the more global issue is bandwidth. North America is bandwidth rich. Fat fibers run everywhere. Services are rapidly developing assuming broadband to the home and to each room in the homes. Those services will not scale to the rest of the world, because they have no bandwidth. It does not matter how much address space they have, how big their routers are, if packets can not move from A to B...fast, efficiently and reliably, it does not matter. There is no service. Most of the world will be cut off as North America rolls out the Next Generation Internet. You can not stop people from doing that, and the rest of the world will be left to be spectators. There are no easy solutions, one can not dig a tunnel thru the center of the Earth to make the distances shorter. There are laws of physics that come into play. Pushing 320-bits down a wire takes longer than pushing 160-bits down the same wire. What goes in those 160-bits will matter to more people than the 320-bits, even the .GOD people. It only takes 11 bits to encode 7:186. That is 22 bits in each direction. Those bits do not come from ARIN. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 7:186 GOD http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From john at chagres.net Thu Oct 3 14:23:42 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:23:42 -0600 Subject: [ppml] ICANN Reform, letter from Touton to the ASO's Message-ID: <010501c26b0a$078c37b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> It would good to hear from the ARIN community about these proposed changes. How could ARIN better work with ICANN? Or does it make sense for the RIR's to separate or distance themselves from ICANN? Will a fractured environment lead to more government involvement? ------------ Forwarded Message ------------ Date: 2. oktober 2002 19:15 -0700 From: Louis Touton To: ASO Council Subject: [aso-council] ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee "Final" Report and Recommendations To the Address Council: In preparation for the ICANN Shanghai meeting on 28-31 October, the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee has issued its "Final" Implementation Report and Recommendations. The document is posted at . This report is accompanied by a set of proposed new bylaws that describe the (proposed) steady-state future structure and processes for ICANN. The report gives a summary of the major features of the proposed bylaws. This Report is expected to be the main topic of discussion at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai in late October. As explained in the report, the Evolution and Reform Committee recommends that arrangements for transition to the reformed ICANN (as determined at the Shanghai meeting) be considered immediately after the Shanghai meeting. With regard to the ASO, the Committee's report states: ASO. We recommend that the current ASO structure and operations, as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and various regional Internet address registries, remain unchanged. We believe that it would be appropriate for the Address Council to have a non-voting liaison designated by the Governmental Advisory Committee, but discussions on this topic are still ongoing with the RIRs. The RIRs have raised other concerns with, and proposed other changes regarding, the role of the ASO, which should be the topic of continuing discussions. The ASO provisions of the proposed New Bylaws are in Article VIII, which is posted at . Although the ASO has been one of the better-operating ICANN bodies to date, the members of the Evolution and Reform Committee would very much like to hear and discuss views of members of the Address Council and the broader address community about any ideas for optimizing the ASO's operations. Best regards, Louis Touton Secretary From scott at scottmarcus.com Thu Oct 3 22:13:23 2002 From: scott at scottmarcus.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 22:13:23 -0400 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9909@ONTARIO> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021003214206.04f1be60@mail.scottmarcus.com> Quite a few of the responses to my last post dealt with the interaction with IPv6, which indeed is what I was referring to obliquely when I asked whether deferring the exhaustion of IPv4 space was necessarily a good thing. I think that it IS a good thing. I continue to feel that the cost of a PILOT PROGRAM to try to voluntarily reclaim IPv4 space is low, and is warranted. Right now, we have no idea what the community response would be. I think that it is worth a try, independent of our assessment of the probability of IPv6 deployment. For reasons of fairness, it is probably not possible to do a statistical sample; rather, we would probably have to poll a CLASS of legacy address holders, I think, in order to determine the feasibility of recovering space. That is what motivated my proposal to contact the ~50 holders of /8's. I suspect we would find that a few are heavily used, some only moderately used, and probably a few that have little or no usage. For organizations who are making only limited use, and are willing to migrate, we could consider cutting them a "deal", in order to make the migration less onerous. We might offer to assign a replacement block, and to waive or reduce fees on the block for some number of years. (No loss of revenue to ARIN - they are paying nothing today, anyway.) Perhaps we would need to do something to increase their confidence that they would not have problems if they later found that they needed more space... All of this needs thought. I think that we would also want to publicly recognize their public-spiritedness, assuming they want the recognition. Maybe put them on a list of good netizens on the ARIN website, put out a press release, give them a trophy or a medal... You get the picture. It's good for them, and it also encourages others to do the right thing. These issues are a bit similar to those that the FCC encounters when we move folks from one chunk of spectrum to another - we have to give them time to migrate, and we may need to find ways to lessen the pain. But we hopefully provide overall benefits by moving a limited resource to higher value use. Analogously, reclaiming underutilized IPv4 space could ultimately benefit the whole Internet community. I expected that somebody would argue that IPv4 reclamation would reduce incentives to migrate to IPv6. To me, that's a real concern, and one of the largest downside risks. I think that there are simple ways to address this - for example, we might agree in advance that any reclaimed address blocks would be set aside as a reserve for a rainy day, or perhaps as a reserve to facilitate an eventual IPng migration. Who would hold that reserve (ARIN, the RIRs collectively, ...) is TBD. My two cents, - Scott From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 3 22:48:36 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:48:36 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "...proposal to contact the ~50 holders of /8's..." References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021003214206.04f1be60@mail.scottmarcus.com> Message-ID: <0d9c01c26b50$8b3c0f40$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Scott Marcus" > For reasons of fairness, it is probably not possible to do a statistical > sample; rather, we would probably have to poll a CLASS of legacy address > holders, I think, in order to determine the feasibility of recovering > space. That is what motivated my proposal to contact the ~50 holders of /8's. > Would that not be ICANN's job ? ARIN does not have 50 /8s. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Also, ICANN and ARIN and the rest of the Registries only deal with 32-bit IPv4 allocations for 0:0 .ARPA. The other extended address spaces for IPv4++ are not allocated to ICANN or ARIN. ICANN and ARIN are only one out of 2,048 in the larger scheme of things. Once the expanded address spaces are used to construct networks around the edge of the core, the core can be phased out. That is the Internet way, it grows at the edges and it routes around road-blocks. The ICANN and ARIN road-blocks may significant but not impossible to avoid. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Fri Oct 4 05:32:45 2002 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:32:45 +0100 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 Message-ID: >I think that we would also want to publicly recognize their >public-spiritedness, assuming they want the recognition. Maybe put them on >a list of good netizens on the ARIN website, put out a press release, give >them a trophy or a medal... You get the picture. It's good for them, and >it also encourages others to do the right thing. While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of legacy IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if they will voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity that should be coordinated globally and it should be done with the blessing of IANA and ICANN if it is done at all. ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks and connecting these with other company's testbed IPv6 networks in order to gain experience with IPv6. When the address shortage does become significant enough to push customers towards IPv6, it is likely to quickly become a tidal wave migration. Historically, IPv4 was deployed for many years before there was a sudden exponential demand for it in 1994 and 1995. The main reason that ISPs were able to meet the demand is that there were a lot of people around who had years of hands-on experience running IPv4 networks. At the time they were gaining that experience, they didn't know how IPv4 would be used in the future. They didn't foresee the web and e-commerce and then decide to run an IPv4 network. Similarily, with IPv6 we don't need to predict grand future horizons in order to find a reason to deploy it today. One small reason is enough and it doesn't have to be the same reason for everybody. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 06:35:35 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 05:35:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] "...ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks..." References: Message-ID: <0e5f01c26b91$c6737300$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: > > ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks and > connecting these with other company's testbed IPv6 networks in order to > gain experience with IPv6. When the address shortage does become > significant enough to push customers towards IPv6, it is likely to quickly > become a tidal wave migration. ==== Is that so that "ARIN members" can pay $25,000 per year for a block of IPv6 addresses ? Why would people pay for address space, when it is free ? 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt From mury at goldengate.net Fri Oct 4 08:23:39 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:23:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of legacy > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if they will > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity that should be > coordinated globally and it should be done with the blessing of IANA and > ICANN if it is done at all. Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of managing IP space? Perhaps I have missed something. Of course it should have IANA's and ICANN's blessing. Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? I have no clue what goes on at ICANN, but I have a suspicion that the people in and around ARIN are more in touch with these issues. Let me put it to you this way... A father asks that his teenage boy to help with more of the yardwork. "Where do I start dad?" The father instucts the boy how to mow the yard. Upon mowing the yard the boy sees that by trimming some of the weeds around the fence the condition of the yard would look much better. The boy decides to ask his dad if he can trim some of the weeds that the mower couldn't reach. Dad is pleased. The boy is pleased. The neighbors are pleased. Obviously the weeds are those unused legacy IP blocks. ARIN should draw up a simple game plan, get all the appropriate parties blessings, and at least make another attempt to get that IP space back. If a company needs a smaller block, I say give it to them for free. If in the next 5 years they find out they need more IP space, give that to them for free too, but have some sort of time limit on the free IP space. As far as your global comment, I doubt that many African, Asian, Australian, South American, etc. entities are sitting on lots of large unused blocks, but I certainly could be wrong. And what if I am? Why can't ARIN still do it? Why can't they become a model for the process if it works? > ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks and > connecting these with other company's testbed IPv6 networks in order to > gain experience with IPv6. When the address shortage does become > significant enough to push customers towards IPv6, it is likely to quickly > become a tidal wave migration. Historically, IPv4 was deployed for many > years before there was a sudden exponential demand for it in 1994 and > 1995. The main reason that ISPs were able to meet the demand is that there > were a lot of people around who had years of hands-on experience running > IPv4 networks. At the time they were gaining that experience, they didn't > know how IPv4 would be used in the future. They didn't foresee the web and > e-commerce and then decide to run an IPv4 network. Similarily, with IPv6 > we don't need to predict grand future horizons in order to find a reason > to deploy it today. One small reason is enough and it doesn't have to be > the same reason for everybody. Are you saying that ARIN's resources are so strapped they can't blink and breath at the same time? I find this extremely hard to believe. If testing IPv6 in the manner you suggest is agreed to be useful, why can't ARIN do both? Regards, Mury From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 08:31:11 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:31:11 -0500 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 References: Message-ID: <0f1d01c26ba1$eccf4af0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mury" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:23 AM Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of legacy > > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if they will > > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not > > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity that should be > > coordinated globally and it should be done with the blessing of IANA and > > ICANN if it is done at all. > > Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of managing IP space? > Perhaps I have missed something. ARIN pays ICANN money... http://www.arin.net/library/internet_info/contract_chronology.html From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 08:47:12 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:47:12 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? References: Message-ID: <0f3801c26ba4$33cd0d00$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mury" > > > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of legacy > > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if they will > > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not > > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity that should be > > coordinated globally and it should be done with the blessing of IANA and > > ICANN if it is done at all. > > Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of managing IP space? > Perhaps I have missed something. Of course it should have IANA's and > ICANN's blessing. Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? Why is this so difficult to understand ? ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. ==== A /8 is 16,777,216 such products. At an average of $12.50 per month, that is $209,715,200 from the ISP to ARIN each year. ARIN can then pay ICANN $1,7476,267 each year for EACH /8. How many /8s does ARIN have ? Did ARIN get those in a "land grab" ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 067/8 ARIN May 01 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 ===== From mury at goldengate.net Fri Oct 4 08:53:40 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:53:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Re: Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: <0f3801c26ba4$33cd0d00$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: Jim, Do you actually read people's messages and try to give a relevant response, or do you have a fortune type program running that just replies back with a snipet from your vault of information? Mury On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Jim Fleming wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mury" > > > > > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of legacy > > > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if they will > > > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not > > > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity that should be > > > coordinated globally and it should be done with the blessing of IANA and > > > ICANN if it is done at all. > > > > Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of managing IP space? > > Perhaps I have missed something. Of course it should have IANA's and > > ICANN's blessing. Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? > > Why is this so difficult to understand ? > > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. > > ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > > ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > ==== > > A /8 is 16,777,216 such products. At an average of $12.50 per month, that is > $209,715,200 from the ISP to ARIN each year. > > ARIN can then pay ICANN $1,7476,267 each year for EACH /8. > > How many /8s does ARIN have ? Did ARIN get those in a "land grab" ? > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 > 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 > 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 > 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 > 067/8 ARIN May 01 > 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 > 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 > 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 > 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 > 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 > 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 > 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 > 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 > 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 > 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 > 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 > ===== > > > > From msalim at localweb.com Fri Oct 4 09:15:44 2002 From: msalim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: <0f3801c26ba4$33cd0d00$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: Jim, > Why is this so difficult to understand ? > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. > ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. Why is this difficult to understand? Why is this difficult to understand?? Jim please you must be joking! As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another $10,240 per year. Please, Jim, please try and read your own posts one of these days! Or are you suggesting that each ISP, rolling in wealth that they are, should quietly hand over one sixth of their annual income to ICANN and ARIN? Come on guy !!! Plus these additional "minor" issues: a) Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month you keep mentioning? This is an astronomical price to charge and I do not know of any ISP's that charge this amount. Our total web hosting package costs $19/mo (less in many cases) and of that, $15 is for the IP address you say??!! Gimme a break guy! Most ISP's charge diddly squat for IP's they provide to their downstreams , and I don't see any earthly reason for that to change. Yes I know you might be referring to "end users" but it does not take much, once this silly argument is established, to start viewing any downstream ISP's as "end users" or more accurately, "revenue centers". b) So now we will have to open our books to ICANN and ARIN so they can audit us to determine what our one month's revenue is, then hand it over to them? And we would have to prove which part of our income is IP related and which is not? And what if we refuse to hand over our books to ICANN and ARIN? This is getting so ridiculous, gotta go. best regards Mike Salim. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 09:25:58 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:25:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month ? References: Message-ID: <0f5701c26ba9$93e4b6c0$617d2b41@repligate> From: "A. M. Salim" "Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month ?" ====== http://www.earthlink.net/home/broadband/staticip/upgrade/ Special savings: Current EarthLink DSL customers can add a static IP address to their service for just $15 more per month*! Add a Static IP Address You already subscribe to EarthLink DSL. Now what you'd really like is a Static IP address. A unique Static IP address identifies your computer and its DSL signature like a fingerprint, and provides you with a stable and personally identifiable means of logging on to a virtual network. This kind of access is not for all DSL users. See if it's for you! Telecommuters, Home Office Workers: A Static IP lets you zip past the corporate firewall, and log in to your office's VPN (virtual private network) or corporate network. Work from home more effectively and more often! New to EarthLink? Check out the EarthLink High Speed Home Office suite. Gamers: With a Static IP, you can ramp up the action, and easily sign on for more kinds of multiplayer games. Or host one yourself. Let the good times roll! New to EarthLink? Check out the EarthLink High Speed Gaming package. Special savings: Current EarthLink DSL customers can add a static IP address to their service for just $15 more per month*! Call 1-800-EARTHLINK to order your Static IP today! Click here to see if you are eligible for Static IP service with your DSL account. *This product is available for residential use only. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. M. Salim" To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? > Jim, > > > Why is this so difficult to understand ? > > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. > > ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > > ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > > Why is this difficult to understand? Why is this difficult to > understand?? Jim please you must be joking! > > As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we > would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another > $10,240 per year. Please, Jim, please try and read your own posts one of > these days! > > Or are you suggesting that each ISP, rolling in wealth that they are, > should quietly hand over one sixth of their annual income to ICANN and > ARIN? Come on guy !!! > > Plus these additional "minor" issues: > > a) Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month you keep > mentioning? This is an astronomical price to charge and I do not know of > any ISP's that charge this amount. Our total web hosting package costs > $19/mo (less in many cases) and of that, $15 is for the IP address you > say??!! Gimme a break guy! Most ISP's charge diddly squat for IP's they > provide to their downstreams , and I don't see any earthly reason for that > to change. Yes I know you might be referring to "end users" but it does > not take much, once this silly argument is established, to start viewing > any downstream ISP's as "end users" or more accurately, "revenue centers". > > b) So now we will have to open our books to ICANN and ARIN so they can > audit us to determine what our one month's revenue is, then hand it over > to them? And we would have to prove which part of our income is IP > related and which is not? And what if we refuse to hand over our books to > ICANN and ARIN? This is getting so ridiculous, gotta go. > > best regards > Mike Salim. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spacer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 09:45:17 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:45:17 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? References: Message-ID: <0f7801c26bac$47237c10$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. M. Salim" > > As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we > would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another > $10,240 per year. Your upstream would pay. If your upstream is AT&T (for example) they do not pay ARIN anything. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories Jun 95 ==================================== AT&T competes with ARIN or vice versa. Actually, in the U.S. non-profit companies are not allowed to engage in the same business as a for-profit company, even if the non-profit only breaks even. ARIN should really be for-profit, which it is and likewise, so is ICANN. AT&T would pay ICANN directly, using this example. PSI could be another example. 038/8 Performance Systems International Sep 94 From msalim at localweb.com Fri Oct 4 09:50:39 2002 From: msalim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: <0f7801c26bac$47237c10$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: Hi, > > As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we > > would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another > > $10,240 per year. > > Your upstream would pay. If your upstream is AT&T (for example) they do > not pay ARIN anything. OK so that takes care of that, whew, I am so relieved! Thank you Jim! Naturally, there is no reason why our upstream to pass these sudden new fees down to us, after all "it's the cost of doing business" to them right? And they would be delighted to just absorb those new fees. So we would have nothing to worry about! I can sleep easy now. And here I was thinking all of a sudden I would be facing a $20k per year additional fee from my upstream. Man am I glad I talked to you. best regards Mike Salim. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 10:07:12 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:07:12 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? References: Message-ID: <0f8a01c26baf$6a6332d0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. M. Salim" To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? > Hi, > > > > As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we > > > would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another > > > $10,240 per year. > > > > Your upstream would pay. If your upstream is AT&T (for example) they do > > not pay ARIN anything. > > OK so that takes care of that, whew, I am so relieved! Thank you Jim! > Naturally, there is no reason why our upstream to pass these sudden new > fees down to us, after all "it's the cost of doing business" to them > right? And they would be delighted to just absorb those new fees. So we > would have nothing to worry about! I can sleep easy now. And here I was > thinking all of a sudden I would be facing a $20k per year additional fee > from my upstream. Man am I glad I talked to you. > > best regards > Mike Salim. > You can always just request a /8 directly from ICANN, there are plenty left. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Then, you can lease space to other people, just like ARIN does. By the way, note that HP now has two /8s with the COMPAQ/DEC deal. 015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company Jul 94 016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation Nov 94 From baptista at dot-god.com Fri Oct 4 10:19:31 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:19:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, A. M. Salim wrote: > As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we > would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another > $10,240 per year. Please, Jim, please try and read your own posts one of > these days! Well - right now they want $2,500 per year for a /24 - /19. I think it's nuts myself. Just another conrad mutilevel marketing campaign. cheers joe baptista > > Or are you suggesting that each ISP, rolling in wealth that they are, > should quietly hand over one sixth of their annual income to ICANN and > ARIN? Come on guy !!! > > Plus these additional "minor" issues: > > a) Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month you keep > mentioning? This is an astronomical price to charge and I do not know of > any ISP's that charge this amount. Our total web hosting package costs > $19/mo (less in many cases) and of that, $15 is for the IP address you > say??!! Gimme a break guy! Most ISP's charge diddly squat for IP's they > provide to their downstreams , and I don't see any earthly reason for that > to change. Yes I know you might be referring to "end users" but it does > not take much, once this silly argument is established, to start viewing > any downstream ISP's as "end users" or more accurately, "revenue centers". > > b) So now we will have to open our books to ICANN and ARIN so they can > audit us to determine what our one month's revenue is, then hand it over > to them? And we would have to prove which part of our income is IP > related and which is not? And what if we refuse to hand over our books to > ICANN and ARIN? This is getting so ridiculous, gotta go. > > best regards > Mike Salim. > From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 10:34:29 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:34:29 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? References: Message-ID: <0fae01c26bb3$26ebf0b0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Baptista" To: "A. M. Salim" Cc: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, A. M. Salim wrote: > > > As a tiny ISP (we have a /22 from our upstream), at YOUR recoking, we > > would now need to start paying ARIN $10,240 per year and ICANN another > > $10,240 per year. Please, Jim, please try and read your own posts one of > > these days! > > Well - right now they want $2,500 per year for a /24 - /19. > You might want to look at it like apartment buildings. A /22 supports 1024 "units"...at $12.50 per month per unit, that is $12,500 per month in revenue. One month (8%) is a common fee to the broker, on an annual basis. One then can compare $12,500 and $2,500. It appears that at $2,500 per year, ARIN is selling at $10,000 below the market rate. Non-profits are not allowed to compete with for-profit companies and this may be a good example of why that is the case. A for-profit company could not compete if their price is $10,000 per year higher. It is also illegal in the U.S. to dump products at below market costs, to gain an unfair advantage and attempt to monopolize a marketplace. From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Fri Oct 4 10:35:35 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:35:35 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: <0f3801c26ba4$33cd0d00$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <001501c26bb3$4dae45e0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> > Why is this so difficult to understand ? Why is this so diffucult for you to understand and to let go of? > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address > for $10 to $15 per month. Not all ISPs do, and some seel for significantly less. > ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. What ISPs do with respect to pricing policy of IP space (if any) is NONE of ARINs business; and I'm sure that ARIN has stated this at one point. > ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. .. same statement as above. Jim; it's time to get off that horse and move onto another. If you truely feel that ARIN is entitled to receive revenues for IP space from their downstream assignements, then please propose a policy statement to be reviewed at the next ARIN metting. From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 10:37:20 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:37:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? References: Message-ID: <0fc001c26bb3$8bf59240$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Baptista" > Well - right now they want $2,500 per year for a /24 - /19. > > I think it's nuts myself. You can always just request a /8 directly from ICANN, there are plenty left. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Then, you can lease space to other people, just like ARIN does. Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Fri Oct 4 10:39:18 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:39:18 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month ? In-Reply-To: <0f5701c26ba9$93e4b6c0$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <001701c26bb3$d339e520$3102a8c0@teraint.net> You know.. I'm really glad to know that Earthlink sets the pricing policy and guideline for the all of the ISPs out there. I think I'll now visit the rest of their site and find out what I am charging for all of my services. :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim > Fleming > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:26 AM > To: A. M. Salim; ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 > per month ? > > > From: "A. M. Salim" > > "Where did you get this figure of $10 to $15 per month ?" > ====== > http://www.earthlink.net/home/broadband/staticip/upgrade/ > Special savings: Current EarthLink DSL customers can add a > static IP address to their service for just $15 more per month*! From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 4 10:46:07 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:46:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? References: <001501c26bb3$4dae45e0$3102a8c0@teraint.net> Message-ID: <0fd601c26bb4$c63f7cd0$617d2b41@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Paquette" > > > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address > > for $10 to $15 per month. > > Not all ISPs do, and some seel for significantly less. > What do U.S. ISPs sell (lease/rent) IP addresses for each month ? That is very important for U.S. companies like ARIN operating in the U.S.A. What Canadian ISPs do it not relevant. For all U.S. citizens know, your IP blocks are part of the socialist services, such as health care. The could be "free". From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca Fri Oct 4 11:01:53 2002 From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:01:53 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <0fc001c26bb3$8bf59240$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <001901c26bb6$f9e9bc60$3102a8c0@teraint.net> I think CA*Net used to assign space in Canada at one time. No idea as to what became of them. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim > Fleming > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:37 AM > To: Joe Baptista; A. M. Salim > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Baptista" > > Well - right now they want $2,500 per year for a /24 - /19. > > > > I think it's nuts myself. > > You can always just request a /8 directly from ICANN, there > are plenty left. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > Then, you can lease space to other people, just like ARIN does. > > Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? > From msalim at localweb.com Fri Oct 4 11:13:48 2002 From: msalim at localweb.com (A. M. Salim) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: <0fae01c26bb3$26ebf0b0$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: Hi, This just keeps getting better and better. Since when did IP addresses become like apartment buildings? An IP address is not like an apartment building, it is not even like the land that the apartment building stands on. It is like the address nameplate on each apartment. And a Class C is like the street name signpost. That's all it is. And you want ICANN and ARIN to charge $10 to $15 per month for each of them ??!! There is no "service value" that you can in any way, shape or form attach directly to the IP address as a chargeable entity by itself. All the "service value" comes from routing and network infrastructure (the network cabling, hardware and software we have to pay for), administrative infrastructure (the employees, the building leases, the utility bills, federal and state taxes not any hair-brained ICANN nd ARIN taxes that we have to pay for) etc. Yes ARIN sould charge some sort of fees to support their infrastructure, and the $2500 per year for a /19 is quite reasonable, and some would argue it is too high. Byt Jim's suggestions and comparisons are truly beyond reason. Look I really don't have time to keep posting on this subject repeateddly so this is my last post on this topic. I sincerely hope that everyone on this list recognizes that such fund raising suggestions have no merit and no place in the industry. Best regards Mike Salim. > You might want to look at it like apartment buildings. > > A /22 supports 1024 "units"...at $12.50 per month per unit, that is > $12,500 per month in revenue. One month (8%) is a common fee to the > broker, on an annual basis. > > One then can compare $12,500 and $2,500. > > It appears that at $2,500 per year, ARIN is selling at $10,000 below the > market rate. Non-profits are not allowed to compete with for-profit > companies and this may be a good example of why that is the case. A > for-profit company could not compete if their price is $10,000 per year > higher. It is also illegal in the U.S. to dump products at below market > costs, to gain an unfair advantage and attempt to monopolize a > marketplace. From leth at primus.ca Fri Oct 4 11:30:08 2002 From: leth at primus.ca (Jason Hunt) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:30:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <0fc001c26bb3$8bf59240$617d2b41@repligate> Message-ID: <20021004112013.Q25494-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Jim Fleming wrote: > > You can always just request a /8 directly from ICANN, there are plenty left. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > Then, you can lease space to other people, just like ARIN does. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't ICANN oversee domains and IANA oversees IP addresses? Either way, I'm pretty sure you have to be a RIR in order to get assigned a /8 directly from them. Take a look at "Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries", http://www.iana.org/icp/icp-2.htm > > Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? > > ARIN covers the "America's", which includes the United States, Canada, etc. This idea shouldn't be very difficult to comprehend :) From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Oct 4 11:42:19 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Public Policy Mailing List Discussions Message-ID: Thank you all for your participation in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Your participation is vital to this process. Please continue your discussions with focus on the policy proposals themselves. A full list of policy proposals currently open for discussion is provided at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html Please direct any discussion regarding ARIN fees to the ARIN Member Mailing List -- ARIN Discuss (arin-discuss at arin.net). Thank you again. Best Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From scott at scottmarcus.com Fri Oct 4 11:51:01 2002 From: scott at scottmarcus.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:51:01 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Re: Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? Message-ID: <200210041551.POR84468@vmms5.verisignmail.com> >Do you actually read people's messages and try to give a relevant >response, or do you have a fortune type program running that just replies >back with a snipet from your vault of information? Good observation! There is an old Internet saying: "Don't feed the trolls." An e-mail filter to /dev/null is a beautiful thing. - Scott, speaking only for myself From scott at scottmarcus.com Fri Oct 4 11:56:35 2002 From: scott at scottmarcus.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:56:35 -0400 Subject: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal2002-9 Message-ID: <200210041556.POR85128@vmms5.verisignmail.com> >While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of legacy >IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if they will >voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not >concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity that should be >coordinated globally and it should be done with the blessing of IANA and >ICANN if it is done at all. ARIN holds the legacy space. - Scott, speaking only for myself From john at chagres.net Fri Oct 4 15:42:41 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:42:41 -0600 Subject: [ppml] With additional comments on global policy RE: Encouraging return of legacy space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c26bde$3aadb6d0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> ICANN / IANA is basically the GIR (Global IP Registry) They have responsibility to make sure the RIR's (Regional IP Registry's) follow RFC 2050, just like those that are allocated space from the RIR's. IANA could request an audit of any of the RIR's allocations to make sure they are following RFC 2050, and that the (to use a RIPE term) LIR's are also following RFC-2050. The RIR's do not like the fact that they have to get space from IANA. In fact there is movement within the RIR's to attempt to separate themselves from the ICANN / IANA process and move towards a "self regulated" model and admin the entire space within this "self regulated" model. This would allow them the freedom and the autonomy to make and set policy that is independent of the IANA or ICANN processes. It would remove any "third party" appeal process for requesters of numeric address space. Prior to the death of Jon Postel, he handle appeals from requesters when InterNIC or the RIR's declined an IP allocation request. Today, that appeal process is thin at best. It needs to be put back in place and strengthened. The IANA needs to step up to the plate and take a solid leadership role in this and other technical processes. The IANA *MUST* reclaim and re-earn the technical respect of the community if these processes are to succeed, for if they do not, then "self regulation" will fail and government or treaty (read ITU, FCC, FTC, Homeland Security) organizations will step in and tell us how it should be done. In short the IANA needs a CTO, a Chief Technical Officer. This person is someone with solid technical clue and credibility in the community, and a person that has the modesty yet strength and diplomatic ability to worth with diverse people and organizations during debates. Originally this was a role that Dr. Postel was to take. His untimely death created a void that was not filled. It *MUST* be a person that has had significant technical operational experience and has dealt with real world internet technology development and deployment. Today many people are attempting to fill these shoes with the added baggage of their own agendas. Each is earnest in their beliefs that they are doing the right thing, for their scope of concern. All the petty bickering, finger pointing, claims of not listening to each other, etc need to be squashed. "We The Community" must ensure that the "Net is for EVERYONE", and to do that we must be active and participate. We must act as grown ups and not be distracted. We must be relentless in assuring that the Net is in fact for Everyone. The net is not for just America or Europe or Asia, its for all races on this planet. Each region has its own customs and laws, all must be respectful of those and not try to enforce a single view on others. The net is transforming and empowering the people of this planet like nothing in history has done before. This is causing some governments concern. As we move to dealing with policy issues, here in the PPML, or in other forums it is important to understand that good policies are those that balance many different and sometimes competing needs. I am actively encouraging members and lurkers of this and other lists to get involved. Technology people (read geeks) normally shy away from politics, policy talks and the like. That's left for the "suits". The issue here is if we leave it to the "suits" they will tell us that PI is 3, not 3.1415..... The technical community *MUST* become more involved, must learn how to work with the "suits" and help each other. The ARIN community *MUST* become more involved with policy formation and with the actions that ARIN, a bottom up membership based organization, takes. Get involved, Stay involved. It takes time, but if YOU don't who will ??? Respectfully, John M. Brown Speaking for himself. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Mury > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:24 AM > To: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of > > legacy > > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if > they will > > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not > > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity > that should be > > coordinated globally and it should be done with the > blessing of IANA and > > ICANN if it is done at all. > > Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of > managing IP space? > Perhaps I have missed something. Of course it should have > IANA's and ICANN's blessing. Why should ARIN have to be > dictated first by ICANN? I have no clue what goes on at > ICANN, but I have a suspicion that the people in and around > ARIN are more in touch with these issues. > > Let me put it to you this way... A father asks that his > teenage boy to help with more of the yardwork. "Where do I > start dad?" The father instucts the boy how to mow the yard. > Upon mowing the yard the boy sees that by trimming some of > the weeds around the fence the condition of the yard would > look much better. The boy decides to ask his dad if he can > trim some of the weeds that the mower couldn't reach. Dad is > pleased. > The boy is pleased. The neighbors are pleased. > > Obviously the weeds are those unused legacy IP blocks. ARIN > should draw up a simple game plan, get all the appropriate > parties blessings, and at least make another attempt to get > that IP space back. > > If a company needs a smaller block, I say give it to them for > free. If in the next 5 years they find out they need more IP > space, give that to them for free too, but have some sort of > time limit on the free IP space. > > As far as your global comment, I doubt that many African, > Asian, Australian, South American, etc. entities are sitting > on lots of large unused blocks, but I certainly could be > wrong. And what if I am? Why can't ARIN still do it? Why > can't they become a model for the process if it works? > > > ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks and > > connecting these with other company's testbed IPv6 networks > in order to > > gain experience with IPv6. When the address shortage does become > > significant enough to push customers towards IPv6, it is > likely to quickly > > become a tidal wave migration. Historically, IPv4 was > deployed for many > > years before there was a sudden exponential demand for it > in 1994 and > > 1995. The main reason that ISPs were able to meet the > demand is that there > > were a lot of people around who had years of hands-on > experience running > > IPv4 networks. At the time they were gaining that > experience, they didn't > > know how IPv4 would be used in the future. They didn't > foresee the web and > > e-commerce and then decide to run an IPv4 network. > Similarily, with IPv6 > > we don't need to predict grand future horizons in order to > find a reason > > to deploy it today. One small reason is enough and it > doesn't have to be > > the same reason for everybody. > > Are you saying that ARIN's resources are so strapped they > can't blink and breath at the same time? I find this > extremely hard to believe. If testing IPv6 in the manner you > suggest is agreed to be useful, why can't ARIN do both? > > Regards, > > Mury > From mury at goldengate.net Fri Oct 4 16:33:12 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:33:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Re: With additional comments on global policy RE: Encouraging return of legacy space In-Reply-To: <000d01c26bde$3aadb6d0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: Okay, I have a question for you, which follows some background... Personally, I really shouldn't be spending this much time being "involved" on this list, but I'm doing it because I do think more people should voice their opinions and if I don't then how can I expect other people too. I, like most people, can probably only comment based on my experiences, which are some what limited in the grand scope of things. So I'm sure some of my comments can sound naive and perhaps just plain stupid sometimes. But, having contributed, if you can call it that, I wonder if I've done any good. Many times it feels like a few of us are just bantering back and forth. Do any of the comments here ever get summarized and taken to meetings? How could someone in my shoes actually get some sort of policy proposed, whether it's a good idea or just plain sucks? It would also be helpful for some of the more knowledgable people chime in with background and concrete numbers on certain issues. Yes, there are 3-5 of them that do, but I think there should be more. As far as I know, staff memebers from ARIN do not do much participation. Maybe they are posting as themselves and I just don't know they are involved. But it seems to me they should be able to provide data and background to discussions. If it's really discussions that ARIN is looking for. If this list is just to give the appearance that the members can be involved then I suppose it's doing it's job. I'm not saying that it isn't playing a bigger role, but from my perspective as a member I don't see it. I think people tend to get involved more when they actually see their time is not being wasted. I'm also a little concerned about the message that just went out about keeping the conversations on topic. This has the feeling of being corraled. "We want your input, but only on things we have already decided on, and only if you agree with us." Now of course I stated that as an extreme, but take a step back and think about how it might feel to us. Case in point: The whole discussion about the legacy IP space. Are we just trying to brush that one under the rug? When talking about certain policies it is helpful to view them in light of the whole picture, that is why these other topics come up. I'm a big picture person and to be told that something is off-topic makes no sense to me. Is the topic only /24 allocations? Or is it also how do we best utilize IP space to meet the needs of the Internet community at large? It's like as a child when I went to the doctor for help with migrane headaches. He just wanted to talk about other things. He didn't want to deal with the migrane so he kept changing the subject. He didn't know how to deal with the migrane. Well he should have pointed me to a specialist or told me he didn't know what he was doing. I'm trying to be involved. I've made my suggestions. I've watched *many* other people make similiar suggestions. I haven't heard much back. You made a closing comment about how ARIN is a bottom up based membership. This butt (me) would like some real feedback when things are suggested by myself or other people. Or, I need some real tools to take my suggestion to another level. Or, you can just tell me to get lost now and I'll save us all some time. I have plenty of other things to do and people to annoy. Thank you. Mury PS. Don't take this as a whole criticism against ARIN or an individual. I think ARIN does a good job overall. My criticism is specific to the topic. On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, John M. Brown wrote: > > ICANN / IANA is basically the GIR (Global IP Registry) > They have responsibility to make sure the RIR's (Regional > IP Registry's) follow RFC 2050, just like those that are > allocated space from the RIR's. > > IANA could request an audit of any of the RIR's allocations > to make sure they are following RFC 2050, and that the > (to use a RIPE term) LIR's are also following RFC-2050. > > The RIR's do not like the fact that they have to get space > from IANA. In fact there is movement within the RIR's > to attempt to separate themselves from the ICANN / IANA > process and move towards a "self regulated" model and > admin the entire space within this "self regulated" model. > > This would allow them the freedom and the autonomy to make > and set policy that is independent of the IANA or ICANN > processes. It would remove any "third party" appeal process > for requesters of numeric address space. > > Prior to the death of Jon Postel, he handle appeals from > requesters when InterNIC or the RIR's declined an IP > allocation request. > > Today, that appeal process is thin at best. It needs to be > put back in place and strengthened. > > The IANA needs to step up to the plate and take a solid > leadership role in this and other technical processes. > > The IANA *MUST* reclaim and re-earn the technical respect > of the community if these processes are to succeed, for > if they do not, then "self regulation" will fail and > government or treaty (read ITU, FCC, FTC, Homeland Security) > organizations will step in and tell us how it should be done. > > In short the IANA needs a CTO, a Chief Technical Officer. > This person is someone with solid technical clue and > credibility in the community, and a person that has the > modesty yet strength and diplomatic ability to worth with > diverse people and organizations during debates. > > Originally this was a role that Dr. Postel was to take. His > untimely death created a void that was not filled. > > It *MUST* be a person that has had significant technical > operational experience and has dealt with real world internet > technology development and deployment. > > Today many people are attempting to fill these shoes with the > added baggage of their own agendas. Each is earnest in their > beliefs that they are doing the right thing, for their scope > of concern. > > All the petty bickering, finger pointing, claims of not > listening to each other, etc need to be squashed. > > "We The Community" must ensure that the "Net is for EVERYONE", > and to do that we must be active and participate. We must act > as grown ups and not be distracted. > > We must be relentless in assuring that the Net is in fact for > Everyone. The net is not for just America or Europe or Asia, its > for all races on this planet. Each region has its own customs > and laws, all must be respectful of those and not try to enforce > a single view on others. The net is transforming and empowering > the people of this planet like nothing in history has done before. > This is causing some governments concern. > > > > As we move to dealing with policy issues, here in the PPML, or > in other forums it is important to understand that good policies > are those that balance many different and sometimes competing > needs. > > I am actively encouraging members and lurkers of this and other > lists to get involved. > > Technology people (read geeks) normally shy away from politics, > policy talks and the like. That's left for the "suits". The > issue here is if we leave it to the "suits" they will tell us > that PI is 3, not 3.1415..... The technical community *MUST* > become more involved, must learn how to work with the "suits" > and help each other. > > The ARIN community *MUST* become more involved with policy > formation and with the actions that ARIN, a bottom up membership > based organization, takes. > > Get involved, Stay involved. It takes time, but if YOU don't > who will ??? > > Respectfully, > > John M. Brown > Speaking for himself. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Mury > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:24 AM > > To: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: Encouraging return of legacy space WAS Re: > > [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 > > > > > > > > > While it may be a good idea to contact holders of large amounts of > > > legacy > > > IPv4 addresses in the Class A and Class B ranges to see if > > they will > > > voluntarily return the space to IANA, this type of thing should not > > > concern ARIN at this time. This is the sort of activity > > that should be > > > coordinated globally and it should be done with the > > blessing of IANA and > > > ICANN if it is done at all. > > > > Hasn't IANA and ICANN basically given ARIN the task of > > managing IP space? > > Perhaps I have missed something. Of course it should have > > IANA's and ICANN's blessing. Why should ARIN have to be > > dictated first by ICANN? I have no clue what goes on at > > ICANN, but I have a suspicion that the people in and around > > ARIN are more in touch with these issues. > > > > Let me put it to you this way... A father asks that his > > teenage boy to help with more of the yardwork. "Where do I > > start dad?" The father instucts the boy how to mow the yard. > > Upon mowing the yard the boy sees that by trimming some of > > the weeds around the fence the condition of the yard would > > look much better. The boy decides to ask his dad if he can > > trim some of the weeds that the mower couldn't reach. Dad is > > pleased. > > The boy is pleased. The neighbors are pleased. > > > > Obviously the weeds are those unused legacy IP blocks. ARIN > > should draw up a simple game plan, get all the appropriate > > parties blessings, and at least make another attempt to get > > that IP space back. > > > > If a company needs a smaller block, I say give it to them for > > free. If in the next 5 years they find out they need more IP > > space, give that to them for free too, but have some sort of > > time limit on the free IP space. > > > > As far as your global comment, I doubt that many African, > > Asian, Australian, South American, etc. entities are sitting > > on lots of large unused blocks, but I certainly could be > > wrong. And what if I am? Why can't ARIN still do it? Why > > can't they become a model for the process if it works? > > > > > ARIN members would be better off deploying testbed IPv6 networks and > > > connecting these with other company's testbed IPv6 networks > > in order to > > > gain experience with IPv6. When the address shortage does become > > > significant enough to push customers towards IPv6, it is > > likely to quickly > > > become a tidal wave migration. Historically, IPv4 was > > deployed for many > > > years before there was a sudden exponential demand for it > > in 1994 and > > > 1995. The main reason that ISPs were able to meet the > > demand is that there > > > were a lot of people around who had years of hands-on > > experience running > > > IPv4 networks. At the time they were gaining that > > experience, they didn't > > > know how IPv4 would be used in the future. They didn't > > foresee the web and > > > e-commerce and then decide to run an IPv4 network. > > Similarily, with IPv6 > > > we don't need to predict grand future horizons in order to > > find a reason > > > to deploy it today. One small reason is enough and it > > doesn't have to be > > > the same reason for everybody. > > > > Are you saying that ARIN's resources are so strapped they > > can't blink and breath at the same time? I find this > > extremely hard to believe. If testing IPv6 in the manner you > > suggest is agreed to be useful, why can't ARIN do both? > > > > Regards, > > > > Mury > > > > From memsvcs at arin.net Fri Oct 4 16:43:28 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:43:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN X Expanded Agenda Posted Message-ID: The ARIN community is encouraged to review the full range of discussion topics and activities on the agenda for ARIN X, to be held October 29 - November 1 in Eugene, Oregon. http://www.arin.net/ARIN-X/agenda.html Make your plans now to be an active participant and register for the meeting. Don't forget that the ARIN meeting follows immediately on the heels of NANOG 26. You can register for NANOG from the ARIN site or visit the NANOG meeting site at: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0210/index.html The ARIN room block closes on October 11, so please secure your reservation now to avoid higher prices and a sold out hotel. ARIN appreciates the commitment of the University of Oregon, Sprint and Preferred Communications NW in sponsoring this meeting. Details concerning additional sponsorship opportunities can be found at the ARIN meeting link. Comments concerning the agenda and additional topic suggestions may be sent to memsvcs at arin.net. Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services From john at chagres.net Fri Oct 4 17:23:24 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 15:23:24 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RE: With additional comments on global policy RE: Encouraging return of legacy space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001001c26bec$4c579fa0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> See below > -----Original Message----- > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net] > > But, having contributed, if you can call it that, I wonder if > I've done any good. Many times it feels like a few of us are > just bantering back and forth. Do any of the comments here > ever get summarized and taken to meetings? Comments are important. Banter is also good as it helps to define things, expose concerns and issues. I believe that the entire ARIN AC, and BOD along with staff receive all the messages posted to the PPML. So dialog is viewed and received. It may not be taken back as specific comments to meetings, but it is used to help the process. > How could someone in my shoes actually get some sort of > policy proposed, whether it's a good idea or just plain sucks? http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Is the place to start. > It would also be helpful for some of the more knowledgable > people chime in with background and concrete numbers on > certain issues. Much of the "numeric data" is already on the ARIN web site. Specific questions can be asked here, or to specific AC members. > think there should be more. As far as I know, staff memebers > from ARIN do not do much participation. Maybe they are Staff does read these list, but are not normally active. AC and BOD members also read and typically post. > I think people tend to get involved more when they actually > see their time is not being wasted. True, hence the need to make sure that time isn't wasted and that good discussions happen. > I'm also a little concerned about the message that just went > out about keeping the conversations on topic. This has the > feeling of being corraled. "We want your input, but only on > things we have already decided on, and only if you agree with > us." Now of course I stated that as an extreme, but take a > step back and think about how it might feel to us. I doubt that was the message Member Services wished to deliver. It is important to make sure open lists, such as this one, stay focused and topical. Basicly that means its important to make sure we don't start having posts that do not add value to the list. I believe some of the recent posts have been off topic even if they appear to be "on topic". List troll's are bad. They waste valueable time. > Case in point: The whole discussion about the legacy IP > space. Are we just trying to brush that one under the rug? Legacy IP space is a difficult and touchy issue. There are legal issues, operational issues, and fiscal issues. I do not beleive any RIR is attempting to "sweep this under the rug". Legacy IP space (aka Swamp Space) is filled with bad contact data which makes it hard to contact these folks. ARIN and the other RIR's have been working to get databases clean up, alloction records corrected. While it may seem easy to "fix", I'd rather see the RIR's taking a SLOW approach to this process, than a fast approach that could cause damage. > When talking about certain policies it is helpful to view > them in light of the whole picture, that is why these other > topics come up. I'm a big picture person and to be told that > something is off-topic makes no sense to me. Is the topic > only /24 allocations? Or is it also how do we best utilize > IP space to meet the needs of the Internet community at large? Its the best way to use the space, IMHO. Some believe there is a need for /24 allocations. Unless you are a very special case (Read the micro alloc policy), IMHO /20's or maybe even /21's are about as small as it should go, and to service providers not end user orgs. (My personal opinion here) > I'm trying to be involved. I've made my suggestions. I've > watched *many* other people make similiar suggestions. I > haven't heard much back. Others making suggestions is "hearing back". Some members of the AC have posted thoughts and comments as well. > You made a closing comment about how ARIN is a bottom up > based membership. > This butt (me) would like some real feedback when things are > suggested by myself or other people. Or, I need some real > tools to take my suggestion to another level. Or, you can > just tell me to get lost now and I'll save us all some time. > I have plenty of other things to do and people to annoy. By posting and staying involved you are seeing the results of your involvement. Mine, and possibly others follow-ups are also evidence of the value of that involvement. I hope there will be more of "yous" posting. Attending the meetings is also important. Currently its basicly the same 100 or so people that showed up to the last meeting that will show up to this meeting, maybe a few new faces, we hope. Thank you for being involved! Please continue! John Brown From lee.howard at wcom.com Fri Oct 4 18:11:03 2002 From: lee.howard at wcom.com (Lee Howard) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Re: With additional comments on global policy RE: Encouraging return of legacy space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I hope you don't mind my summarizing. . . On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Mury wrote: > Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:33:12 -0500 (CDT) > From: Mury > To: John M. Brown > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Re: With additional comments on global policy RE: > Encouraging return of legacy space > > > But, having contributed, if you can call it that, I wonder if I've done > any good. Many times it feels like a few of us are just bantering back > and forth. Do any of the comments here ever get summarized and taken to > meetings? Yes. Whenever a policy proposal is presented, included in the presentation is a sense of the discussion from the mailing lists. > How could someone in my shoes actually get some sort of policy proposed, > whether it's a good idea or just plain sucks? All of the proposed policies on the docket for the upcoming meeting originated with email to an ARIN list, or occasionally to ARIN staff. Sometimes the specific wording is the staff's best attempt at intepreting what the original poster intended. You can look at the upcoming meeting agenda or the summary of proposals, and compare them to list archives. http://www.arin.net/ARIN-X/agenda.html http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The only trick is that in order to provide enough time for useful discussion: To be considered for presentation at these meetings the proposal should be submitted to ARIN staff six (6) weeks prior to commencement of the meetings to allow time for it to be posted and an announcement to be sent out at least thirty (30) days before the meetings convene. http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html Sometimes it helps identify your idea as a proposal if you use the magic words, "I propose that. . . " > It would also be helpful for some of the more knowledgable people chime in > with background and concrete numbers on certain issues. Yes, there are > 3-5 of them that do, but I think there should be more. As far as I know, > staff memebers from ARIN do not do much participation. Maybe they are > posting as themselves and I just don't know they are involved. But it > seems to me they should be able to provide data and background to > discussions. If it's really discussions that ARIN is looking for. The Board, Advisory Council, and staff do watch all of the lists. As a Board member and the Treasurer, I try to provide information where I can without influencing the debate. Occasionally I believe that my experience in my day job will help, but I still try not to prejudice debate. I don't want to speak for others, but I can imagine that staff tries to maintain neutrality, too. > Case in point: The whole discussion about the legacy IP space. Are we > just trying to brush that one under the rug? I am certainly open to new perspectives on that debate. It does not seem to me that we have clear consensus on whether to levy fees on legacy holders, or whether that would be legal, or whether it's a worthwhile excercise. In my opinion, that is why we need mailing lists and a public policy meeting--arguments can be presented on the list, and we can take a poll at the meeting. > You made a closing comment about how ARIN is a bottom up based membership. > This butt (me) would like some real feedback when things are suggested by > myself or other people. Or, I need some real tools to take my suggestion > to another level. Or, you can just tell me to get lost now and I'll save > us all some time. I have plenty of other things to do and people to > annoy. Personally, I appreciate your participation in the process. I won't tell you an idea is good or bad, but I'll provide additional information if necessary. If you need more information to help you decide about something, ask for it. Such as: "Hey, ARIN staff, at current rates of consumption, how long until we run out of IPv4 space?" http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space shows two /8 assignments in 2002 and more than 40 /8s remaining. "Hey, ARIN, how much money do you give ICANN, anyway?" http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html shows a budget of $188,480 for FY2002 All kinds of information is available from ARIN's web site, and the site search (on the left navbar, not the whois search at the top) will reveal all kinds of stuff. I also recommend going to the public policy meetings. > Mury Lee From mury at goldengate.net Fri Oct 4 18:18:03 2002 From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 17:18:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] RE: With additional comments on global policy RE: Encouraging return of legacy space In-Reply-To: <3D9E0F9E.4544AAFF@quadrix.com> Message-ID: > I know, from having been a presenter at an ARIN meeting (although I > don't have any official role with ARIN), that the comments from this > list are definitely taken into consideration in policy creation and > ratification. I was specifically asked to summarize issues raised on > this list on the issue I presented. That is helpful to know. Thank you. > The way the ARIN policy creation process works is that the Advisory > Council (AC) and Board of Directors (BOD) go to a great deal of effort > to collect the general consensus of those who post to these lists, and > those who attend the meetings. They then use that feedback to decide > whether to proceed with a particular policy. After recommending a > policy for ratification, they post to these lists again, and depending > on the feedback, they may ratify or reject the policy. What I've just > stated is a summary, with my own views from my direct experience. The > official policy creation process is at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html > > Believe me, your input is valued and heard! Very useful info. I have a question though. The wording in the first three paragraphs under "Process" seem to imply that any individual can draft a Proposed Policy, and that everyone of those Proposed Policies will be posted on the web site and on the mailing list for discussion. Is that true? Or, could and does ARIN withhold from posting some Proposed Policies? If so, is there a criteria for doing so? I mention that because, while it probably hasn't happened, someone could write up a very ridiculous Proposed Policy that isn't worth anyone's time. On the flip-side someone could spend quite a bit of time writing up a very legitimate Proposed Policy that may not be posted for political reasons. > > Thank you for being involved! Please continue! > > > > John Brown > > I'll second that -- thank you for being involved! Thank you for your time in helping me understand. Mury From baptista at dot-god.com Fri Oct 4 19:24:42 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why should ARIN have to be dictated first by ICANN? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, A. M. Salim wrote: > There is no "service value" that you can in any way, shape or form attach > directly to the IP address as a chargeable entity by itself. All the > "service value" comes from routing and network infrastructure (the network > cabling, hardware and software we have to pay for), administrative > infrastructure (the employees, the building leases, the utility bills, > federal and state taxes not any hair-brained ICANN nd ARIN taxes that we > have to pay for) etc. IP has a great deal of value. In some cases political. Look at the existing USG root infrastructure. Because of the deployment of DNS programs like BIND which relied on the USG root hint file we now have 13 root who are the real in house controllers of the root. Thats 70% of internet control. IP infrstructure is critical to the deployment of systems. In an organization it is beneficial to build system infrastructure on fixed IP and not be subject to renumbering - which is i'm sure you will agree is an expense best not visited by the IT department. > Yes ARIN sould charge some sort of fees to support their infrastructure, > and the $2500 per year for a /19 is quite reasonable, and some would argue > it is too high. Byt Jim's suggestions and comparisons are truly beyond > reason. $2,500 for a /19 is nuts. Even the /8 fees are nuts. At best all ARIN does is reverse arpa. And thats worth only $6.00 per year per allocation. Regards joe baptista From david.conrad at nominum.com Mon Oct 7 00:28:23 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 21:28:23 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <20021004112013.Q25494-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org> Message-ID: Hi, On 10/4/02 8:30 AM, "Jason Hunt" wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't ICANN oversee domains and IANA > oversees IP addresses? Nope. ICANN, which took over from Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds (and a couple of other part-timers), is (in theory) responsible for pretty much everything Internet related: names, addresses, and protocol parameters. > Either way, I'm pretty sure you have to be a RIR in order to get assigned > a /8 directly from them. As far as I'm aware, yes. I believe the last /8 assigned by the IANA (before ICANN existed) to a non-registry was to SITA. Rgds, -drc Speaking personally From randy at psg.com Sun Oct 6 20:49:46 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:49:46 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: Message-ID: > Policy Proposal 2002-7: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Organizations > > Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 > -/24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). > Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization > is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from > organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS > number(s). > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 multiply by 100 or 10,000 self-important s with 2xDSL will blow the routing table. randy From ras at e-gerbil.net Mon Oct 7 13:34:15 2002 From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:34:15 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021007173415.GX26000@overlord.e-gerbil.net> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:49:46AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > > multiply by 100 or 10,000 self-important s with 2xDSL will blow > the routing table. Nonsense, they could be doing that right now, regardless of the space being ARIN allocated or provider allocated. Why don't they? Probably because it'll be a cold day in hell before any DSL provider even knows what BGP is at the customer level, let alone speaks it with them. This doesn't enable additional routing table bloat, it just centralizes the people who actually do need it so the people who don't can be filtered. -- Richard A Steenbergen http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) From leth at primus.ca Mon Oct 7 20:08:52 2002 From: leth at primus.ca (Jason Hunt) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021007200815.A41978-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, David Conrad wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't ICANN oversee domains and IANA > > oversees IP addresses? > > Nope. ICANN, which took over from Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds (and a > couple of other part-timers), is (in theory) responsible for pretty much > everything Internet related: names, addresses, and protocol parameters. > Then what is IANA for? :) From john at chagres.net Mon Oct 7 22:54:45 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:54:45 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN Message-ID: <000501c26e76$167e08b0$79112344@laptoy> In several messages this morning the RIPE region seems to be thinking that the RIR's should leave the IANA and ICANN processes. Daniel Karrenberg, writing *personally* stated: "I personally think the RIRs should *now* walk away from ICANN for better or worse. " ARIN and the other RIR's have posted several letters, based on staff and Board positions, that indicate they (the RIR's) are supporting a departure from the IANA. Some well placed folks at IETF and other orgs have commented that it appears to be a power grab on the part of the RIR's and that this is ill-advised. In the ARIN region I have not seen a formal policy proposal from ARIN on this matter. Nor, has there been any recent conversation in the PPML about this subject. For ARIN to take this kind of action, I believe there would have to be a formal policy drafted and floated to the membership. As there currently is no such policy, the next time the members could decide on "Leaving The IANA", would be at its Sprint 2003 meeting. The ARIN AC, is charged with interfacing with the members and helping to advise the Board on policy related matters. Some on the ARIN BOT believe the AC should only focus on "Crisp Allocation Matters", yet the Bylaws do no limit the AC in this manner. As ARIN gets its IP "Allocations" from The IANA, regardless of certain BOT member views, this is an Allocation policy issue. Members should think long and hard about the potential down sides to having ARIN side with the other RIR's and leave the IANA/ICANN . What would our world look like should the ITU take over? What would happen should the FCC start treating IP space in NA as it does RF frequency spectrum? For the RIR's to think the only source of damage to their existence is from the membership, is myopic at best. Lyman Chapin, ICANN BOD, posted some really good comments on the RIPE LIR-WG list this morning. Instead of attacking and trying to knock ICANN down, the RIR's, and in this case ARIN, should be trying to "build a better framework". Now, I'll agree that ICANN needs to show up and pay attention both at the staff and the BOD levels. That's easier when the rats aren't heading down the anchor chain....... But this is about BOTTOM UP and COMMUNITY BASED policy development. We should be careful that we do not take actions that appear to be similar to those we complain about ICANN taking.... Something about pot calling kettle black. John Brown Member of the ARIN AC Speaking Personally. From david.conrad at nominum.com Mon Oct 7 23:37:24 2002 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 20:37:24 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Why doesn't Canada have a Registry like ARIN ? In-Reply-To: <20021007200815.A41978-100000@lethargic.dyndns.org> Message-ID: On 10/7/02 5:08 PM, "Jason Hunt" wrote: > On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, David Conrad wrote: >>> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't ICANN oversee domains and IANA >>> oversees IP addresses? >> Nope. ICANN, which took over from Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds (and a >> couple of other part-timers), is (in theory) responsible for pretty much >> everything Internet related: names, addresses, and protocol parameters. > Then what is IANA for? :) The IANA is an "activity" of ICANN. To be perfectly honest (and speaking only for myself), I'm still not sure what that means. As far as I can tell, what Jon, Joyce, et al, did is now considered a function of ICANN and is performed by (I believe) a subset of ICANN's staff (yes, it sounds like handwaving to me as well). Rgds, -drc From ahp at hilander.com Mon Oct 7 23:44:08 2002 From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 21:44:08 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN In-Reply-To: <000501c26e76$167e08b0$79112344@laptoy> References: <000501c26e76$167e08b0$79112344@laptoy> Message-ID: <2147483647.1034027048@macleod.hilander.com> --On Monday, October 7, 2002 20:54 -0600 "John M. Brown" wrote: > > The ARIN AC, is charged with interfacing with the members and helping > to advise the Board on policy related matters. Some on the ARIN BOT > believe the AC should only focus on "Crisp Allocation Matters", yet the > Bylaws do no limit the AC in this manner. You make it sound like only members of the board think this. At least one AC member (yours truly) feels that the AC should only focus on IP allocation issues. For what it's worth I'm also a member of ARIN. The AC and the board have very different responsibilities. I personally do not think it is wise to have the AC butt its way into things that the board is responsible for. Also, it is worth pointing out that the ARIN Board of Trustees is not some elite group of insiders. It is a group of community members that is directly elected by the ARIN membership. I personally feel that the board is equally as impartial to the ICANN discussion as the AC would be. I also feel (personally) that perpetuating the idea that the board is automatically not acting in the best interest of the membership is a disservice. Alec Speaking for only himself AC member ARIN member -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 8 00:29:45 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:29:45 +0900 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN References: <000501c26e76$167e08b0$79112344@laptoy> Message-ID: > ARIN and the other RIR's have posted several letters, based on > staff and Board positions, that indicate they (the RIR's) are > supporting a departure from the IANA. Some well placed folks > at IETF and other orgs have commented that it appears to be a > power grab on the part of the RIR's and that this is ill-advised. that last part is quite an exaggeration. From: Randy Bush To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: RIPE Local IR Working Grouo Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:06:04 +0900 to paraphrase from a private conversation: note that the iana function is the only formal link between the ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break. the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms) consideration sections in rfcs. there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what different parties need from the iana function, and their/our respective relationships to and through the iana. the rir position seems to be to break away from the iana. the ietf position, such as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics. randy and, though i do not speak for the ietf, i believe the above opinion to not be uncommon. randy From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 8 00:41:50 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 22:41:50 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1034027048@macleod.hilander.com> Message-ID: <000001c26e85$1b725a60$79112344@laptoy> The ARIN BOT and the President of ARIN has repeatedly asked the ARIN AC to be more involved in these issues. The ARIN AC has been mostly silent on these issues and part of our job is to provide GUIDANCE (from the web site) to the BOT on policy issues. When an RIR needs a /8, it is, um, Allocated, from the IANA. Seems to be an Allocation issue to me. Its perfectly wise for the AC to be active and involved in bottom up policy making processes, and not to limit its roles in that process. Deciding on what ARIN does with its relationship with IANA is a policy issue, and it would be wise for the members of the AC, and the Membership to be more active in this area. I think having to go to the ITU for future allocations to the RIR's would be a disservice to our community. I have not said the BOT is acting in a disservice to the community. I *am* saying that the ARIN AC is not acting, or participating in providing better input to the BOT, even when it has been expressly asked by the ARIN President to do so. I *am* saying that the ARIN Membership *MUST* take a more active role in helping provide input to the AC, the BOT and ARIN Staff.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 9:44 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN > > > --On Monday, October 7, 2002 20:54 -0600 "John M. Brown" > > wrote: > > > > > The ARIN AC, is charged with interfacing with the members > and helping > > to advise the Board on policy related matters. Some on the > ARIN BOT > > believe the AC should only focus on "Crisp Allocation Matters", yet > > the Bylaws do no limit the AC in this manner. > > You make it sound like only members of the board think this. > At least one > AC member (yours truly) feels that the AC should only focus on IP > allocation issues. For what it's worth I'm also a member of ARIN. > > The AC and the board have very different responsibilities. I > personally do > not think it is wise to have the AC butt its way into things > that the board > is responsible for. Also, it is worth pointing out that the > ARIN Board of > Trustees is not some elite group of insiders. It is a group > of community > members that is directly elected by the ARIN membership. I > personally feel > that the board is equally as impartial to the ICANN > discussion as the AC > would be. I also feel (personally) that perpetuating the > idea that the > board is automatically not acting in the best interest of the > membership is > a disservice. > > Alec > Speaking for only himself > AC member > ARIN member > > -- > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com > Chief Technology Officer > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com > From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 8 01:44:36 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:44:36 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c26e8d$d136d170$79112344@laptoy> Its interesting that the ASO and the RIR's differ on the next course of action. The ICANN By Laws, state that the ASO's have an advisory responsibility to the ICANN BOD, Not the RIR's. Yet the RIR's are complaining about ICANN not listening to them. Maybe the RIR's, which elect members to the ASO, should get the ASO more directly involved in the discussions with ICANN, and that might cause them to "be heard more"..... Don't know, I'm just a dumb geek. As far as the ARIN AC, people seem to think our abilities are limited, when according to the ARIN By Laws, they are not so limiting. There is no "expansion" as you say happening at the AC level. Article VIII, Section 3 "Function" of the ARIN By-laws: "It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to act in an advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the BOT may, from time to time, request involving IP allocation policies and related matters." How/Where ARIN gets its /8's from, is an allocation policy matter, IMHO. How ARIN interacts and holds itself out WRT the ICANN/IANA process is a "related matter". I have not seen the ARIN BOT officially state that they wish the AC to not be involved in this issue. Quite the opposite I believe. As the By-laws further state " ...the President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the AC and the BOT..." In the recent tele-conf call, Aug 2002, the President *did* invite the AC to be more active and stated that the BOT would be receptive to a statement from the AC. Let me point out, that I do NOT see the AC as another BOT. john > -----Original Message----- > From: Barbara Roseman [mailto:broseman at karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:56 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: John M. Brown; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN > > > Randy, thank you for sharing your email. > > This position -- that changing the IANA function in regard to > the RIRs may have unintended consequences for other > protocol-oversight entities -- is one I've heard from other > technically oriented folk involved in the ICANN reform > discussion, and it is an objection I take seriously. The ASO > AC has chosen not to make a statement in further support of > the RIR position because we are not all in agreement on this issue. > > As for whether the ARIN AC should involve themselves in this > matter, if individuals want to bring it before the membership > for discussion and feedback to the Board, I think that's > terrific. But I don't see a role for the ARIN AC in guiding > the Board on this issue. It is not related to "policy" in the > narrow sense, and I don't think the ARIN Advisory Council > should expand their purview to include these broader issues. > How we choose to participate as individual members of ARIN is > an altogether different matter. > > -Barb Roseman > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > ARIN and the other RIR's have posted several letters, based on > > > staff and Board positions, that indicate they (the RIR's) are > > > supporting a departure from the IANA. Some well placed folks > > > at IETF and other orgs have commented that it appears to be a > > > power grab on the part of the RIR's and that this is ill-advised. > > > > that last part is quite an exaggeration. > > > > From: Randy Bush > > To: Daniel Karrenberg > > Cc: RIPE Local IR Working Grouo > > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform > > Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:06:04 +0900 > > > > to paraphrase from a private conversation: > > > > note that the iana function is the only formal link between the > > ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of > what we break. > > the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N > other fiefdoms) > > consideration sections in rfcs. > > > > there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what > > different parties need from the iana function, and their/our > > respective relationships to and through the iana. the > rir position > > seems to be to break away from the iana. the ietf > position, such > > as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana > functions in > > the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics. > > > > randy > > > > and, though i do not speak for the ietf, i believe the > above opinion > > to not be uncommon. > > > > randy > > > > > > From mailinglist at comentum.com Tue Oct 8 05:49:36 2002 From: mailinglist at comentum.com (Mailing List) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 02:49:36 -0700 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> 1. I do not know of any ISP that runs BGP on a DSL line. 2. To run BGP, a network must be multihomed with minimum of two T1s. 3. A multihomed network that runs BGP has to announce its IP space. This means that whether an organization receives its /24 from one of its ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announce and added to the global routing table. This reasoning should eliminate the excuse of not assigning /24 because it will increase the global routing table. 4. In regard to global routing table and routers' processing power/memory, the new routers have increased in both processing power and memory size. As an example, even within the lower end Cisco 2600 routers series, the new model 2600XM/2691 has a processing power increase of 33%-50% and holds two to four times more memory than the old 2620 model. Also, with less than $4000.00, a person could build a Linux router/server with dual Xeon or dual Athlon processors, 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and two T1 CSU/DSU cards. Are you telling us that dual Xeon processors and 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM is not enough to run BGP? 5. How did ARIN came up with the /20 minimum requirement? There must be some solid stat that supports this decision. If this decision was made for benefiting certain groups or organizations, sooner or later the truth will come up, people will get informed, and honest people will take over the decision making. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" To: "Member Services" Cc: ; Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 5:49 PM Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 > > Policy Proposal 2002-7: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Organizations > > > > Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 > > -/24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). > > Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization > > is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from > > organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS > > number(s). > > > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > > multiply by 100 or 10,000 self-important s with 2xDSL will blow > the routing table. > > randy From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 8 06:13:07 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 19:13:07 +0900 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: > 1. I do not know of any ISP that runs BGP on a DSL line. does the policy say bgp? > 2. To run BGP, a network must be multihomed with minimum of two T1s. it is quite usefully done in production at 64kb From mailinglist at comentum.com Tue Oct 8 06:58:09 2002 From: mailinglist at comentum.com (Mailing List) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 03:58:09 -0700 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: <007201c26eb9$9709c440$0800a8c0@Bobcat> The policy uses the language "multihomed networks that actively using ASN". This has the same meaning as "multihomed networks running BGP" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" To: "Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:13 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 > > 1. I do not know of any ISP that runs BGP on a DSL line. > > does the policy say bgp? > > > 2. To run BGP, a network must be multihomed with minimum of two T1s. > > it is quite usefully done in production at 64kb > > From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 8 07:20:53 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 20:20:53 +0900 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 References: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> <007201c26eb9$9709c440$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: > The policy uses the language "multihomed networks that actively using ASN". > This has the same meaning as "multihomed networks running BGP" no it does not. and i presume it uses better grammar. From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Oct 8 08:50:15 2002 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:50:15 +0100 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: I was thinking of responding to the message below but on second thought I realized that an anonymous person making comments about honesty in decision making doesn't really deserve any replies. There is no honesty in anonymous decision making and that is what this person is doing. --Michael Dillon "Mailing List" Sent by: owner-ppml at arin.net 08/10/2002 10:49 Please respond to "Mailing List" To: cc: Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 1. I do not know of any ISP that runs BGP on a DSL line. 2. To run BGP, a network must be multihomed with minimum of two T1s. 3. A multihomed network that runs BGP has to announce its IP space. This means that whether an organization receives its /24 from one of its ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announce and added to the global routing table. This reasoning should eliminate the excuse of not assigning /24 because it will increase the global routing table. 4. In regard to global routing table and routers' processing power/memory, the new routers have increased in both processing power and memory size. As an example, even within the lower end Cisco 2600 routers series, the new model 2600XM/2691 has a processing power increase of 33%-50% and holds two to four times more memory than the old 2620 model. Also, with less than $4000.00, a person could build a Linux router/server with dual Xeon or dual Athlon processors, 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and two T1 CSU/DSU cards. Are you telling us that dual Xeon processors and 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM is not enough to run BGP? 5. How did ARIN came up with the /20 minimum requirement? There must be some solid stat that supports this decision. If this decision was made for benefiting certain groups or organizations, sooner or later the truth will come up, people will get informed, and honest people will take over the decision making. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" To: "Member Services" Cc: ; Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 5:49 PM Subject: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 > > Policy Proposal 2002-7: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Organizations > > > > Arin should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21 > > -/24 if an organization is multihomed and actively using AS number(s). > > Arin may periodically inquire and verify that the multihomed organization > > is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP's from > > organizations that no longer are multihomed and/or stop using AS > > number(s). > > > > The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as > > follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum): > > $400.00 per year for /23 - /24 > > multiply by 100 or 10,000 self-important s with 2xDSL will blow > the routing table. > > randy From asr at latency.net Tue Oct 8 11:27:35 2002 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:27:35 -0400 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat>; from mailinglist@comentum.com on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 02:49:36AM -0700 References: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: <20021008112735.E3029@latency.net> On 2002-10-08-05:49:36, Mailing List wrote: > 1. I do not know of any ISP that runs BGP on a DSL line. Why does capacity/media have to come into play? While it's unlikely any multihomed ISP's are running DSL as part of their core infrastructure (exception being iStop ;-), it's not unheard of as a means of backhaul for low-capacity dial pops... > 2. To run BGP, a network must be multihomed with minimum of two T1s. Again, why the capacity requirement? If the plan is to exclude basement multi-homers (which isn't necessarily a Bad Thing), surely there's some better way to go about it? > 3. A multihomed network that runs BGP has to announce its IP space. This > means that whether an organization receives its /24 from one of its ISPs or > from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announce and added to the global > routing table. This reasoning should eliminate the excuse of not assigning > /24 because it will increase the global routing table. Just because they're announcing it doesn't mean everyone has to listen to their announcements. With provider-issued space, it's less of a concern; even if Joe Schmo's /24 advertisements get squashed, the assumption is he'll remain globally reachable, by way of a larger aggregate his ISP is announcing. > 4. In regard to global routing table and routers' processing power/memory, > the new routers have increased in both processing power and memory size. As > an example, even within the lower end Cisco 2600 routers series, the new > model 2600XM/2691 has a processing power increase of 33%-50% and holds two > to four times more memory than the old 2620 model. Also, with less than > $4000.00, a person could build a Linux router/server with dual Xeon or dual > Athlon processors, 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM and two T1 CSU/DSU cards. Are you > telling us that dual Xeon processors and 4 GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM is not enough > to run BGP? The problem isn't just CPU and memory capacity, but database (and in some cases, ASIC) design required to handle such a monumental increase in routing table size. This has been discussed countless times in other forums. No need to rehash it here; ditto re: PC routers. Given today's economic conditions, many providers large and small are struggling to merely pay their vendors and employees. Mass upgrading system resources -- or worse, a forklift upgrade involving $100,000's of new hardware -- is impractical. -a From cscott at gaslightmedia.com Tue Oct 8 11:38:50 2002 From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <20021008112735.E3029@latency.net> Message-ID: While I admit to being more management these days than technical, I'm curious why there isn't a technical solution to multi-homing with long prefixes. It would seem that some well placed systems could provide aggrigation of a number of long prefix attachments and provide routing service to those long prefix customers via tunnels. Such a service would provide a solution to impact on the global routing tables, offer ultimate portability to the small customer who needs to be multihomed but has a small IP footprint, and perhaps could provide a revenue stream to whomever built it. In fact, haven't I seen such offerings already available? Chuck Scott cscott at gaslightmedia.com On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Adam Rothschild wrote: > > 3. A multihomed network that runs BGP has to announce its IP space. This > > means that whether an organization receives its /24 from one of its ISPs or > > from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announce and added to the global > > routing table. This reasoning should eliminate the excuse of not assigning > > /24 because it will increase the global routing table. > > Just because they're announcing it doesn't mean everyone has to listen > to their announcements. With provider-issued space, it's less of a > concern; even if Joe Schmo's /24 advertisements get squashed, the > assumption is he'll remain globally reachable, by way of a larger > aggregate his ISP is announcing. From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue Oct 8 12:15:44 2002 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:15:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN Message-ID: > Its interesting that the ASO and the RIR's differ on the > next course of action. > > The ICANN By Laws, state that the ASO's have an advisory > responsibility to the ICANN BOD, Not the RIR's. Yet the > RIR's are complaining about ICANN not listening to them. > > Maybe the RIR's, which elect members to the ASO, should get > the ASO more directly involved in the discussions with ICANN, > and that might cause them to "be heard more"..... > Don't know, I'm just a dumb geek. > > As far as the ARIN AC, people seem to think our abilities are > limited, when according to the ARIN By Laws, they are not so > limiting. There is no "expansion" as you say happening at the > AC level. > > Article VIII, Section 3 "Function" of the ARIN By-laws: > > "It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to act in an > advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the BOT > may, from time to time, request involving IP allocation policies > and related matters." > > How/Where ARIN gets its /8's from, is an allocation policy matter, > IMHO. > > How ARIN interacts and holds itself out WRT the ICANN/IANA process > is a "related matter". > > I have not seen the ARIN BOT officially state that they wish the > AC to not be involved in this issue. Quite the opposite I believe. > > As the By-laws further state " ...the President of ARIN shall be the > point of contact between the AC and the BOT..." > > In the recent tele-conf call, Aug 2002, the President *did* invite the > AC to be more active and stated that the BOT would be receptive to > a statement from the AC. > > Let me point out, that I do NOT see the AC as another BOT. > > > john > It is my opinion as a member of ARIN, that the BOT is perfectly capable of representing my interests in the matters related to the other RIRs, ASO-AC, IANA and ICANN. When I feel that they are not representing my interests properly, I will advise them of my differing interests...... It is my opinion as an ARIN-AC member that the AC is not specifically recused from involvement in issues beyond the narrow interpetation of IP address allocation policy.... that is, the allocation of addresses by ARIN to it's constituents. Whereas the addresses available to ARIN, now and in the future, are a broader 'related' allocation issue, I believe that our involvement would be at the invitation of the BOT.... but I would look for something more substantive than the casual invitation made during the AC teleconf call. If the BOT wishes the AC to craft and proffer a statement to the BOT or some entity outside of ARIN, or to provide advise on a formal basis beyond the narrow allocation policy definition, then I believe that BOT through the President of ARIN needs to make an explicit request of the AC for such as statement or advise. Such a request should state clearly the issue(s) which need addressing and the range of consideration that it feels is appropriate. Anything less than this (IMHO) causes the AC to deviate from its expressed role (and perhaps more appropriate expertise). I believe the AC would have an obligation to make a formal reply under these conditions. The AC is under no obligation to join this discussion otherwise. If you wish (as you are) to lobby the AC for a more active role in this area, then that is appropriate activity on your behalf. Personally, I would like you to make an explicit proposal (much as I outline above) to the Chair of the AC or to the AC membership in general through the AC maillist.... if you wish the AC to debate its role and interest in advising the BOT on issues that you feel are important. Bill Darte ARIN Member ARIN-AC Member CAIT Senior Technical Associate 314 935-7575 From shane at time-travellers.org Tue Oct 8 12:25:30 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:25:30 +0200 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: ; from cscott@gaslightmedia.com at 2002-10-08 11:38:50 -0400 References: <20021008112735.E3029@latency.net> Message-ID: <20021008182530.B21568@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2002-10-08 11:38:50 -0400, Charles Scott wrote: > > While I admit to being more management these days than technical, I'm > curious why there isn't a technical solution to multi-homing with long > prefixes. It would seem that some well placed systems could provide > aggrigation of a number of long prefix attachments and provide routing > service to those long prefix customers via tunnels. Such a service > would provide a solution to impact on the global routing tables, offer > ultimate portability to the small customer who needs to be multihomed > but has a small IP footprint, and perhaps could provide a revenue > stream to whomever built it. In fact, haven't I seen such offerings > already available? In my understanding, a route is the combination of address + AS, and that eventually leads back to a single router: the origin. The origin is a single point of failure, period. Ideally this will be the place with the highest reliability - in most cases this is in an ISP, but end users may see it differently (I know my personal network's reliability is bounded largely by my ISP, rather than myself). Multihoming in the small, as it were, allows users to control this for themselves. Kind of like the end-to-end principle? Not a perfect analogy, I suppose. :) Anyway, if I understand your proposal then this solves various kinds of single points of failure, but still leaves end users relying on a single ISP for service. There is a interesting draft for the IETF working group looking at solving the IPv6 multihoming issue, which covers IPv4 multihoming in some detail: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03.txt Since policy is being set based on limiting routing table growth, does it make sense for ARIN to expend resources in this area? My personal belief is that the best solution to this problem is to use something like SCTP for a transport. SCTP uses multiple IP addresses in a single connection. This would allow the elimination of all single points of failure within the network, and also remove the motivation for end sites to multihome. Obligatory link: http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/inhalt/forschung/sctp_fb/ -- Shane If you choose the quick and easy path [...] Carpe Diem you will become an agent of evil. - Yoda, lecturing Luke on Software Engineering From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Tue Oct 8 12:54:25 2002 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:54:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1904DD3EC9@usresms03.teleglobe.com> I agree with Bill. Rather than beat around the bush (sorry Randy) put your suggestions, thoughts, feelings in a proposal and submit it via the documented, approved process so that action must be taken...one way or another. Or better still submit a position paper to the Chair of the AC for the AC to discuss and possibly endorse to the BOT. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:16 PM To: 'john at chagres.net'; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN > Its interesting that the ASO and the RIR's differ on the > next course of action. > > The ICANN By Laws, state that the ASO's have an advisory > responsibility to the ICANN BOD, Not the RIR's. Yet the > RIR's are complaining about ICANN not listening to them. > > Maybe the RIR's, which elect members to the ASO, should get > the ASO more directly involved in the discussions with ICANN, > and that might cause them to "be heard more"..... > Don't know, I'm just a dumb geek. > > As far as the ARIN AC, people seem to think our abilities are > limited, when according to the ARIN By Laws, they are not so > limiting. There is no "expansion" as you say happening at the > AC level. > > Article VIII, Section 3 "Function" of the ARIN By-laws: > > "It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to act in an > advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the BOT > may, from time to time, request involving IP allocation policies > and related matters." > > How/Where ARIN gets its /8's from, is an allocation policy matter, > IMHO. > > How ARIN interacts and holds itself out WRT the ICANN/IANA process > is a "related matter". > > I have not seen the ARIN BOT officially state that they wish the > AC to not be involved in this issue. Quite the opposite I believe. > > As the By-laws further state " ...the President of ARIN shall be the > point of contact between the AC and the BOT..." > > In the recent tele-conf call, Aug 2002, the President *did* invite the > AC to be more active and stated that the BOT would be receptive to > a statement from the AC. > > Let me point out, that I do NOT see the AC as another BOT. > > > john > It is my opinion as a member of ARIN, that the BOT is perfectly capable of representing my interests in the matters related to the other RIRs, ASO-AC, IANA and ICANN. When I feel that they are not representing my interests properly, I will advise them of my differing interests...... It is my opinion as an ARIN-AC member that the AC is not specifically recused from involvement in issues beyond the narrow interpetation of IP address allocation policy.... that is, the allocation of addresses by ARIN to it's constituents. Whereas the addresses available to ARIN, now and in the future, are a broader 'related' allocation issue, I believe that our involvement would be at the invitation of the BOT.... but I would look for something more substantive than the casual invitation made during the AC teleconf call. If the BOT wishes the AC to craft and proffer a statement to the BOT or some entity outside of ARIN, or to provide advise on a formal basis beyond the narrow allocation policy definition, then I believe that BOT through the President of ARIN needs to make an explicit request of the AC for such as statement or advise. Such a request should state clearly the issue(s) which need addressing and the range of consideration that it feels is appropriate. Anything less than this (IMHO) causes the AC to deviate from its expressed role (and perhaps more appropriate expertise). I believe the AC would have an obligation to make a formal reply under these conditions. The AC is under no obligation to join this discussion otherwise. If you wish (as you are) to lobby the AC for a more active role in this area, then that is appropriate activity on your behalf. Personally, I would like you to make an explicit proposal (much as I outline above) to the Chair of the AC or to the AC membership in general through the AC maillist.... if you wish the AC to debate its role and interest in advising the BOT on issues that you feel are important. Bill Darte ARIN Member ARIN-AC Member CAIT Senior Technical Associate 314 935-7575 From cscott at gaslightmedia.com Tue Oct 8 12:50:17 2002 From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <20021008182530.B21568@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: > Anyway, if I understand your proposal then this solves various kinds of > single points of failure, but still leaves end users relying on a single > ISP for service. Actually, what I was thinking is that a customer could have conventional attachments with multiple ISP's (at single or multiple locations), each with a tunnel to one of the aggrigation points (poosibly different aggrigation points), and run BGP with private ASN's within the cloud of the tunneled environment. This would not only provide true redundancy, but would make transitioning to a new ISP for one, or more, of the connections trivial--simply re-establish the tunnel. (Must be something I'm missing here.) Chuck Scott cscott at gaslightmedia.com From JNewton at corp.untd.com Tue Oct 8 12:58:37 2002 From: JNewton at corp.untd.com (Newton, Justin) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:58:37 -0700 Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 Message-ID: <746DC3BFE2AFD411AB8D0090279CC7180C24D3F6@exchange2.int.netzero.net> You could do that. In this case you are still restricted to outages caused by your routing provider. I.e. if the aggregator goes down, you are off the network. This technique would isolate you from physical level problems, but would not help you with logic or code problems in the routing infrastructure. You would also then, instead of being tied to an ISP, be tied to an aggregator, which gets us right back where we started. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Scott [mailto:cscott at gaslightmedia.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:50 AM To: Shane Kerr Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: > Anyway, if I understand your proposal then this solves various kinds of > single points of failure, but still leaves end users relying on a single > ISP for service. Actually, what I was thinking is that a customer could have conventional attachments with multiple ISP's (at single or multiple locations), each with a tunnel to one of the aggrigation points (poosibly different aggrigation points), and run BGP with private ASN's within the cloud of the tunneled environment. This would not only provide true redundancy, but would make transitioning to a new ISP for one, or more, of the connections trivial--simply re-establish the tunnel. (Must be something I'm missing here.) Chuck Scott cscott at gaslightmedia.com __________________________________________ Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! http://www.netzerolongdistance.com From cscott at gaslightmedia.com Tue Oct 8 13:15:33 2002 From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <746DC3BFE2AFD411AB8D0090279CC7180C24D3F6@exchange2.int.netzero.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Newton, Justin wrote: > You could do that. In this case you are still restricted to outages caused > by your routing provider. I.e. if the aggregator goes down, you are off the > network. This technique would isolate you from physical level problems, but > would not help you with logic or code problems in the routing > infrastructure. You would also then, instead of being tied to an ISP, be > tied to an aggregator, which gets us right back where we started. You are always at risk from routing errors. So I guess it all depends on who is the aggrigator. If the aggrigator is reliable and well placed at a variety of NAP's, then it should be pretty much as reliable as any conventional multi-homing. I would even go so far as to say that ARIN could consider building-out this service as a means to solve the route table issues and still offer long prefix IP blocks, or, it could be a service provided by some new association or mutually non-offensive organization (there may even be some revenue stream). It just seems that if there's going to be some problems with long prefix allocations, that it would be best to concentrate concern with those problems on the smaller set of entities. In otherwords, wouldn't it be better to deal with the technical concerns of the aggrigator and it's customers than have everyone on the network deal with a significant expansion of routing tables. Chuck Scott cscott at gaslightmedia.com From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Oct 8 23:30:50 2002 From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fw: [ppml] Re: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7 In-Reply-To: <003e01c26eb0$03ac05e0$0800a8c0@Bobcat> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Mailing List wrote: > 1. I do not know of any ISP that runs BGP on a DSL line. They are out there. > 2. To run BGP, a network must be multihomed with minimum of two T1s. Why? What's wrong with a T1 and a DSL circuit...or even multiple DSL circuits? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 9 07:02:09 2002 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:02:09 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <000501c26e76$167e08b0$79112344@laptoy> Message-ID: Hmm. The subject of this thread begs commentary... To pick up on what Randy Bush said, lots of folks are trying to figure out how to coordinate their non-dnso IANA activities away from ICANN dnso-inspired politics. This is quite understandable given ICANN's history to date. There may be a difference between what the RIR's and the IETF are trying to do in this area, but I'm not close enough to the IETF discussions to know if this is the case. I'll note that extracting the operational and coordination matters of the IANA is not the same thing as "breaking away" from ICANN. In particular, some degree of icann oversight of the RIR's performance against their policy formation process is seen as desirable by many folks in the community as reassurance of fair and open RIR behavior. While I've seen lots of discussion on evolving the RIR/IANA/ICANN relationship per the above lines, I'm not aware of any document submitted by the ARIN or the RIR's which proposes leaving ICANN... /John From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Oct 9 07:47:26 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:47:26 +0200 Subject: [ppml] RIR's to leave IANA / ICANN In-Reply-To: ; from jcurran@istaff.org at 2002-10-09 07:02:09 -0400 References: <000501c26e76$167e08b0$79112344@laptoy> Message-ID: <20021009134726.A24274@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> [ Speaking only for myself, just quoting information from public forums. ] On 2002-10-09 07:02:09 -0400, John Curran wrote: > > While I've seen lots of discussion on evolving the RIR/IANA/ICANN > relationship per the above lines, I'm not aware of any document > submitted by the ARIN or the RIR's which proposes leaving ICANN... At the most recent RIPE meeting, the statement was made that if you read the RIR message to the ICANN the right way it was a declaration of independence for the RIR's: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-icann-statement-20020620.html "The RIRs would like to construct upon this foundation of effective operating practice to assume greater levels of responsibility for operational roles that are currently shared between the RIRs and ICANN. This is intended to allow ICANN to function properly as an independent body with the power of review, such that ICANN can properly assume a responsibility for oversight of the RIR activities in terms of ensuring that the RIRs operate within their adopted policies and processes, without being compromised in its independence by also assuming a level of direct responsibility in the operation of the address management process." I don't know if you would consider "ICANN to function" ... "as an independent body" to be "leaving ICANN", but it is not inconceivable. At that time of the RIPE meeting, almost 3 months after this message, the ICANN had made no reply to the RIR's about it. They have since. I'm not sure whether it was Ray, Paul, or Axel that signed extremely large so Stuart could see the name though(*). -- Shane (*) http://www.snopes2.com/history/american/hancock.htm From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Oct 9 12:19:45 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] RIR Blueprint for Evolution and Reform of Internet Address Management Message-ID: The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published a document entitled, "RIR Blueprint for Evolution and Reform of Internet Address Management." This document is available at: http://www.arin.net/nrr-blueprint/ The RIRs have also sent this document to the Chair of the ICANN Board, the Chair of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee, and the ICANN President and CEO. The RIRs welcome feedback from the Internet addressing community on the contents of this document. To facilitate discussion focused on this document, a dedicated mailing list has been established and is open to all interested parties. Subscription information for the NRR-Blueprint mailing list is available at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html All comments sent to the NRR-Blueprint mailing list will be publicly archived at the following location. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/nrr-blueprint/index.html Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From baptista at dot-god.com Thu Oct 10 13:35:11 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] IPv6, child pornographers and Ray Plzak Message-ID: The subject line says it all - IPv6 is a great protocol for free speech and other sorted activities. Now the problem I'm having is trying to get ARIN to answer some questions. It seems Mr. Plzak does not seem to take his job seriously. It's my position were watching IPv4 and IPv6 assets be squandered with all these price fixing plans. And all I get from ARIN is the standard no comment. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp IPv6: In Search Of Internet Security October 9, 2002 By Joe Baptista My recent articles on IPv6 published this past September 12 and 25 have left many users with the impression that IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) is secure. This is a false assumption. Internet security is more an act of faith in a complex science draped in a religious mystery - in other words non-existent. In my opinion, Internet security has never existed. Any protocol can be violated. IPv6 has the power to make users' communication more secure during transmission. It also can be a security nightmare. So be warned, users of IPv6 - it will bypass your firewall settings but it will give your users enhanced privacy. But the experts are working on it. To understand Internet security it's always a good idea to go back in history. The Internet was a military sponsored communication project developed under DARPA (The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). The idea at the time was to distribute computer resources by decentralizing control and increasing redundancy on United States military and government networks. The goal was to prevent a first strike from taking out computational and communication facilities essential to operations. If the red menace (Soviet Union) bombed a computer facility in Kansas the network would route around the damage and survive. DARPA planners unfortunately were short sighted and did not anticipate the technology would become an international standard for communications. The community of users and networks connected to DARPA were small and trusted so security concerns were a low priority. The end result was the deployment of insecure protocols that have kept many security experts gainfully employed. Even secure protocols are hacked. Today there are millions of compromised computer systems busy trying to hack other computers. And many of those busy hacking computers may no longer be under the control of the original script kiddy hacker who launched them. In fact I suspect many such computers are operating independently of a human operator. IPv6 does fix a lot of the privacy issues and has some added security features that make it a better transport. Keith Moore, a researcher with the computer science department at the University of Tennessee, points out that "security is not an IPv6 issue any more than it is an IPv4 issue - probably slightly less." Moore, a former applications area director to the Internet Engineering Steering Group, points out that users of IPv6 will have an added advantage over IPv4. IPv6 transports traffic using the IPsec security protocol. IPv4 connections move traffic around in the clear (plain text). It is up to the user to ensure traffic is encrypted. Sniffer programs at various Internet exchange points can easily intercept most user web and email traffic. Cable users sometimes install sniffer programs to monitor and record IPv4 transmissions. In most cases they don't have the means to decrypt security protocols and they do it mostly for the fun and entertainment value. So don't panic, your credit card is still confidential provided you used it over a secure web session. However don't expect to send your credit card data to Uncle Steve via email. If you have however emailed confidential information to someone chances are your message was transported as plain text and can be subject to interception. The industry would agree that IPv4 is a brain dead protocol and those predicting it's death have good reasons for their position. Government programs like carnivore depended on IPv4 vulnerabilities to be successful. Carnivore is a tool that has revitalized worldwide respect for the FBI in the intelligence community. The program intercepts and analyzes Internet traffic and is classified by the FBI as a diagnostic tool. Carnivore is also a motivating factor in the transition to IPv6 by American, European and Japanese governments. Governments understand their vulnerabilities under IPv4; their intelligence departments have diagnostic tools too. IPsec makes IPv6 less prone to man in the middle interception or attacks. User data under IPv6 is encrypted across the transmission end points. Sure the intelligence establishment has the means to break encrypted protocols but that's an expensive affair. Carnivore has not been effective in catching terrorists who communicate using encrypted channels. But it's been very effective in catching child pornographers that have yet to discover the privacy features available to them under IPv6. It is easy to envision that Carnivore will become a useless diagnostic tool under the new protocol. But in many cases IPv6 systems can be less secure. Your firewall may prevent access to your Microsoft shares under IPv4 but they will be wide open to IPv6 users. Iljitsch van Beijnum a freelance network specialist and author of "Border Gateway Protocol" the network routing howto manual has some concerns when it comes to security. Beijnum warns that many Unix boxes are heavily firewalled in IPv4 but not in IPv6. "If you happen to be on their local link (hello wireless)" said Beijnum "you can circumvent the IPv4 access restrictions for services that are v6-enabled". He explains that in most cases users don't even know the box is doing IPv6. User should secure their systems prior to turning on or installing IPv6 services. On the brighter side of the IPv6 universe, workstations will be easier to hide from the evil hacker. An IPv6 allocation contains addresses in the trillions. This means old hacker tricks like scanning a network will become less affective. When your workstation uses one address out of trillions it makes targeted probes a less likely menace to an individual or organization. IPv6 workstations, which use privacy extensions for stateless address autoconfiguration, will certainly benefit. However systems which are using old IPv6 protocol stacks that do not incorporate the privacy extensions developed by Thomas Narten of IBM and Track Draves at Microsoft Research will most likely be targets for tracking. Old IPv6 protocols may publish your workstation or laptops unique electronic fingerprint. Make sure your IPv6 system is RFC 3041 compliant or else your privacy may be at risk. Conclusion: IPv6 is a protocol that delivers on user privacy. If you want your enterprise servers to provide privacy to your facilities then IPv6 is the way to go. If you want security the best advise I can give any Internet user is that you pray and have faith or disconnect your computer when not in use. Enterprises, non-profit organizations, governments and small business that have a need for privacy should consider a transition to IPv6. But make sure you get a security check done on your systems. Those interested in connecting to the IPv6 network should visit the IPv6 forum and I maintain a [28]list of providers. Enjoy! -- Joe Baptista is a managing director of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited a not for profit provider of network infrastructure, and domain names inclusive namespace. Joe is also involved in Internet governance as a member of the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Joe has been interviewed by the leading Canadian newspapers, radio and television on various Internet issues. From chris at telespan.co.uk Fri Oct 25 16:08:45 2002 From: chris at telespan.co.uk (Chris Jones) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:08:45 +0100 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances Message-ID: <000201c27c62$5ab5fa70$0100a8c0@gandalf> I make use of the details contained in the RIR registry databases to trace the source of spam emails. While the majority of members do maintain their registration details accurately, there are some who do not. In the way of these things, most of the latter are where some of the most regular spammers originate. Failure to communicate effectively is probably the worst offence any organisation or individual can be guilty of. Therefore, I am recommending, as an aggreived user of these inaccurate RIR records, that ARIN (and RIPE and APNIC) should be allowed to suspend any registrant who fails to amend within a specified period of time, their registration (together with all of their customers/users of course) to ensure consistent accuracy. The proposed suspension should last until the member has corrected the errant details or until such shorter period of time that the RIR allows. This proposal would have the benefit of persuading these ISP's to police their customers use of the internet mail system more effectively. -- >From Chris Jones mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ My PGP Key:- RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 From john at chagres.net Fri Oct 25 16:21:52 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:21:52 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <000201c27c62$5ab5fa70$0100a8c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> what exactly would this solve? there data is removed from the whois ?? The RIR's have no control over routing tables, and we don't want them to. john brown speaking for himself > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chris Jones > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:09 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > registration in specified circumstances > > > I make use of the details contained in the RIR registry > databases to trace the source of spam emails. While the > majority of members do maintain their registration details > accurately, there are some who do not. In the way of these > things, most of the latter are where some of the most regular > spammers originate. Failure to communicate effectively is > probably the worst offence any organisation or individual can > be guilty of. Therefore, I am recommending, as an aggreived > user of these inaccurate RIR records, that ARIN (and RIPE and > APNIC) should be allowed to suspend any registrant who fails > to amend within a specified period of time, their > registration (together with all of their customers/users of > course) to ensure consistent accuracy. > > The proposed suspension should last until the member has > corrected the errant details or until such shorter period of > time that the RIR allows. This proposal would have the > benefit of persuading these ISP's to police their customers > use of the internet mail system more effectively. > -- > From > Chris Jones > mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk > web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ > > My PGP Key:- > RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 > Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 > From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Fri Oct 25 17:10:09 2002 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> References: <000201c27c62$5ab5fa70$0100a8c0@gandalf> <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: In message <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8 at laptoy> (on 25 October 2002 14:21:52 -0600), john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) wrote: > what exactly would this solve? They don't have the IP addresses in question anymore; allocate them to another party. There are a _large_ number of IP addresses that could be freed up if this policy were put into effect, making a massive improvement in the current IP address shortage. -Allen > there data is removed from the whois ?? > > The RIR's have no control over routing tables, and we don't > want them to. > > john brown > speaking for himself > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Chris Jones > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:09 PM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > > registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > I make use of the details contained in the RIR registry > > databases to trace the source of spam emails. While the > > majority of members do maintain their registration details > > accurately, there are some who do not. In the way of these > > things, most of the latter are where some of the most regular > > spammers originate. Failure to communicate effectively is > > probably the worst offence any organisation or individual can > > be guilty of. Therefore, I am recommending, as an aggreived > > user of these inaccurate RIR records, that ARIN (and RIPE and > > APNIC) should be allowed to suspend any registrant who fails > > to amend within a specified period of time, their > > registration (together with all of their customers/users of > > course) to ensure consistent accuracy. > > > > The proposed suspension should last until the member has > > corrected the errant details or until such shorter period of > > time that the RIR allows. This proposal would have the > > benefit of persuading these ISP's to police their customers > > use of the internet mail system more effectively. > > -- > > From > > Chris Jones > > mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk > > web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ > > > > My PGP Key:- > > RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 > > Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 > > > -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From john at chagres.net Fri Oct 25 17:13:38 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:13:38 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c27c6b$69bcc900$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> how do you intend to have the RIR's tell me what I can and can't accept in my routing table ? How do they enforce telling me what I can and can't have in my routing table? What happens when the RIR makes a mistake and drops YAHOO.COM for 28 hours ? Who is financially liable for that mistake? define __large__ number of addresses. Who would then clean them out of the various RBL lists ? Seems that if you don't like traffic coming from specific addresses, an ACL on your side would be the best choice. its an interesting idea, but the above issues need some resolutions. john brown speaking for himself > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Allen Smith [mailto:easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:10 PM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: chris at telespan.co.uk; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend > Member's registration in specified circumstances > > > In message <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8 at laptoy> (on 25 > October 2002 14:21:52 -0600), john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) wrote: > > what exactly would this solve? > > They don't have the IP addresses in question anymore; > allocate them to another party. There are a _large_ number of > IP addresses that could be freed up if this policy were put > into effect, making a massive improvement in the current IP > address shortage. > > -Allen > > > there data is removed from the whois ?? > > > > The RIR's have no control over routing tables, and we don't > want them > > to. > > > > john brown > > speaking for himself > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > > Behalf Of Chris Jones > > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:09 PM > > > To: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > > > registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > > > > I make use of the details contained in the RIR registry > > > databases to trace the source of spam emails. While the > > > majority of members do maintain their registration details > > > accurately, there are some who do not. In the way of these > > > things, most of the latter are where some of the most regular > > > spammers originate. Failure to communicate effectively is > > > probably the worst offence any organisation or individual can > > > be guilty of. Therefore, I am recommending, as an aggreived > > > user of these inaccurate RIR records, that ARIN (and RIPE and > > > APNIC) should be allowed to suspend any registrant who fails > > > to amend within a specified period of time, their > > > registration (together with all of their customers/users of > > > course) to ensure consistent accuracy. > > > > > > The proposed suspension should last until the member has > > > corrected the errant details or until such shorter period of > > > time that the RIR allows. This proposal would have the > > > benefit of persuading these ISP's to police their customers > > > use of the internet mail system more effectively. > > > -- > > > From > > > Chris Jones > > > mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk > > > web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ > > > > > > My PGP Key:- > > > RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 > > > Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 > > > > > > > -- > Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ > September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - > Benjamin Franklin > From baptista at dot-god.com Fri Oct 25 17:17:44 2002 From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:17:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: It's going to make it difficult for the small organization who will then have to prove ownership of the block. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communications & Computing Facility a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, John M. Brown wrote: > what exactly would this solve? > > there data is removed from the whois ?? > > The RIR's have no control over routing tables, and we don't > want them to. > > john brown > speaking for himself > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Chris Jones > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:09 PM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > > registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > I make use of the details contained in the RIR registry > > databases to trace the source of spam emails. While the > > majority of members do maintain their registration details > > accurately, there are some who do not. In the way of these > > things, most of the latter are where some of the most regular > > spammers originate. Failure to communicate effectively is > > probably the worst offence any organisation or individual can > > be guilty of. Therefore, I am recommending, as an aggreived > > user of these inaccurate RIR records, that ARIN (and RIPE and > > APNIC) should be allowed to suspend any registrant who fails > > to amend within a specified period of time, their > > registration (together with all of their customers/users of > > course) to ensure consistent accuracy. > > > > The proposed suspension should last until the member has > > corrected the errant details or until such shorter period of > > time that the RIR allows. This proposal would have the > > benefit of persuading these ISP's to police their customers > > use of the internet mail system more effectively. > > -- > > From > > Chris Jones > > mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk > > web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ > > > > My PGP Key:- > > RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 > > Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 > > > From easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu Fri Oct 25 17:50:33 2002 From: easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu (Ed Allen Smith) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:50:33 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <001a01c27c6b$69bcc900$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> References: <001a01c27c6b$69bcc900$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: In message <001a01c27c6b$69bcc900$f9ecdfd8 at laptoy> (on 25 October 2002 15:13:38 -0600), john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) wrote: > how do you intend to have the RIR's tell me what I can > and can't accept in my routing table ? In the case of an ISP doing business in the US, if someone else now is listed as the proper user of said IP addresses in the official listing (so long as ARIN is regarded as official by ICANN, which is in turn regarded as official by the US government - especially given that the US government's Department of Commerce governs the root servers) but an ISP is refusing to treat them as such, the new user now has a pretty good cause for a lawsuit and injunction against said ISP. > How do they enforce telling me what I can and can't have > in my routing table? It can also mean changing the entries in the root servers, as another means of making it clear who's the proper user of said IP addresses. I prefer this means, personally, since I don't like getting government involved. > What happens when the RIR makes a mistake and drops YAHOO.COM > for 28 hours ? A period of 5 days is reasonable. If it isn't corrected by then, that's when you start punishing. > Who is financially liable for that mistake? The RIR operators are if they're the ones making the goof. > define __large__ number of addresses. At least one /8 - Haliburton's. See http://www.rfc-ignorant.org, and the ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org blacklist, for further data. > Who would then clean them out of the various RBL lists ? That would seem to be cause for lawsuits in and of itself against the old ISP for its behavior. > Seems that if you don't like traffic coming from specific > addresses, an ACL on your side would be the best choice. Certainly, if there was an unlimited number of IP addresses available. As it is, the RFC establishing the existence of the RIRs states that one of their obligations is to register IP address usage properly, including contact information needed for troubleshooting at all levels. > its an interesting idea, but the above issues need some > resolutions. > > john brown > speaking for himself > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Allen Smith [mailto:easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu] > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:10 PM > > To: john at chagres.net > > Cc: chris at telespan.co.uk; ppml at arin.net > > Subject: RE: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend > > Member's registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > In message <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8 at laptoy> (on 25 > > October 2002 14:21:52 -0600), john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) wrote: > > > what exactly would this solve? > > > > They don't have the IP addresses in question anymore; > > allocate them to another party. There are a _large_ number of > > IP addresses that could be freed up if this policy were put > > into effect, making a massive improvement in the current IP > > address shortage. > > > > -Allen > > > > > there data is removed from the whois ?? > > > > > > The RIR's have no control over routing tables, and we don't > > want them > > > to. > > > > > > john brown > > > speaking for himself > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > > > > Behalf Of Chris Jones > > > > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:09 PM > > > > To: ppml at arin.net > > > > Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > > > > registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > > > > > > > I make use of the details contained in the RIR registry > > > > databases to trace the source of spam emails. While the > > > > majority of members do maintain their registration details > > > > accurately, there are some who do not. In the way of these > > > > things, most of the latter are where some of the most regular > > > > spammers originate. Failure to communicate effectively is > > > > probably the worst offence any organisation or individual can > > > > be guilty of. Therefore, I am recommending, as an aggreived > > > > user of these inaccurate RIR records, that ARIN (and RIPE and > > > > APNIC) should be allowed to suspend any registrant who fails > > > > to amend within a specified period of time, their > > > > registration (together with all of their customers/users of > > > > course) to ensure consistent accuracy. > > > > > > > > The proposed suspension should last until the member has > > > > corrected the errant details or until such shorter period of > > > > time that the RIR allows. This proposal would have the > > > > benefit of persuading these ISP's to police their customers > > > > use of the internet mail system more effectively. > > > > -- > > > > From > > > > Chris Jones > > > > mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk > > > > web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > My PGP Key:- > > > > RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 > > > > Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ > > September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - > > Benjamin Franklin > > > -- Allen Smith http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/ September 11, 2001 A Day That Shall Live In Infamy II "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin From john at chagres.net Fri Oct 25 18:10:18 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:10:18 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c27c73$54115320$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Allen Smith [mailto:easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:51 PM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: chris at telespan.co.uk; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend > Member's registration in specified circumstances > > > In message <001a01c27c6b$69bcc900$f9ecdfd8 at laptoy> (on 25 > October 2002 15:13:38 -0600), john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) wrote: > > how do you intend to have the RIR's tell me what I can > > and can't accept in my routing table ? > > In the case of an ISP doing business in the US, if someone > else now is listed as the proper user of said IP addresses in > the official listing (so long as ARIN is regarded as official > by ICANN, which is in turn regarded as official by the US > government - especially given that the US government's > Department of Commerce governs the root servers) but an ISP > is refusing to treat them as such, the new user now has a > pretty good cause for a lawsuit and injunction against said ISP. So I take me ARIN allocated IP space and route it from Panama. Now I don't have US authority to worry about. The point being missed here is that RIR's should not and do not control routing tables. > > How do they enforce telling me what I can and can't have > > in my routing table? > > It can also mean changing the entries in the root servers, as > another means of making it clear who's the proper user of > said IP addresses. I prefer this means, personally, since I > don't like getting government involved. What specific entry/change in the root server would you make? > > What happens when the RIR makes a mistake and drops > YAHOO.COM for 28 > > hours ? > > A period of 5 days is reasonable. If it isn't corrected by > then, that's when you start punishing. RIR's are not in the business of telling ISP's how to run their business. In the US that would violate various anti-trust laws at a min. From shane at time-travellers.org Sat Oct 26 20:04:02 2002 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 02:04:02 +0200 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> References: <000201c27c62$5ab5fa70$0100a8c0@gandalf> <000a01c27c64$2e4e4350$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> Message-ID: <20021027000401.GB27067@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2002-10-25 14:21:52 -0600, John M. Brown wrote: > what exactly would this solve? > > there data is removed from the whois ?? > > The RIR's have no control over routing tables, and we don't > want them to. Presumably whatever action is taken against a member who stops paying dues could be taken against against someone who fails to keep their contact information up-to-date or deliberately uses incorrect information. In any case, I think it best to avoid confusing the issue of accurate contact information with IP conservation. The question is rather I think whether an organization who has been allocated a resource for use on the Internet has a responsibility to be reached in some way. If the answer is "no", then we should take down the WHOIS servers, and save ourselves a lot of money and resources required to maintain that service. If the answer is "yes", we do want contact information, then what is the point of having it if it is not correct? Perhaps we could take a more gentle approach and do something like: 1. If someone reports contact information is incorrect, ARIN can investigate (send an e-mail and/or make a phone call). 2. If the investigation reveals that it is incorrect, ARIN can put a flag on the record in WHOIS. 3. The next time the organisation contacts ARIN (for more space, annual renewal, or whatever), then they have to fix the contact data. No, this won't fix problems for inactive organisations, but you probably won't be getting too much spam from them, right? :) If we're worried about extra workload for ARIN, then we can use varying degrees of automation for step #1. Shane Speaking only for myself From jlewis at lewis.org Sat Oct 26 22:35:12 2002 From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 22:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <20021027000401.GB27067@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: > Presumably whatever action is taken against a member who stops paying > dues could be taken against against someone who fails to keep their > contact information up-to-date or deliberately uses incorrect > information. What do they do if you stop paying? Reclaim your space? Ask your peers to stop accepting your route advertisements? Deny future allocations until your balance is paid current? IIRC, up-to-date swips are not required by ARIN. Even an open rwhois isn't required AFAIK. The minimum requirement IIRC is rwhois data available to ARIN. Sure it'd be nice if everyone swipped everything and kept the data up to date, but I don't think there's anything ARIN can do to force that to happen. If your swips are out of date, about the best I think ARIN can do is require you to clean up the mess before receiving your next allocation. > 1. If someone reports contact information is incorrect, ARIN can > investigate (send an e-mail and/or make a phone call). > 2. If the investigation reveals that it is incorrect, ARIN can put a > flag on the record in WHOIS. > 3. The next time the organisation contacts ARIN (for more space, annual > renewal, or whatever), then they have to fix the contact data. And everyone can pay more for their space since this is going to require more work on ARIN's end. > If we're worried about extra workload for ARIN, then we can use varying > degrees of automation for step #1. Someone would still have to program the automation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From chris at telespan.co.uk Sun Oct 27 06:27:45 2002 From: chris at telespan.co.uk (Chris Jones) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:27:45 -0000 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <20021027000401.GB27067@venus.lab.time-travellers.org> Message-ID: <001001c27dab$dfc207f0$0100a8c0@gandalf> > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Shane > Kerr > Sent: 27 October 2002 01:04 > To: John M. Brown > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > registration in specified circumstances > > > The question is rather I think whether an organization who has been > allocated a resource for use on the Internet has a responsibility to > be reached in some way. If the answer is "no", then we > should take down > the WHOIS servers, and save ourselves a lot of money and resources > required to maintain that service. > Despite the resultant frustration to users trying to contact the offending organisations, I would agree with that. > If the answer is "yes", we do want contact information, then > what is the > point of having it if it is not correct? > Absolutely! > Perhaps we could take a more gentle approach and do something like: > > 1. If someone reports contact information is incorrect, ARIN can > investigate (send an e-mail and/or make a phone call). > 2. If the investigation reveals that it is incorrect, ARIN can put a > flag on the record in WHOIS. I believe that ARIN does do this. Unfortunately, their automated response system does not appear to recognise requests for contact information yet. > 3. The next time the organisation contacts ARIN (for more > space, annual > renewal, or whatever), then they have to fix the contact data. > > No, this won't fix problems for inactive organisations, but > you probably > won't be getting too much spam from them, right? :) > Probably correct. > If we're worried about extra workload for ARIN, then we can > use varying > degrees of automation for step #1. > Should not be any real problem, I would have thought. It only requires someone with some reasonable degree of Perl scripting knowledge for a day or so. -- >From Chris Jones mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ My PGP Key:- RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 From john at chagres.net Sun Oct 27 12:32:00 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:32:00 -0700 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c27dde$cce18a60$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> and automation in this area is prone to false positives and other errors. having the RIR's police SPAM is a bad thing. SPAM is social and commercial issue and something the RIR's should stay out of. As long as there are global transit providers willing to carry the traffic for a fee, we will see spam. john brown speaking personally > -----Original Message----- > From: jlewis at lewis.org [mailto:jlewis at lewis.org] > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 8:35 PM > To: Shane Kerr > Cc: John M. Brown; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend > Member's registration in specified circumstances > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Shane Kerr wrote: > > > Presumably whatever action is taken against a member who > stops paying > > dues could be taken against against someone who fails to keep their > > contact information up-to-date or deliberately uses incorrect > > information. > > What do they do if you stop paying? Reclaim your space? Ask > your peers to stop accepting your route advertisements? Deny > future allocations until your balance is paid current? > > IIRC, up-to-date swips are not required by ARIN. Even an open rwhois > isn't required AFAIK. The minimum requirement IIRC is rwhois data > available to ARIN. Sure it'd be nice if everyone swipped > everything and > kept the data up to date, but I don't think there's anything > ARIN can do > to force that to happen. If your swips are out of date, > about the best I > think ARIN can do is require you to clean up the mess before > receiving > your next allocation. > > > 1. If someone reports contact information is incorrect, ARIN can > > investigate (send an e-mail and/or make a phone call). > > 2. If the investigation reveals that it is incorrect, ARIN can put a > > flag on the record in WHOIS. > > 3. The next time the organisation contacts ARIN (for more > space, annual > > renewal, or whatever), then they have to fix the contact data. > > And everyone can pay more for their space since this is going > to require > more work on ARIN's end. > > > If we're worried about extra workload for ARIN, then we can use > > varying degrees of automation for step #1. > > Someone would still have to program the automation. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*| I route > System Administrator | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > From john at chagres.net Sun Oct 27 12:31:59 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:31:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: <001001c27dab$dfc207f0$0100a8c0@gandalf> Message-ID: <000301c27dde$cc258d60$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> how does this impact those that run their own RWHOIS services? Are you going to mandate that they also verify, flag, remove, referify, add, etc ??? An RIR's job is to see that allocations fit RFC 2050. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chris Jones > Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:28 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend > Member's registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of > > Shane Kerr > > Sent: 27 October 2002 01:04 > > To: John M. Brown > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's > > registration in specified circumstances > > > > > > > The question is rather I think whether an organization who has been > > allocated a resource for use on the Internet has a > responsibility to > > be reached in some way. If the answer is "no", then we should take > > down the WHOIS servers, and save ourselves a lot of money and > > resources required to maintain that service. > > > Despite the resultant frustration to users trying to contact > the offending organisations, I would agree with that. > > > If the answer is "yes", we do want contact information, > then what is > > the point of having it if it is not correct? > > > Absolutely! > > > Perhaps we could take a more gentle approach and do something like: > > > > 1. If someone reports contact information is incorrect, ARIN can > > investigate (send an e-mail and/or make a phone call). > > 2. If the investigation reveals that it is incorrect, ARIN can put a > > flag on the record in WHOIS. > > I believe that ARIN does do this. Unfortunately, their > automated response system does not appear to recognise > requests for contact information yet. > > > 3. The next time the organisation contacts ARIN (for more space, > > annual > > renewal, or whatever), then they have to fix the contact data. > > > > No, this won't fix problems for inactive organisations, but you > > probably won't be getting too much spam from them, right? :) > > > > Probably correct. > > > If we're worried about extra workload for ARIN, then we can > > use varying > > degrees of automation for step #1. > > > > Should not be any real problem, I would have thought. It only requires > someone with some reasonable degree of Perl scripting > knowledge for a day or > so. > -- > From > Chris Jones > mailto: chris at telespan.co.uk > web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ > > My PGP Key:- > RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 > Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593 > From jrace at attglobal.net Sun Oct 27 01:17:15 2002 From: jrace at attglobal.net (Dr. Jeffrey Race) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:17:15 +0700 Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:32:00 -0700, John M. Brown wrote: >having the RIR's police SPAM is a bad thing. SPAM >is social and commercial issue and something the RIR's >should stay out of. Why should they stay out of enforcing common sense against fraudulent registrations? Or am I missing something in this thread? Jeffrey Race From bruce.campbell at ripe.net Wed Oct 30 23:13:57 2002 From: bruce.campbell at ripe.net (Bruce Campbell) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:13:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ppml] RIR's should have power to suspend Member's registration in specified circumstances In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:32:00 -0700, John M. Brown wrote: > >having the RIR's police SPAM is a bad thing. SPAM > >is social and commercial issue and something the RIR's > >should stay out of. > > Why should they stay out of enforcing common sense against fraudulent > registrations? Or am I missing something in this thread? The original message in this thread, as worded, effectively puts the RIRs into the position of being the Internet Police against spam. To avoid this particular confusion (and something which the RIRs will _not_ take on, as it is not a function defined in RFC2050), the original proposal needs restating with clearer language, and preferably without Punishment Extreme(tm) (removal of resources after 5 days with bad information? sheesh) --==-- Bruce. Not speaking for the RIPE NCC. From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Oct 31 13:55:56 2002 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:55:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Region Elects Mark McFadden to ASO AC Message-ID: ARIN is pleased to announce that Mark McFadden has been elected to the ICANN ASO AC from the ARIN region. He will serve a three year term beginning January 1, 2003. Mark will fill the seat being vacated by Cathy Wittbrodt at the end of this year. Information on the ASO AC can be found at URL: http://www.aso.icann.org/ ARIN Member Services