From izumi at nic.ad.jp  Tue Apr  1 02:58:31 2003
From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani)
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:58:31 +0900
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:54:51 -0500 (EST)"
	<200303051354.IAA14561@ops.arin.net>
References: <200303051354.IAA14561@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <20030401165831O.izumi@nic.ad.jp>

Hi, I would just like to confirm one point on behalf of JPNIC, an NIR
in the APNIC region.
 
Would this policy also seek for consensus with other RIRs if it
reaches consensus in ARIN?

The fee structure could be an operational issue within ARIN, but since
it is a "common policy" across the regions, we feel that the rest of
the proposal should also seek for consensus in other regions before
implmentation.


Izumi Okutani
Japan Network Information Center

From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:54:51 -0500 (EST)

> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
> proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> in Memphis, Tennessee, scheduled for April 7-8, 2003. 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 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
> 
> The current IPv6 policies are described in the IPv6 Address Allocation 
> and Assignment Policy document.
> 
>    http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
> 
> It is proposed the IPv6 policy document be updated to include the 
> following language and that the changed document be adopted as policy.
> 
> 5.1.1
> 	[under d) add:
> 
> 	Other organizations are defined as any customer of the LIR.
> 	No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses
> 	required, even if that number is one.
> 
> 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters
> 
> 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d)
> 
> 	To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirement to make 200
> 	/48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone
> 	requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy
> 	is amended.  In the event that this policy is amended the
> 	existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or
> 	waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial
> 	allocation date.
> 
> 5.8.2 Waiver of fees
> 
> 	a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees
> 	shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and
> 	receiving space before Dec 31, 2004.  In the even that this
> 	policy is amended the existing IPv6 space holders shall
> 	under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until
> 	Dec 31, 2006.
> 
> 	b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal
> 	ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007.  All early adopters
> 	will have the same billing date regardless of the date
> 	they received their allocation.
> 
> 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> 
> 	a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> 	criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> 	micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> 	is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> 	shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
> 
> 	b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in
> 	5.8.2.
> 
> 	c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to
> 	make further allocations or assignments out of their /48.  It
> 	is intended for their internal use only.
> 
> 	d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall
> 	return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their
> 	upstream provider (a LIR).  This is requested in a good faith
> 	manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations
> 	granted under these waived criteria must be returned.
> 
> 


From mury at goldengate.net  Tue Apr  1 03:45:28 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:45:28 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: <20030401165831O.izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304010239130.19412-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Although this is my proposal I do not have much background knowledge
regarding the original policy.

Was the original policy approved with consensus among the RIRs?

What mechanism exists to facilate reaching a consensus among RIRs before
implementing a policy?

Is it noteworthy to mention that the deployment of IPv6 has taken on
different characteristics in different parts of the world and therefore
slight differences in the policy may be beneficial?

Thank you.

Mury
GoldenGate Internet Services

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Izumi Okutani wrote:

> Hi, I would just like to confirm one point on behalf of JPNIC, an NIR
> in the APNIC region.
>
> Would this policy also seek for consensus with other RIRs if it
> reaches consensus in ARIN?
>
> The fee structure could be an operational issue within ARIN, but since
> it is a "common policy" across the regions, we feel that the rest of
> the proposal should also seek for consensus in other regions before
> implmentation.
>
>
> Izumi Okutani
> Japan Network Information Center
>
> From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
> Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:54:51 -0500 (EST)
>
> > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy
> > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting
> > in Memphis, Tennessee, scheduled for April 7-8, 2003. 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 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
> >
> > The current IPv6 policies are described in the IPv6 Address Allocation
> > and Assignment Policy document.
> >
> >    http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
> >
> > It is proposed the IPv6 policy document be updated to include the
> > following language and that the changed document be adopted as policy.
> >
> > 5.1.1
> > 	[under d) add:
> >
> > 	Other organizations are defined as any customer of the LIR.
> > 	No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses
> > 	required, even if that number is one.
> >
> > 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters
> >
> > 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d)
> >
> > 	To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirement to make 200
> > 	/48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone
> > 	requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy
> > 	is amended.  In the event that this policy is amended the
> > 	existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or
> > 	waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial
> > 	allocation date.
> >
> > 5.8.2 Waiver of fees
> >
> > 	a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees
> > 	shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and
> > 	receiving space before Dec 31, 2004.  In the even that this
> > 	policy is amended the existing IPv6 space holders shall
> > 	under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until
> > 	Dec 31, 2006.
> >
> > 	b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal
> > 	ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007.  All early adopters
> > 	will have the same billing date regardless of the date
> > 	they received their allocation.
> >
> > 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> >
> > 	a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> > 	criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> > 	micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> > 	is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> > 	shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
> >
> > 	b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in
> > 	5.8.2.
> >
> > 	c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to
> > 	make further allocations or assignments out of their /48.  It
> > 	is intended for their internal use only.
> >
> > 	d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall
> > 	return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their
> > 	upstream provider (a LIR).  This is requested in a good faith
> > 	manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations
> > 	granted under these waived criteria must be returned.
> >
> >
>



From richardj at arin.net  Tue Apr  1 09:12:02 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:12:02 -0500
Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
In-Reply-To: <AB3BA3EF5CB3E34B8B629D96605A8AB811F4F2@LITEXCH9.alltel.com>
Message-ID: <008e01c2f858$aaf4dde0$178888c0@arin.net>

Hello Jack,

Correcting discrepancies in the ARIN database that relate
to the change of organization name for Internet numbering resources 
are considered registration transfers.  The policies by which the ARIN 
staff must review requests for transfer are stated at:

  http://www.arin.net/policy/transfer.html

If you have an open ticket that has not been resolved through the 
standard process, you may contact ARIN's Director of Registration 
Services through the registration help desk phone line, (703)227-0660.  
I'd be glad to provide you with direct contact information off list, 
if you like.

Best Regards,

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> 
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up!
> 
> We have been trying to correct this discrepancy for months, 
> however, we are deadlocked with ARIN for resolving this 
> issue.  I know this could rat hole rather rapidly and is OT.  
> Ticket # ARIN-20021211.474 
> 
> If you need any questions answered, you may forward questions 
> about this block to ipadmin at alltel.net or abuse at alltel.net.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jack W. Parks IV
> Sr. Network Engineer
> ALLTEL Communications
> jack.w.parks at alltel.com
> Work: 501-905-5961
> Cell: 501-680-3341
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] 
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:57 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> 
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> > is there any kind of existing policy to reports bad
> > WHOIS to ARIN?
> 
> You can send email to hostmaster at arin.net.  ARIN staff
> will research reports of out-of-date information and
> take appropriate action.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
> > McBurnett, Jim
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> > 
> > 
> > Okay,
> > I got bit..
> > I did a whois for an IP address that came up Central 
> Telephone company 
> > Lincoln, NE. 151.213.99.122
> > And I got a name, email address etc..
> > Due to the reason I looked it up- which is another topic totally- 
> > I immediately called this contact.
> > Which was disconnected.. Then I discovered, oh this is ALLTEL now.
> > 
> > I hope we can get the proposal passed and force the updating of the 
> > WHOIS.. But in the interim is there any kind of existing policy to 
> > reports bad WHOIS to ARIN?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
> > 
> 



From john at chagres.net  Tue Apr  1 09:46:10 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:46:10 -0700
Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
In-Reply-To: <AB3BA3EF5CB3E34B8B629D96605A8AB811F4F2@LITEXCH9.alltel.com>
Message-ID: <001101c2f85d$7196a420$7d7ba8c0@laptoy>

why is this a deadlock issue between ARIN and AllTel ??


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:03 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> 
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up!
> 
> We have been trying to correct this discrepancy for months, 
> however, we are deadlocked with ARIN for resolving this 
> issue.  I know this could rat hole rather rapidly and is OT.  
> Ticket # ARIN-20021211.474 
> 
> If you need any questions answered, you may forward questions 
> about this block to ipadmin at alltel.net or abuse at alltel.net.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jack W. Parks IV
> Sr. Network Engineer
> ALLTEL Communications
> jack.w.parks at alltel.com
> Work: 501-905-5961
> Cell: 501-680-3341
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] 
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:57 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> 
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> > is there any kind of existing policy to reports bad
> > WHOIS to ARIN?
> 
> You can send email to hostmaster at arin.net.  ARIN staff
> will research reports of out-of-date information and
> take appropriate action.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
> > McBurnett, Jim
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> > 
> > 
> > Okay,
> > I got bit..
> > I did a whois for an IP address that came up Central 
> Telephone company 
> > Lincoln, NE. 151.213.99.122
> > And I got a name, email address etc..
> > Due to the reason I looked it up- which is another topic totally- 
> > I immediately called this contact.
> > Which was disconnected.. Then I discovered, oh this is ALLTEL now.
> > 
> > I hope we can get the proposal passed and force the updating of the 
> > WHOIS.. But in the interim is there any kind of existing policy to 
> > reports bad WHOIS to ARIN?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
> > 
> 



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Apr  1 12:05:31 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:05:31 -0600 
Subject: [ppml] Education and Issues at ARIN XI
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045493@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Hello All,

While the Community Learning and Education Workgroup no longer exists as an
entity, ARIN's commitment to supporting educational objectives remains firm.
The Advisory Council too remains interested in hearing what the Internet
community at large thinks about educational needs and objectives.  

Specifically, if you know of a problem with process or policy related
specifically to dealing with ARIN that may be remedied or mitigated by an
educational effort contact me, ARIN Member Services, voice it on this or
other ARIN mail lists.  ARIN debuted a computer based training program
helping individuals understand ARIN's database and templates at an earlier
meeting and plans to debut another on querying the WHOIS database at Memphis
next week.  Be sure to review these training modules in the ARIN Learning
Center...and suggest other training that you think would be helpful.

Perhaps you think others simply don't understand technology or techniques
which would make everyone's life simpler in allocating or assigning IP
addresses or autonomous system numbers or interpreting existing ARIN policy.
Tutorials are a part of ARIN's bi-annual meetings.  This time, at ARIN XI in
Memphis, a mini-workshop on IPv6 is planned from 1-5:30pm on Sunday.  This
may help you understand the technology and the policy issues facing ARIN and
the other RIRs.  Not your cup of tea?....suggest a topic for next time.

The upcoming meetings themselves are a forum to trot out and issue and
discuss it with the ARIN Board, staff or the AC, or your colleagues in the
industry..... in public or in private.  Sign up for the meeting next week,
share your expertise and vision, query the participants and contribute to
the policy discussions that will affect you directly or indirectly.  The
Internet, its public resources and the way decisions are made are on the
line and the Public Policy and Membership Meetings are your forum for
discussion and decisions.  It is also the forum to learn and to
teach....come to the meeting educate and be educated.

I hope to see you there!

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council 


From Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com  Tue Apr  1 14:26:36 2003
From: Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com (Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:26:36 -0600
Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
Message-ID: <AB3BA3EF5CB3E34B8B629D96605A8AB811F4F5@LITEXCH9.alltel.com>

It's a long story, but beyond the scope of this forum.  I initially posted to answer a question concerning ALLTEL address space.   Sorry it takes so long to respond...I'm traveling.
 
If anyone needs information related to ALLTEL IP addressing, feel free to email ipadmin at alltel.net <mailto:ipadmin at alltel.net> .  For additional contact info, our ARIN ORGID is "ALLT".  
 
Thank You.
 
Jack W. Parks IV
Sr. Network Engineer
ALLTEL Communications
jack.w.parks at alltel.com <mailto:jack.w.parks at alltel.com> 
Work: 501-905-5961
Cell: 501-680-3341


	-----Original Message----- 
	From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net] 
	Sent: Tue 4/1/2003 8:46 AM 
	To: Parks, Jack W; ppml at arin.net 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
	
	

	why is this a deadlock issue between ARIN and AllTel ??
	
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
	> Behalf Of Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com
	> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:03 PM
	> To: ppml at arin.net
	> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
	>
	>
	> Thanks for bringing this up!
	>
	> We have been trying to correct this discrepancy for months,
	> however, we are deadlocked with ARIN for resolving this
	> issue.  I know this could rat hole rather rapidly and is OT. 
	> Ticket # ARIN-20021211.474
	>
	> If you need any questions answered, you may forward questions
	> about this block to ipadmin at alltel.net or abuse at alltel.net.
	>
	> Thanks,
	>
	> Jack W. Parks IV
	> Sr. Network Engineer
	> ALLTEL Communications
	> jack.w.parks at alltel.com
	> Work: 501-905-5961
	> Cell: 501-680-3341
	>
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net]
	> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:57 PM
	> To: ppml at arin.net
	> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
	>
	>
	> Hello Jim,
	>
	> > is there any kind of existing policy to reports bad
	> > WHOIS to ARIN?
	>
	> You can send email to hostmaster at arin.net.  ARIN staff
	> will research reports of out-of-date information and
	> take appropriate action.
	>
	> Best Regards,
	>
	> Richard Jimmerson
	> Director of Operations
	> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
	>
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of
	> > McBurnett, Jim
	> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
	> > To: ppml at arin.net
	> > Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
	> >
	> >
	> > Okay,
	> > I got bit..
	> > I did a whois for an IP address that came up Central
	> Telephone company
	> > Lincoln, NE. 151.213.99.122
	> > And I got a name, email address etc..
	> > Due to the reason I looked it up- which is another topic totally-
	> > I immediately called this contact.
	> > Which was disconnected.. Then I discovered, oh this is ALLTEL now.
	> >
	> > I hope we can get the proposal passed and force the updating of the
	> > WHOIS.. But in the interim is there any kind of existing policy to
	> > reports bad WHOIS to ARIN?
	> >
	> > Thanks,
	> > Jim
	> >
	>
	
	



From Ken.Schultz at marconi.com  Tue Apr  1 14:59:00 2003
From: Ken.Schultz at marconi.com (Schultz, Ken)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:59:00 -0500 
Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
Message-ID: <1DE644007776D3119FAC00204840ECF408CD47FB@whq-msgusr-03.pit.comms.marconi.com>


I am wondering how prevalent this issue is, since we (Marconi) seem to have
a very similar problem. 

Other personnel have tried in the past to get our POC info updated for our
various netblocks updated and run into what they described as a brick wall
at ARIN. Marconi in particular has a few hurdles that I suspect are
relatively common. 
  -We were acquired a few years ago and our former entity name is no longer
in use (FORE Systems.) 
  -We also no longer have any old letterhead. 
  -The old domain name (fore.com, used by current POC info) is no longer
used. 
  -The employee listed as the current POC is no longer with the company. 
  -Our site moved, so our mailing/physical address has changed as well.

(Short story...company was acquired, then dealt with economic-dictated
downsizing...seems very common I would think)

I've talked to several employees here that are rather exasperated at how
difficult it seems to be to change the POC info for a contact that no longer
exists.

So, don't point an accusatory finger at all of the "deadbeat" organizations
out there who have failed to keep their contact info up-to-date, without
understanding that it can be difficult to get through the bureacracy
sometimes. For a great number of organizations, I can easily see that they
would see it as not being worth the effort to continuing to fight to get the
database correct.

I myself have only recently picked up the ball here to try to get our
contact info changed -- if anyone can point to the proper process to get the
POC changed, assuming that none of the above still exists, I'd certainly
appreciate it.

Ken Schultz
Sr Network Engineer
Marconi Communications
ken.schultz at marconi.com
724-742-7483


-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:46 AM
To: Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?


why is this a deadlock issue between ARIN and AllTel ??


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:03 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> 
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up!
> 
> We have been trying to correct this discrepancy for months, 
> however, we are deadlocked with ARIN for resolving this 
> issue.  I know this could rat hole rather rapidly and is OT.  
> Ticket # ARIN-20021211.474 
> 
> If you need any questions answered, you may forward questions 
> about this block to ipadmin at alltel.net or abuse at alltel.net.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jack W. Parks IV
> Sr. Network Engineer
> ALLTEL Communications
> jack.w.parks at alltel.com
> Work: 501-905-5961
> Cell: 501-680-3341
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] 
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:57 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> 
> 
> Hello Jim,
> 
> > is there any kind of existing policy to reports bad
> > WHOIS to ARIN?
> 
> You can send email to hostmaster at arin.net.  ARIN staff
> will research reports of out-of-date information and
> take appropriate action.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
> > McBurnett, Jim
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:19 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [ppml] BOGUS- ARIN WHOIS?
> > 
> > 
> > Okay,
> > I got bit..
> > I did a whois for an IP address that came up Central 
> Telephone company 
> > Lincoln, NE. 151.213.99.122
> > And I got a name, email address etc..
> > Due to the reason I looked it up- which is another topic totally- 
> > I immediately called this contact.
> > Which was disconnected.. Then I discovered, oh this is ALLTEL now.
> > 
> > I hope we can get the proposal passed and force the updating of the 
> > WHOIS.. But in the interim is there any kind of existing policy to 
> > reports bad WHOIS to ARIN?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jim
> > 
> 


From izumi at nic.ad.jp  Tue Apr  1 23:58:05 2003
From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani)
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:58:05 +0900
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:45:28 -0600 (CST)"
	<Pine.BSI.4.44.0304010239130.19412-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304010239130.19412-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <20030402135805F.izumi@nic.ad.jp>

From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 02:45:28 -0600 (CST)

> 
> Although this is my proposal I do not have much background knowledge
> regarding the original policy.
> 
> Was the original policy approved with consensus among the RIRs?
Yes, the current IPv6 policy was implemented in July 2002, after
consensus was reached among all RIR communities.
 
> What mechanism exists to facilate reaching a consensus among RIRs before
> implementing a policy?
I think the process for the final consensus slightly varies depending
on the region, but the basic idea is similar to ARIN's. Discussion in
the ML, and consensus at their meetings.

At least, that's my understanding.

> Is it noteworthy to mention that the deployment of IPv6 has taken on
> different characteristics in different parts of the world and therefore
> slight differences in the policy may be beneficial?
If that's what you believe, yes, I think it is worth making that statement.

However, we disagree as we thought the whole point of the common IPv6
policy was for all RIRs to share the same policy.

Izumi
 
> Thank you.
> 
> Mury
> GoldenGate Internet Services
> 
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> 
> > Hi, I would just like to confirm one point on behalf of JPNIC, an NIR
> > in the APNIC region.
> >
> > Would this policy also seek for consensus with other RIRs if it
> > reaches consensus in ARIN?
> >
> > The fee structure could be an operational issue within ARIN, but since
> > it is a "common policy" across the regions, we feel that the rest of
> > the proposal should also seek for consensus in other regions before
> > implmentation.
> >
> >
> > Izumi Okutani
> > Japan Network Information Center
> >
> > From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
> > Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
> > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:54:51 -0500 (EST)
> >
> > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy
> > > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting
> > > in Memphis, Tennessee, scheduled for April 7-8, 2003. 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 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
> > >
> > > The current IPv6 policies are described in the IPv6 Address Allocation
> > > and Assignment Policy document.
> > >
> > >    http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
> > >
> > > It is proposed the IPv6 policy document be updated to include the
> > > following language and that the changed document be adopted as policy.
> > >
> > > 5.1.1
> > > 	[under d) add:
> > >
> > > 	Other organizations are defined as any customer of the LIR.
> > > 	No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses
> > > 	required, even if that number is one.
> > >
> > > 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters
> > >
> > > 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d)
> > >
> > > 	To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirement to make 200
> > > 	/48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone
> > > 	requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy
> > > 	is amended.  In the event that this policy is amended the
> > > 	existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or
> > > 	waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial
> > > 	allocation date.
> > >
> > > 5.8.2 Waiver of fees
> > >
> > > 	a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees
> > > 	shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and
> > > 	receiving space before Dec 31, 2004.  In the even that this
> > > 	policy is amended the existing IPv6 space holders shall
> > > 	under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until
> > > 	Dec 31, 2006.
> > >
> > > 	b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal
> > > 	ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007.  All early adopters
> > > 	will have the same billing date regardless of the date
> > > 	they received their allocation.
> > >
> > > 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> > >
> > > 	a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> > > 	criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> > > 	micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> > > 	is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> > > 	shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
> > >
> > > 	b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in
> > > 	5.8.2.
> > >
> > > 	c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to
> > > 	make further allocations or assignments out of their /48.  It
> > > 	is intended for their internal use only.
> > >
> > > 	d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall
> > > 	return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their
> > > 	upstream provider (a LIR).  This is requested in a good faith
> > > 	manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations
> > > 	granted under these waived criteria must be returned.
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 


From gih at telstra.net  Fri Apr  4 04:50:53 2003
From: gih at telstra.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 19:50:53 +1000
Subject: [ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental
  pur poses
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0451E5@kronos.cait.wustl.e
 du>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030404194457.01f5cdb8@kahuna.telstra.net>

I understand that this policy is up for consideration at the upcoming ARIN
meeting.

On the 12th December I posted a draft of a revision to this policy which 
attempted
to integrate comments from Ted Hardie. I also recieved a comment from Bill 
Darte
on the proposed policy following the 12th December draft.

I'm not sure of the appropriate protocol here, but I would like to offer 
for consideration
a second draft of the ARIN policy that is altered only in respect of changes to
section 2 as per Bill's suggestion.

As I noted on the 12th December, this draft:

attempts to rephrase the first three sections to make them clearer,
as well as taking into account the considerations noted in text above, and 
includes the designated expert reviewer role. It also specifically words 
this as an ARIN policy, as I understand that the other RIRs have / are 
considering different wording in their regions.

thanks,

   Geoff Huston
--------------------


2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

There have been a number of experimental address allocations
undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental
address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with
the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is currently no systematic means
of receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis as part of
a recognized experiment in Internet technology deployment. The
following policy is proposed:

ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary
Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of
recognized experimental activity.

     "Numbering Resources" refers to unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address
     space and Autonomous System numbers.

The following criteria for this policy are proposed:

1. Documentation of recognized experimental activity

A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's
objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible
document. It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimantal
Activity also includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes
also be published in a publically accessible document.

     A "publically accessible document" is a document that is publicly
     and openly available free of charges and free of any constraints
     of disclosure.

ARIN will not recognize an experimental activity under this policy if
the entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed.

ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental
activity documentation in the form of a document which has achieved
"IETF consensus" as described in RFC 2434.

2. Technical Coordination

ARIN requires that a recognized experimental activity is able to
demonstrate that the activity is technically coordinated.

    Technical coordination specifically includes consideration of any
    potential negative impact of the propsed experiment on the
    operation of the Internet and its deployed services, and
    consideration of any related experimental activity.

ARIN will review planned experimental activities to ensure that they are
technically coordinated.  This review will be conducted with ARIN and/or
third-party expertise and will include liaison with the IETF.


3. Coordination over Resource Use

When the IETF's standards development process proposes a change in the
use of Numbering Resources on an experimental basis the IETF should
use a liaison mechanism with the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
of this proposal. The RIRs will jointly or severally respond to the
IETF using the same liaison mechanism.


4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal

The Numbering Resources are allocated on a lease/license basis for a
period of one year. The allocation can be renewed on application to
ARIN providing information as per Detail One. The identity and details
of the applicant and the allocated Numbering Resources will be
published under the conditions of ARIN's normal publication policy.

5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment

ARIN will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis to any
applicant. Additional allocations to an organization already holding
experimental activity resources relating to the specified activity
outside the annual cycle will not be made unless justified by a
subsequent complete application.

     It's important for the requesting organization to ensure they have
     sufficient resources requested as part of their initial
     application for the proposed experimental use.

6. Resource Allocation Fees

ARIN may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made of
these experimental resources. This fee simply covers registration and
maintenance, rather than the full allocation process for standard ARIN
members. This administration fee should be as low as possible as these
requests do not have to undergo the same evaluation process as those
requested in the normal policy environment.

7. Resource Allocation Size

The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet
Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable
Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent with
the existing ARIN minimum allocation sizes, unless small
allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If
an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum
allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, their
experimental documentation should have clearly described and justified
why this is required.

8. Commercial Use Prohibited

If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used for
commercial purposes, or is being used for any activities not
documented in the original experiment description provided to ARIN,
ARIN reserves the right to immediately withdraw the resource and
reassign it to the free pool.

9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration

ARIN reserves the ability to assess and comment on the objectives of
the experiment with regard to the requested amount of Numbering
Resources and its technical coordination. ARIN reserves the ability to
modify the requested allocation as appropriate, and in agreement with
the proposer. In the event that the proposed modifications are not
acceptable, the requesting organization may request an appeal or
arbitration using the normal ARIN procedures. In this case, the
original proposer of the experimental activity may be requested to
provide additional information regarding the experiment, its
objectives and the manner of technical coordination, to assist in the
resolution of the appeal.

================================================




From crain at iana.org  Fri Apr  4 15:24:03 2003
From: crain at iana.org (John L Crain)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:24:03 -0800
Subject: [ppml] 201/8 Allocated by IANA to LACNIC
Message-ID: <16810129505.20030404122403@iana.org>


Hi Folks,

This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has alloacted the
following range of IPv4 addresses to LACNIC.

201.0.0.0/8

A notation of the allocation has been made at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.

You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly.

-- 
Best regards,
 John                          mailto:crain at iana.org



From crain at iana.org  Fri Apr  4 20:27:59 2003
From: crain at iana.org (John L Crain)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:27:59 -0800
Subject: [ppml] Update to IANA IPv4 Page
Message-ID: <8628365567.20030404172759@iana.org>

Hello All,

A few days later than originally expected but:

As announced to this list earlier this year, the IANA has
updated the IPv4 Address pages

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

to reflect the status of the following ranges as listed below.


173/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
174/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
175/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
176/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
177/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
178/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
179/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
180/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
181/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
182/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
183/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
184/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
185/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
186/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
187/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
189/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved
190/8   Apr 03   IANA - Reserved

Please send questions or comments to iana at iana.org


-- 
Best regards,
 John                          mailto:crain at iana.org



From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com  Mon Apr  7 09:51:53 2003
From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:51:53 -0400
Subject: [ppml] WHOIS-- More thoughts
Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E507706041E683@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com>

Hi all,
I know the meeting is going on this week, and I wanted to put this thought out.. 
Hopefully someone will see it and bring it up..

Since ARIN has a ORGABUSEHANDLE in the template, why does ARIN
allow anything in there but abuse@?
Should this be added as a template requirement?

Example:
04/07/03 09:50:59 IP block 64.32.129.167
OrgName:    MegaPath Networks Inc. 
OrgAbuseHandle: ZM125-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   MegaPath Networks Inc. 
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-925-201-2500
OrgAbuseEmail:  arin-abuse at megapath.net


Later,
Jim
Jim McBurnett 
Director of Information Technology 
Mid-South Management Company, Inc. 
P.O. Drawer 1634 
Spartanburg, SC 29304 
(864) 583 - 2907 
(864) 583 - 0589 fax 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030407/9947cbf8/attachment.htm>

From narten at us.ibm.com  Mon Apr  7 11:07:03 2003
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:07:03 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: Message from memsvcs@arin.net
   of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:54:51 EST." <200303051354.IAA14561@ops.arin.net> 
Message-ID: <200304071507.h37F73o08747@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>

I have some comments on this proposal.

> 5.1.1
> 	[under d) add:

> 	Other organizations are defined as any customer of the LIR.

I have no issue with this. The intent of the orignal wording was to
make it clear that the LIR is assigning address space to someone else,
not themselves internally. Clearly, a customer of the ISP is such an
example.

> 	No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses
> 	required, even if that number is one.

Not sure why this is needed or what problem this is intended to
fix. Specifically, the intent of the LIR requirement is that the LIR
be assigning address space in such a way that it will use up that
address space at some point in the future as IPv6 gets significant
deployment. If ISPs are giving out /48s and /64s, this will presumably
happen. But if the ISP is giving each customer a /128 (i.e, one
address), it is much less clear how quickly address space is being
consumed.

Looking it another way, if an ISP is planning on giving its customers
/128s, why does it /32 worth of address space?

> 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters

> 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d)

> 	To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirement to make 200
> 	/48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone
> 	requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy
> 	is amended.  In the event that this policy is amended the
> 	existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or
> 	waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial
> 	allocation date.

The intention of 5.1.1 is to give allocations to organizations that
are assigning address space to end sites. As we don't really know in
what time IPv6 will really take off, it is hard to come up with a hard
rule that says at what point an orgnization is making a Bad Faith
effort at assign space to customers. The "plan" for "200 sites", over
"2 years" was an attempt to capture the notion that allocations go to
organizations who are serious about assigning space to end sites, as
opposed to those that just want a "permanent" allocation that is "PI",
but can't otherwise meet the intention that they (eventually) assign
to significant numbers of end sites.

At the time this text was originally discussed, I think the individual
RIRs made it fairly clear that they did not intend to immediately go
after LIRs after 2 years to see if they really had 200 customers. What
they wanted was a tool to push back if a particular LIR clearly wasn't
doing anything with IPv6, had no real intentions too, and meanwhile,
looking at what other LIRs were doing, IPv6 was actually taking off
and compared to other LIRs, a particular LIR was really not making a
Good Faith attempt at meeting its obligations. Those LIRs would be
targets.

So, I'd certainly be willing to consider changes that made the above
more clear, or made potential LIRs feel better about applying (when
they should). But I'd be opposed to policy changes that undermines the
basic intent.

Having said that, I'm opposed to the above wording changes for 3
different reasons:

1) it goes against the spirit of being an LIR and seems to allow folks
   to get an IPv6 allocation when they have no plans to deploy
   IPv6. We should not be giving /32s to organizations that have not
   intention of assigning address space to end sites.

2) I'm also opposed to a 10 year waiver on fees. That is way too
   long. I think it is fine to have a fee waiver for a year or two,
   subject to extension as needed (which is more-or-less already the
   current situation, I believe). But I see no reason to lock in a ten
   year time period. That is excessive.

3) As a general rule, it seems bad policy to say that for any policy
   we put into place today, it is exempt from future policies or
   future policy changes. We always need to reserve the right to
   correct mistakes. That does not mean that new policies should
   ignore previous policies. Indeed, it should be required that new
   policies consider the impact they have to existing allocation
   holders. But they should retain the option to modifying previous
   policies.

> 5.8.2 Waiver of fees

> 	a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees
> 	shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and
> 	receiving space before Dec 31, 2004.  In the even that this
> 	policy is amended the existing IPv6 space holders shall
> 	under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until
> 	Dec 31, 2006.

Per above, I don't have a big problem with waiving fees, if the fees
are considered to be an excessive burden. But I'd like to understand
that better. My understanding is that that the fees associated with
getting a /32 are relatively low, and are a small fraction of the $$
that would be required to provide a production IPv6 service. I'd like
to understand more how the existing fees are barriors to getting IPv6
space and providing IPv6 service.

> 	b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal
> 	ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007.  All early adopters
> 	will have the same billing date regardless of the date
> 	they received their allocation.

> 5.8.3 Micro Allocations

> 	a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> 	criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> 	micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> 	is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> 	shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.

This goes against the intent of the IPv6 policy, namely that only LIRs
get address space from the RIRs, and that end sites do not. The above
seems to allow end sites to get /48s directly from RIRs. This is a
mistake and will open the floodgates.

> 	b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in
> 	5.8.2.

> 	c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to
> 	make further allocations or assignments out of their /48.  It
> 	is intended for their internal use only.

> 	d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall
> 	return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their
> 	upstream provider (a LIR).  This is requested in a good faith
> 	manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations
> 	granted under these waived criteria must be returned.

Thomas


From owen at delong.com  Mon Apr  7 15:46:50 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:46:50 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Porposal 2003-1c
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1048603875@dhcp156-237.corp.tellme.com>
References: <200303041636.LAA26902@ops.arin.net>
 <2147483647.1047315965@dhcp156-251.corp.tellme.com>
 <2147483647.1048603875@dhcp156-237.corp.tellme.com>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1049719609@[192.136.135.216]>

Well, despite the support on the mailing list, this proposal fell very flat
in the meeting.  There was some support for the idea of trying to improve
the quality of data in the database and the possible requirement for the
abuse contact.

Negative comments included:
	+	Liability issues with enforcement provision
	+	Unwillingness of orgs. to accept enforcement provisions
		(generally, there seems to be no support for ARIN having the
		ability to revoke assignments under any circumstances period.)
	+	The policy is too detailed

As a result of this feedback, I believe there is still an issue to be
addressed here, and that said issue requires policy.  As such, I have
performed another rewrite on the policy below in the hopes of bringing
it more in-line with the desires of the community, while hopefully
preserving the ability for the policy to provide some effective steps
towards solving the problem.

For lack of a beter term, I'm calling this 2003-1c.

>>> Came from 2003-1
>>  Came from 2003-1a
>   Came from 2003-1b
     New for  2003-1c
>
>>>
>> Policy Proposal 2003-1a: Required Performance of Abuse Contact
>>>
>>> 1. Statement of proposed Policy:
>>>
>> For the purposes of this policy, the following terms shall apply:
>>
>> ORG	An organization or organizational unit which receives one or more
>> 	resources from ARIN, whether by allocation or assignment.  In either
>> 	case, the ORG in question shall bear full responsibility under
>> 	this policy for meeting the requirements thereof and bearing
>> 	any consequences of failure to meet said responsibilities.
>>
>> 	This shall apply to the ORG to which ARIN directly allocated the
>> 	resource, or to another ORG, which, has received from the previous
>> 	ORG a transfer of the resources under ARIN's transfer policies.
>> 	A simply SWIP of an assignment to an ORG which does not have
>> 	a contractual relationship with ARIN shall not constitute such
>> 	a transfer.
>>
>> MAINTAINER
>> 	The appointed POC units which have authority and access to make
>> 	changes to the ARIN held data regarding a resource owned by a
>> 	particular ORG.
>>
>> POC	A point of contact, whether human or role.
>>
>> ABUSE CONTACT
>> 	This policy makes no effort to define Abuse.  It is the opinion
>> 	of the author of this policy that such a definition should come
>> 	from the IETF and not from ARIN.  It is the intent of this policy
>> 	to set standards for the response required from an abuse contact
>> 	without addressing the actions required by said contact.  Again,
>> 	it is the opinion of the author that said actions are outside
>> 	of ARIN's scope and belong within the IETF.
>>
>> 	An ABUSE contact is a POC for an ORG which is associated with an
>> 	ARIN issued resource as the POC responsible for addressing issues
>> 	of abuse originating at or from the resource in question.
>>
>> RESOURCE
>> 	In the case of ARIN, resources currently include ASNs and IPv4
>> 	and IPv6 address ranges which are allocated or assigned to
>> 	registered ORGs.
>>
>> ASN	An autonomous system number
>>
>> IPv4	Internet Protocol Version 4
>>
>> IPv6	Internet Protocol Version 6
>>
>> Proposed Policy
>>
>> For any given RESOURCE in the ARIN database, ARIN shall require at least
>> one and allow multiple ABUSE CONTACTS to be listed.  For at least one
>> ABUSE CONTACT in each resource, ARIN shall require and maintain at least
>> the following information:
>>
>> 	1.	Individual or Role
>>
>> 	2.	If Individual, full name
>>
 	3.	Address valid for Service of Legal Process
>> 		Must support physical delivery, registered mail, or both,
>> 		and shall indicate which is acceptable.
>>
>> 	4.	Email Address.
>>
>> 	5.	A list of "normal business hours" specified in terms of the
>> 		time zone applicable to the address in item 3 or in UTC, with
>> 		an indication of whether DST should be considered.  These
>> 		hours should comprise at least 30 hours per week.
>>
>> 	6.	A phone number
>>
>>
>> Each ORG shall be required to meet the following standards with respect
>> to the performance and responsiveness of the  required ABUSE CONTACT(s).
>> In cases where the language cannot be logically applied to a ROLE
>> account, it shall mean all individuals assigned by the ORG in question
>> to read the email or answer the phone calls to the addresses/numbers
>> listed in the ABUSE CONTACT.
>>
 	1.	Shall be capable of taking action or immediately contacting
 		a person capable of taking action to reasonably and
		effectively address an abuse complaint.

 	2.	Shall respond to the complaint as soon as
>> 		practicable with information on what actions, if any, are
>> 		being taken to stop the abuse.
>>
>> Further, if an entity believes an ORG is not living up to the
>> requirements set forth in this policy, they should be able to notify
>> ARIN of the issue, including detailed documentation of the efforts made
>> to contact the ORG and the results thereof.  Any complaint received by
>> ARIN which does not include the required information should receive only
>> a form-reply from ARIN indicating what information is required to verify
>> the complaint.
>>
>> In the event of a valid complaint, ARIN shall attempt to contact the ORG
>> in question and notify them of the complaint.  If ARIN is able to contact
the ORG in question, ARIN should make an effort to facilitate communication
between the complainant and the ORG.

If ARIN is unable to contact the ORG in question, ARIN shall annotate the
applicable records in the database with an indication that this contact
was unreachable, and the date of last attempted contact shall be maintained
in the database as well.  This data shall also be made visible via whois.

ARIN shall publish a list of the IP Address and ASN records which have
unreachable contacts.  This list shall be published in such a way that
it can be retrieved by an automatic process, and shall be updated at least
once per week.  The list should also be published in a well defined format
which can be parsed by an automated system.  Each ASN entry in the list
should include the ASN number and the date of last contact attempt.
Each IP Address entry in the list should include the Prefix, Length,
and date of last attempted contact.  ARIN may add fields to the list
which it feels contain an operational benefit.  The list should not
include any entry for which some reachable contact has been verified,
even if some of the contacts are unreachable.

Lastly, ARIN shall verify all contacts for an ORG each and every time
the ORG submits a template or other request to ARIN.  In the event
a contact associated with the ORG is determined to be unreachable,
ARIN shall delay it's response to the request and inform the ORG in
question of the need for updated contact information.  The request
should remain on hold until the contact issues are resolved.  Requests
for contact information update shall not be delayed by this provision.

>>
>>>
>>> Argument in favor:
	In a multitude of circumstances, it can become necessary for
	the community to be able to reach parties responsible for
	the operation of a network or autonomous system.  In these
	cases, the generally accepted practice is to look those
	contacts up in WHOIS.  It has become quite clear in recent
	years that there are several entries in the database which
	do not contain valid contact information.  Some through
	accident and time, some through deliberate efforts to
	obscure identity or prevent accountability.  As such, this
	policy is intended to provide assistance and a friendly
	reminder to organizations whose data is not up to date
	while simultaneously making it harder to avoid
	accountability.

	While ARIN cannot take on an enforcement role without
	suffering significant risk of litigation and would have
	to expand it's corporate charter to do so, by publishing
	data and presenting to the community a list of resources
	which do not have valid contact information, the common
	internet tactic of "peer pressure" can be brought to bear
	on this issue.

>>>
>>> Problems:
>>
	It is entirely possible that the peer pressure advocated in this
	policy would never materialize or that it wouldn't be effective.
	However, this will not be worse than the current situation.

	There is a chance that the list publication process could be
	targeted for litigation.  However, since this is a list that
	simply says "We have been unable to reach the contacts for these
	resources", a simple factual statement, rather than a list
	which is set up for the express purpose of filtration, it is
	difficult to imagine the litigation having much success.
	(Your lawyer may vary).
>
>>
>>
>>> 3.  Proposed timetable for implementation:
>>>
Once the policy is adopted, ARIN should have 180 days to make the necessary
changes to the software and the database.  Once that is complete, the
policy should take full effect.  All portions of the policy which do not
require software changes should be implemented as soon as possible.




From david.conrad at nominum.com  Mon Apr  7 15:56:26 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:56:26 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <0424C254-6933-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Apropos a comment I made during the Q&A during the IPv6 working group 
discussion...

According to the latest IPv6 architecture drafts:
- 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignment
- a bit under 246,290,604,621,824 /48s available under the other format 
specifiers

Just for fun, according to the US Census bureau:
- Estimated world population as of 4/7/03, 15:29 GMT+5: 6,285,260,947
- Estimated world population in 2050: ~9,000,000,000

Taking the 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignments, 
this means:
- 5600 /48s per person today
- 3909 /48s per person in 2050

And then there are the other format specifiers...

Note that those are /48s (each capable of addressing 64K /64s or, if 
you want ignore the auto-configuration goop that eats the lower 64, 
1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 /128s).

As such, I don't believe address conservation is or will be an issue.  
At least for the lifetime of IPv6.  Keeping the routing system 
constrained undoubtedly is, although I'm not convinced this is the RIRs 
job (after all, RIRs explicitly do not guarantee routability)...

(Hope I got my math right... :-))

Rgds,
-drc



From john at chagres.net  Mon Apr  7 16:48:25 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:48:25 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <0424C254-6933-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c2fd47$091e9620$1a3c2e40@laptoy>

which should support the idea that IPv6 allocation requirements
should be "more flexible" and such.

I agree its NOT the RIR's job to determine routability.  Let 
the market decide that.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
> 
> 
> Apropos a comment I made during the Q&A during the IPv6 working group 
> discussion...
> 
> According to the latest IPv6 architecture drafts:
> - 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignment
> - a bit under 246,290,604,621,824 /48s available under the 
> other format 
> specifiers
> 
> Just for fun, according to the US Census bureau:
> - Estimated world population as of 4/7/03, 15:29 GMT+5: 6,285,260,947
> - Estimated world population in 2050: ~9,000,000,000
> 
> Taking the 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for 
> assignments, 
> this means:
> - 5600 /48s per person today
> - 3909 /48s per person in 2050
> 
> And then there are the other format specifiers...
> 
> Note that those are /48s (each capable of addressing 64K /64s or, if 
> you want ignore the auto-configuration goop that eats the lower 64, 
> 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 /128s).
> 
> As such, I don't believe address conservation is or will be 
> an issue.  
> At least for the lifetime of IPv6.  Keeping the routing system 
> constrained undoubtedly is, although I'm not convinced this 
> is the RIRs 
> job (after all, RIRs explicitly do not guarantee routability)...
> 
> (Hope I got my math right... :-))
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 



From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Mon Apr  7 14:21:24 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:21:24 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F750@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

Thomas / folks,

> Thomas Narten wrote:
> I have some comments on this proposal.
> [large snip]

I agree with Thomas comments. More specifically:

> Per above, I don't have a big problem with waiving fees, if
> the fees are considered to be an excessive burden. But I'd
> like to understand that better. My understanding is that that
> the fees associated with getting a /32 are relatively low,
> and are a small fraction of the $$ that would be required to
> provide a production IPv6 service. I'd like to understand more
> how the existing fees are barriors to getting IPv6 space and
> providing IPv6 service.

I concur. Furthermore, I would say that if one can't fork out this kind
of fee, I would doubt that one has the necessary resources to provide
real production services. I do not like the idea of barriers built on
money, but the other side of this coin is that I have no problem with a
fee that weeds 14 year-olds with a cable modem and a free tunnel broker
out of the production IPv6 ISP business.


>> 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
>>   a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
>>   criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
>>   micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
>>   is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
>>   shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.

> This goes against the intent of the IPv6 policy, namely that
> only LIRs get address space from the RIRs, and that end sites
> do not. The above seems to allow end sites to get /48s directly
> from RIRs. This is a mistake and will open the floodgates.

I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a catastrophe. This
would be the creation act of the IPv6 swamp. As much as I would like to
have my own /48 PI block for home and have it appear in the global
routing table this does not scale.

In the long run this would be counter-productive anyway. Let's say that
I get a micro-allocation now, no problem as my router won't choke on 500
routes; but if in the long term if I have to buy the megabucks model and
the DS3 that comes with a million routes BGP4+ feed, I'm no better than
I am today.

Michel.

                       _   ____  __      __  ____   _    _   _    _
                      | | |  _ \ \ \    / / / ___| | \  / | | |  | |
Michel Py             | | | |_| | \ \  / / | |__   |  \/  | | |__| |
Sr. Network Engineer  | | |  __/   \ \/ /  |  _ \  | \  / | |  __  |
CCIE #6673            | | | |       \  /   | |_| | | |\/| | | |  | |
mpy at ieee.org          |_| |_|        \/     \___/  |_|  |_| |_|  |_|
                                IPv6 Multihoming Solutions
                        http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh
                     http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/public/ipv6mh/



From john at chagres.net  Mon Apr  7 17:26:16 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:26:16 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Ripe 261
Message-ID: <003201c2fd4c$52e95380$1a3c2e40@laptoy>

Is this a proposed policy for the ARIN community ??




From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Mon Apr  7 18:28:24 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:28:24 -0500 
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BA@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but potentially
every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem elements
perhaps....  there is no census data for these things, but undoubtedly this
represents a very large number as well.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: David Conrad
To: ppml at arin.net
Sent: 4/7/03 2:56 PM
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers

Apropos a comment I made during the Q&A during the IPv6 working group 
discussion...

According to the latest IPv6 architecture drafts:
- 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignment
- a bit under 246,290,604,621,824 /48s available under the other format 
specifiers

Just for fun, according to the US Census bureau:
- Estimated world population as of 4/7/03, 15:29 GMT+5: 6,285,260,947
- Estimated world population in 2050: ~9,000,000,000

Taking the 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignments, 
this means:
- 5600 /48s per person today
- 3909 /48s per person in 2050

And then there are the other format specifiers...

Note that those are /48s (each capable of addressing 64K /64s or, if 
you want ignore the auto-configuration goop that eats the lower 64, 
1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 /128s).

As such, I don't believe address conservation is or will be an issue.  
At least for the lifetime of IPv6.  Keeping the routing system 
constrained undoubtedly is, although I'm not convinced this is the RIRs 
job (after all, RIRs explicitly do not guarantee routability)...

(Hope I got my math right... :-))

Rgds,
-drc


From leslie at thinkingcat.com  Mon Apr  7 14:33:30 2003
From: leslie at thinkingcat.com (Leslie Daigle)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:33:30 -0400
Subject: [ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
References: <200303211633.LAA00860@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <3E91C47A.40000@thinkingcat.com>


I personally think Geoff Huston's proposed revision (posted to this
mailing list on April 4, 2003) is considerably improved
over this proposal, but I have some general questions/concerns
about the overall concept.

1/  What problem is this proposal intended to solve?
That experimental allocations have been done on an 
ad hoc basis, or that they have been done through IETF/IANA?

I can certainly appreciate the impetus to move beyond
ad hoc mechanisms.  But the proposal (this version & 
Geoff's posted revision) addresses both points above.
Some explanation as to why the IETF involvement should
be deprecated would be helpful.

2/  Context -- are there specific cases histories
that have been problematic (for the RIRs, therefore prompting
this policy proposal)?  

(I don't think an answer to this question would affect
the text of the proposal; but having that as part of the
discussion would help with the "what problem are we trying to
solve?" question).

3/  The proposal (at least Geoff's revised version) suggests
codifying changes to IETF process (that the IETF will liaise
with the RIRs before publishing documents describing
experiments that require experimental allocations).   While
this certainly seems like a good idea, some dialoguing
between the RIRs & the IETF, and probably the publication
of a consensus-based RFC, are required in order to make that
happen.  

4/  What is "an experiment"?  

a) A measurement effort using deployed standards-based protocols?
  (I.e., an effort requesting experimental allocations because
  the participants will not have the normal channels to obtain
  IP addresses/ASNs, or for which it is advisable/necessary
  to have all addresses from the same block, etc).

b) A testbed for new technology (i.e., not standards)?  (E.g.,
  the 6bone).


If b) (or "a) and b)"), I think further provision for technical
review (in my personal opinion, by the IETF, which is the Internet
protocol standards body) is needed.   The argument is that 
you need input from a broad range of perspectives that understand
impacts on all layers of the Internet to judge whether an experimental
technology will have adverse impact on the Internet at large.
Additionally, experimental deployment of novel technologies
is a pretty short step from enabling de facto standards ("running
code") irrespective of the quality or impact of the technology
itself.  Is ARIN really intending to become an arbiter of deployed
technology choices?


Leslie.


Member Services wrote:
> This policy proposal is being re-posted to the public
> policy mailing list to encourage continued discussion.
> This policy proposal was previously discussed on this
> mailing list and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting.
> Following previous discussions on this mailing list
> and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting, it has been
> determined consensus to pass this proposal as a new
> policy has not yet been achieved.
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> ### * ###
> 
> Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>  
> There have been a number of experimental address allocations 
> undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These 
> experimental address allocations have been made by the IANA 
> in coordination with standards bodies, such as the IETF, on 
> an ad hoc basis. There is currently no systematic means of 
> receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis as 
> part of a recognised experiment in Internet technology 
> deployment. The following policy is proposed: 
> 
> The RIRs will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring 
> temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under 
> the terms of recognised experimental activity. 
> 
> The following criteria for this policy are proposed: 
> 
> 1. Public Disclosure of Experimental Requests 
> 
> The organisation requesting the resources will have to detail 
> what experimental work they are going to carry out. Such detail 
> can usually be made either: 
> 
>   * by submitting a proposal that references a current IETF 
>     Experimental RFC (Detail Two), or 
>   * by submitting an 'experiment proposal' detailing what 
>     resources are required, and what activities will be 
>     carried out (Detail Three).
> 
> Such experimental proposals will, in the normal course of events 
> be made public upon acceptance of the proposal by an RIR. 
> Consideration will be given to non-disclosure constraints, but 
> this is anticipated to be a prohibitive constraint upon the use 
> of public Numbering Resources, even in an experimental context. 
> The RIR will not allocate resources if the entire research 
> experiment cannot be publicly disclosed as per Details Two and 
> Three following.
> 
> 2. Resource Coordination with Standards Development Bodies
> 
> The IETF from time to time describes experimental activities and 
> associated requirements for resources that will be required by 
> participants in the experiment. It is considered as being 
> acceptable for the organisation to reference a current Experimental 
> RFC and indicate the organisation's participation in the experiment. 
> 
> Organisations such as the IETF, who describe experimental 
> activities as part of their standards development process, need to 
> consider the associated Numbering Resource requirements with any 
> proposed experiment, and under this proposal will need to liaise 
> with the RIRs as part of the process of publishing a draft as an 
> experimental RFC. 
> 
> 3. Resource Coordination with Independent Experiments
> 
> For experimental proposals not covered by Detail Two, the RIR will 
> require the experiment's aims and objectives to be published in a 
> publicly accessible document. 
> 
> The RIRs have a strong preference for the use of an Experimental 
> RFC published through the IETF, but will accept other publication 
> mechanisms where the experiment's objectives and practices are 
> publicly and openly available free of charges and free of any 
> constraints of disclosure. 
> 
> The RIRs would also normally require that the experiment's 
> outcomes be published in an openly and freely available document, 
> again free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure. 
> 
> 4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal 
> 
> The Numbering Resources are allocated on a lease/license basis for 
> a period of one year. The allocation can be renewed on application 
> to the issuing RIR providing information as per in Detail One. The 
> identity and details of the applicant and the allocated Numbering 
> Resources will be published under the conditions of the RIR's 
> normal publication policy (for example, listed as a temporary 
> allocation in the RIR's database). 
> 
> 5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment 
> 
> The RIR will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis. 
> Additional allocations outside the annual cycle will not be made 
> unless justified by a subsequent complete application. It's 
> important for the requesting organisation to ensure they have 
> sufficient resources requested as part of their initial application 
> for the proposed experimental use. 
> 
> 6. Resource Allocation Fees
> 
> Each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation 
> made of these experimental resources. This fee simply covers 
> registration and maintenance, rather than the full allocation 
> process for standard RIR members. This administration fee should 
> be as low as possible as these requests do not have to undergo the 
> same evaluation process as those requested in the normal policy 
> environment. 
> 
> 7. Resource Allocation Size 
> 
> The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet 
> Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable 
> Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent 
> with the existing RIR minimum allocation sizes, unless small 
> allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. 
> If an organisation requires more resource than stipulated by the 
> minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, 
> they should include in their research proposal why this is required. 
> 
> 8. Commercial Use Prohibited 
> 
> If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used 
> for commercial purposes, or is being used for any activities not 
> documented in the original experiment description provided to the 
> RIR, the issuing RIR reserves the right to immediately withdraw 
> the resource and reassign it to the free pool. 
> 
> 9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration 
> 
> The RIRs should be in a position to assess and comment on the 
> objectives of the experiment with regard to the requested amount 
> of Numbering Resources. The issuing RIR should be able to modify 
> the requested allocation as appropriate, and in agreement with the 
> proposer. In the event that the proposed modifications are not 
> acceptable, the requesting organization may request an appeal or 
> arbitration using the normal procedures of the RIR. In this case, 
> the original standards body that endorsed the experimental action 
> may be requested to provide additional information regarding the 
> experiment and its objectives to assist in the resolution of the 
> appeal. 


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat 

Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------





From arin_ppml at comcept.net  Mon Apr  7 19:25:58 2003
From: arin_ppml at comcept.net (Brian Bergin)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:25:58 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BA@kronos.cait.wustl.e
 du>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030407191606.0375dd60@mail>

With NAT technology getting better and better do you really think every TV 
and toaster needs a public IP address?  Every individual and company 
already has access to millions of private IPs under IPv4.  Encouraging the 
use of public IPs on devices/computers with absolutely NO need to be on the 
public Internet is only going to allow hackers to ruin your holiday dinner 
when they hack your oven and change the temp to 600?F and you get burnt 
turkey or they turn off your furnace or turn off your water heater when 
it's -20?F outside.  Any way you look at it, putting an IP on "every 
electrical and electronic component as well as subsystems elements" is a 
bad idea, IMHO....

Maybe I'm just missing the big picture.  Conservation, IMHO, just isn't 
that crucial for IPv6.  I remember when IPv4 was going to be gone 
"tomorrow" or "next year" only a couple years ago.  I believe NAT has had a 
big part in the life extension of IPv4.

Just my 3? (inflation you know...)

Brian Bergin
ComCept Solutions, LLC



At 18:28 07 04 03 Monday, Bill Darte wrote:
>Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but potentially
>every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem elements
>perhaps....  there is no census data for these things, but undoubtedly this
>represents a very large number as well.
>
>Bill Darte
>ARIN AC
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Conrad
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Sent: 4/7/03 2:56 PM
>Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
>
>Apropos a comment I made during the Q&A during the IPv6 working group
>discussion...
>
>According to the latest IPv6 architecture drafts:
>- 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignment
>- a bit under 246,290,604,621,824 /48s available under the other format
>specifiers
>
>Just for fun, according to the US Census bureau:
>- Estimated world population as of 4/7/03, 15:29 GMT+5: 6,285,260,947
>- Estimated world population in 2050: ~9,000,000,000
>
>Taking the 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignments,
>this means:
>- 5600 /48s per person today
>- 3909 /48s per person in 2050
>
>And then there are the other format specifiers...
>
>Note that those are /48s (each capable of addressing 64K /64s or, if
>you want ignore the auto-configuration goop that eats the lower 64,
>1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 /128s).
>
>As such, I don't believe address conservation is or will be an issue.
>At least for the lifetime of IPv6.  Keeping the routing system
>constrained undoubtedly is, although I'm not convinced this is the RIRs
>job (after all, RIRs explicitly do not guarantee routability)...
>
>(Hope I got my math right... :-))
>
>Rgds,
>-drc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030407/7c95ae40/attachment.htm>

From narten at us.ibm.com  Tue Apr  8 07:47:29 2003
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 06:47:29 -0500
Subject: [ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental pur poses 
In-Reply-To: Message from gih@telstra.net
   of "Fri, 04 Apr 2003 19:50:53 +1000." <5.1.0.14.2.20030404194457.01f5cdb8@kahuna.telstra.net> 
Message-ID: <200304081147.h38BlTY08454@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>

I have some comments on this proposal.

> 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

> There have been a number of experimental address allocations
> undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental
> address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with
> the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is currently no systematic means
> of receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis as part of
> a recognized experiment in Internet technology deployment. The
> following policy is proposed:

Note: I'm assuming "experiment" means an experiment in the sense of
trying some new technology where what is needed is something other
than "global unicast address space", for which existing processes are
already in place within the RIRs for obtaining such space.

> ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary
> Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of
> recognized experimental activity.

High-level. If IANA has been making experimental allocations in the
past, what problem needs fixing? Why is a change needed? I would think
that:

1) experimental allocations are not a regional RIR issue, and we would
   want uniform review of requests (as opposed to per RIR
   review). This makes me wonder why an RIR needs to take this on as
   something they would support.

2) if ARIN (or any RIR) felt they needed to do this, there would need
   to be way to coordinate review of these proposals in a broader
   context. This includes among the RIRs and the IETF. I see nothing
   in this proposal that addresses inter-RIR coordination. This seems
   a shortcoming.

3) Jumping ahead to the another part of the document:   

> 7. Resource Allocation Size

> The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet
> Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable
> Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent with
> the existing ARIN minimum allocation sizes, unless small
> allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If
> an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum
> allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, their
> experimental documentation should have clearly described and justified
> why this is required.

I see absolutely no reason why an experimental allocation of size X
(where X is defined by the experiment) should be shoehorned into the
current default minimum allocation size. Indeed, the allocation should
be for precisely the amount of space that is needed, to minimize
abuse. E.g., if an experiment finds out it needs more space than the X
it originally envisioned (and justified), shouldn't any increase in
this amount also be re-reviewed? Not doing so would seem inconsistent
with the point of Section 5.

I think this points out to a broader issue. IANA is already in a
position to make special assignments (of arbitrary) size and perhaps
even out of particular address space that has NOT been allocated to
the RIRs (e.g., out side of 001). That is, by definition, an
experiment is something different than normal IP, so it is unclear to
me whether or not experimental allocations should always be allocated
out of "routable" space as the above says it must.  It seems to be
like IANA should retain control of the management of experimental
allocations.

Also how would RIR-specific allocations for experimental use interact
with the sparse allocation procedure discussed during today's meeting
(RIPE 261: IPv6 Address Space Management). A large allocation could
interfere with this algorithm.


> 1. Documentation of recognized experimental activity

> A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's
> objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible
> document. It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimantal
> Activity also includes the undertaking that the experiment's outcomes
> also be published in a publically accessible document.

One other critical requirement. Is the experiment actually an
experiment? In particular, will the experiment clearly terminate, and
can the address space be returned at the end of the experiment
(regardless of the outcome of the experience)? I'm worried about
end-runs around the normal allocation process; there are experiments
that involve getting software deployed where you can't in practice get
it turned off or recalled once the "experiment" is supposed to
end. Any evaluation of the experiment must verify that a proposed
experiment will actually end cleanly.

> ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental
> activity documentation in the form of a document which has achieved
> "IETF consensus" as described in RFC 2434.

I think this is a good direction to go in. Personally, I think any
experiment that requires a chunk of address space absolutely requires
an IETF review. Indeed, it needs a rather broad review to ensure the
experiment won't harm the internet and will terminate in a fixed
amount of time. But what does it mean for ARIN to have "a strong
preference" for going this route? The bottom line will be what happens
when ARIN gets a request where the requestor doesn't want to do
this. What happens then? (Why would a requestor not want to go the
IETF route? Perhaps, they have come to ARIN on the hopes that the
review will be less rigorous, e.g., after having been turned away by
the IETF.)

If ARIN really "strongly prefers" that experimental activity be
documented in an RFC per above, the straightforward way to achieve
this would be to simply adopt the policy that experimental allocations
are only done for experiments documented through IETF processes.

> 2. Technical Coordination

> ARIN requires that a recognized experimental activity is able to
> demonstrate that the activity is technically coordinated.

>     Technical coordination specifically includes consideration of any
>     potential negative impact of the propsed experiment on the
>     operation of the Internet and its deployed services, and
>     consideration of any related experimental activity.

> ARIN will review planned experimental activities to ensure that they are
> technically coordinated.  This review will be conducted with ARIN and/or
> third-party expertise and will include liaison with the IETF.

Definitely, experimental allocations need broad review. I'm worried
that the above wording isn't strong enough. It isn't specific enough
about what level of review will actually be achieved.

> 3. Coordination over Resource Use

> When the IETF's standards development process proposes a change in the
> use of Numbering Resources on an experimental basis the IETF should
> use a liaison mechanism with the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
> of this proposal. The RIRs will jointly or severally respond to the
> IETF using the same liaison mechanism.

Hmm. I worry that the liaison channel will be too formal and narrow. I
think the liaison process can be good for pointing out that a
particular experiment is being considered and providing a "heads up"
that an activity needs to be followed up on. But the input should go
through more typical channels. E.g, if the IETF has a Last Call on the
document, the RIR community could provide input directly through that
process. Having the RIR response go through the liaison raises the
problem that the RIRs will likely have to speak with a single voice
(which is odd, since there is no requirement from what I can see that
the RIRs need to speak with one voice with regards to a proposal they
are evaluating just by themselves). If they speak with one voice, any
feedback is likely to be narrow and specific, rather than reflecting
the full range of input that one might expect from the RIR community.

Thomas


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Apr  8 09:18:48 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:18:48 -0500 
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BC@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Brian,

Of course I can recall when the thought of needing more than 256k of RAM and
20MB hardrives was unimaginable and then how could we ever run out of
addresses with over 4 billion in v4.... the issue is always we can't imagine
the need when we establish the standard.  The pain of transition from v4 to
v6 is going to me long and intense... the only thing worse than no standard
is a widely deployed, but obsolete standard.  

Would you have guessed in 1982 that GPS would direct cruise missiles to
targets within feet over hundreds of miles?  Would you have believed that as
a standard feature of higher-end automobiles you would have navigation and
interactive voice technologies or even the pervasiveness of wireless PDAs?
Did you plan to have access to email and millions of webservers around the
globe in 1982?  The Internet and global communications is just beginning.
It took 15 years for PCs and Networks to be truely integrated into
businesses.  It will take a similar time period to understand the potential
for the Internet.  Massive integration of systems will demand unique
addressing and massively integrated systems are a certainty because
automating processes is reliable and inexpensive ways to manage complexity.


NAT is obtrusive and costly because it requires human intervention and it
precludes important technologies today. 

In 20 or even years when the world or communications integration has
matured, who is to say what the needs will be. Security may always be a
limiting factor for exposure of systems globally, but I doubt it. 
Why make the same mistakes we made with earlier estimates of need?  We have
evidence that resources are not inexhaustable and that the pain of
transitions are disruptive and ugly.  Why set ourselves uf for it yet again
with a communication vehicle which will be orders of magnitude more embedded
and pervasive...running unimaginably important systems.... let's not have to
change again, because the ease of waste seemed correct in the face of an
inexhaustable address space.

IMHO.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Bergin
To: 'ppml at arin.net '
Sent: 4/7/03 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: [ppml] Big numbers

With NAT technology getting better and better do you really think every
TV and toaster needs a public IP address?  Every individual and company
already has access to millions of private IPs under IPv4.  Encouraging
the use of public IPs on devices/computers with absolutely NO need to be
on the public Internet is only going to allow hackers to ruin your
holiday dinner when they hack your oven and change the temp to 600?F and
you get burnt turkey or they turn off your furnace or turn off your
water heater when it's -20?F outside.  Any way you look at it, putting
an IP on "every electrical and electronic component as well as
subsystems elements" is a bad idea, IMHO....

Maybe I'm just missing the big picture.  Conservation, IMHO, just isn't
that crucial for IPv6.  I remember when IPv4 was going to be gone
"tomorrow" or "next year" only a couple years ago.  I believe NAT has
had a big part in the life extension of IPv4.

Just my 3? (inflation you know...)

Brian Bergin
ComCept Solutions, LLC



At 18:28 07 04 03 Monday, Bill Darte wrote:


Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but
potentially
every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem elements
perhaps....  there is no census data for these things, but undoubtedly
this
represents a very large number as well.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: David Conrad
To: ppml at arin.net
Sent: 4/7/03 2:56 PM
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers

Apropos a comment I made during the Q&A during the IPv6 working group 
discussion...

According to the latest IPv6 architecture drafts:
- 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignment
- a bit under 246,290,604,621,824 /48s available under the other format 
specifiers

Just for fun, according to the US Census bureau:
- Estimated world population as of 4/7/03, 15:29 GMT+5: 6,285,260,947
- Estimated world population in 2050: ~9,000,000,000

Taking the 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignments, 
this means:
- 5600 /48s per person today
- 3909 /48s per person in 2050

And then there are the other format specifiers...

Note that those are /48s (each capable of addressing 64K /64s or, if 
you want ignore the auto-configuration goop that eats the lower 64, 
1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 /128s).

As such, I don't believe address conservation is or will be an issue.  
At least for the lifetime of IPv6.  Keeping the routing system 
constrained undoubtedly is, although I'm not convinced this is the RIRs 
job (after all, RIRs explicitly do not guarantee routability)...

(Hope I got my math right... :-))

Rgds,
-drc 



From lee.howard at wcom.com  Tue Apr  8 10:59:00 2003
From: lee.howard at wcom.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <0424C254-6933-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304081038250.4510-100000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>

Big bang equal infinite.  We can all think of worst-case scenarios where
an attitude that IPv6 addresses are free and undepletable could lead to
depletion.  The example I like to give is of IPv6 addresses replacing
UPC codes, and every trip to WalMart results in another couple hundred
addresses in the trash bin at the curb.  If we treat v6 as if it's 
infinite, then the value of each address is infinitely small and can be 
infinitely wasted.  

Further burning of bits toward the left may be dangerous.  IMHO, YMMV

Lee


On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, David Conrad wrote:

> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:56:26 -0700
> From: David Conrad <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
> 
> Apropos a comment I made during the Q&A during the IPv6 working group 
> discussion...
> 
> According to the latest IPv6 architecture drafts:
> - 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignment
> - a bit under 246,290,604,621,824 /48s available under the other format 
> specifiers
> 
> Just for fun, according to the US Census bureau:
> - Estimated world population as of 4/7/03, 15:29 GMT+5: 6,285,260,947
> - Estimated world population in 2050: ~9,000,000,000
> 
> Taking the 35,184,372,088,832 /48s currently available for assignments, 
> this means:
> - 5600 /48s per person today
> - 3909 /48s per person in 2050
> 
> And then there are the other format specifiers...
> 
> Note that those are /48s (each capable of addressing 64K /64s or, if 
> you want ignore the auto-configuration goop that eats the lower 64, 
> 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 /128s).
> 
> As such, I don't believe address conservation is or will be an issue.  
> At least for the lifetime of IPv6.  Keeping the routing system 
> constrained undoubtedly is, although I'm not convinced this is the RIRs 
> job (after all, RIRs explicitly do not guarantee routability)...
> 
> (Hope I got my math right... :-))
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> 



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Tue Apr  8 11:42:38 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 08:42:38 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BA@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <B9CECD52-69D8-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Bill,

On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 03:28  PM, Bill Darte wrote:
> Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but 
> potentially
> every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem elements
> perhaps....

And I wasn't talking about individual addresses, but /48s...

>  there is no census data for these things, but undoubtedly this
> represents a very large number as well.

To give a slightly different perspective, if the RIRs were, on average, 
to allocate a /48 per second, 24x7x365, the current global unicast /3 
would last a bit over 1 million years.

Which is good, given how long it would likely take the routing system 
to converge... :-)

Rgds,
-drc



From joao at psg.com  Tue Apr  8 12:03:53 2003
From: joao at psg.com (Joao Luis Silva Damas)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:03:53 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <B9CECD52-69D8-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
References: <B9CECD52-69D8-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <p05210617bab8a2774cff@[193.0.3.10]>

At 8:42 -0700 8/4/03, David Conrad wrote:

>
>To give a slightly different perspective, if the RIRs were, on 
>average, to allocate a /48 per second, 24x7x365, the current global 
>unicast /3 would last a bit over 1 million years.

In terms of /32s, this means a bit more than a /32 per day.
Since /32s seem to the units of allocation right now, it perhaps 
gives a better understanding (the efficiency of use of the /48s 
inside the /32s goes out of the equation if you look at it like this).


Joao Damas


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Apr  8 12:21:50 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:21:50 -0500 
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BE@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

David,

But what makes you think the paradigm for address allocation and assignment
will be human interactive RIR structures that exist today?
With an 'infinite' number of addresses that couldn't be exhausted for 1M
years at one per second....let's automate the assignment to the devices that
need them.... estimate the total number of new electronic and electrical
devices that want managing... making queries for assignments.

What is the total number of GET requests per second on the Internet today?

Just seems to me that couching the answers to future problems in the
paradigms of today is the way that we get in trouble.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: David Conrad
To: Bill Darte
Cc: 'ppml at arin.net '
Sent: 4/8/03 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Big numbers

Bill,

On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 03:28  PM, Bill Darte wrote:
> Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but 
> potentially
> every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem
elements
> perhaps....

And I wasn't talking about individual addresses, but /48s...

>  there is no census data for these things, but undoubtedly this
> represents a very large number as well.

To give a slightly different perspective, if the RIRs were, on average, 
to allocate a /48 per second, 24x7x365, the current global unicast /3 
would last a bit over 1 million years.

Which is good, given how long it would likely take the routing system 
to converge... :-)

Rgds,
-drc


From david.conrad at nominum.com  Tue Apr  8 12:45:24 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:45:24 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030407191606.0375dd60@mail>
Message-ID: <7E9C35C4-69E1-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Brian,

On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 04:25  PM, Brian Bergin wrote:
> With NAT technology getting better and better do you really think 
> every TV and toaster needs a public IP address??

Need?  Probably not.  It would, however, be nice to not have to deal 
with the complications NAT cause.

> Every individual and company already has access to millions of private 
> IPs under IPv4.?

The problem is, they are the same millions.  Not a big deal for 
individuals (today), but it can be/is a problem for companies, 
particularly large ones that merge.

> Encouraging the use of public IPs on devices/computers with absolutely 
> NO need to be on the public Internet is only going to allow hackers to 
> ruin your holiday dinner when they hack your oven and change the temp 
> to 600?F and you get burnt turkey or they turn off your furnace or 
> turn off your water heater when it's -20?F outside.?

NAT != Firewall.

> Any way you look at it, putting an IP on "every electrical and 
> electronic component as well as subsystems elements" is a bad idea, 
> IMHO....

Having each device being uniquely identifiable (if not identified) 
makes integration of those devices much easier.

> Maybe I'm just missing the big picture.? Conservation, IMHO, just 
> isn't that crucial for IPv6.?

This was, in fact, my point.

> I remember when IPv4 was going to be gone "tomorrow" or "next year" 
> only a couple years ago.? I believe NAT has had a big part in the life 
> extension of IPv4.

No question.

Rgds,
-drc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030408/d288796a/attachment.bin>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Apr  8 13:07:11 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:07:11 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BA@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BA@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <20030408170711.GA50952@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 05:28:24PM -0500, Bill Darte wrote:
> Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but potentially
> every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem elements
> perhaps....  there is no census data for these things, but undoubtedly this
> represents a very large number as well.

But, probably smaller.

For instance, it's easy to invision every house having an IPv6
network inside it where the refrigerator talks to the toaster or
whatever.  Sure, all those devices need an address, but a /64 should
be _more_ than enough for even the largest palace. :)  Even if we
assume a 2nd network to support "internet" stuff (so the first one
can be firewalled/secured/protected differently and easily) that's
two per house.

Items outside the house (electrical grids, water systems, whatnot)
are likely to be "aggregated" by the authority running them.  Again,
while /64 subnets may be sparsely populated by what they could
hold, they would probably often still have hundreds, or thousands,
or more devices in them.

I'm not too worried about the number of numbers available.  I am
very worried about the routing system.  Let's allocate one /64 to
every home for home automation.  Let's allocate one /48 to every
person for them to do with as they please.  Let's give utilities
some /40's to make every meter be "online", number wise, no problem.
However, let's now try and have a routing system that allows every
house to have it's own subnet, and be provider independent, and
not have to renumber when someone sneezes.  That's a huge problem.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030408/2962b0ab/attachment.sig>

From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com  Tue Apr  8 13:44:01 2003
From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:44:01 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E5077060750B78@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com>

Without opening up too many cans of worms:
NAT Traversal within companies that have merged and
then share the same RFC1918 address can work...
Albeit with its own pain...
It can be said that anything can be MADE to work... But will is scale?
I can even make a 12 year old Radio Shack Multimeter IP addressable, but
will is scale?


Second: There are at least 2 organizations, that I personnaly have knowledge of,
that use RW addresses on 95% of all their systems RIGHT NOW as I type this.
One has a large # of Class B's and one has several Class A's.
Having worked for one of them, I can say that that had it's issues too...
No matter what we say here and now and where we think we need to be going,
we will look back on this topic as old thinking 5 or 10 years from now.
I, for one, think we should start pushing every provider to start working
on the v6 implementations, and "get along little doggie." 
Nothing we talk about will give us the experience to do the untested except to do it!!!

I have seen many electonics projects come and go and many a systems theorized, but until
the voltage met the IC, did the theory prove right or wrong.

Let's put a plan togather, right or wrong, and test it.

Automated IP assignment from scripting? I know it is being done at a large # of ISP's.
They have some knowledge. Put that to work.

Rerouting v4, it is being done now. Cisco, Juniper, and others, speak up, 
make an IETF commitee reccomendation to the RIR's.

Nothing is worse than indecisiveness in a time when actions will do more to
further the development of Interconnectivity.....

I see 2 arguments here:
If we keep waiting for IPv6 to be setup, then it might be to late.

and 

IANA has over 25 Class A networks that are not even in use, why worry now, the DOT COM
BOMB is OVER........


We can put off this change as long as we want, but WE as the community all know how much of
a pain renumbering is. Would you rather do it sooner, with less IPv4 addresses to renumber or later
with far more work?  IPv6, according to some, should stop the need of renumbering........


Anyway, as Forrest Gump said:" That's all I Got to say about that"



J





Brian, 


On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 04:25 PM, Brian Bergin wrote: 
With NAT technology getting better and better do you really think every TV and toaster needs a public IP address?  


Need? Probably not. It would, however, be nice to not have to deal with the complications NAT cause. 


Every individual and company already has access to millions of private IPs under IPv4.  


The problem is, they are the same millions. Not a big deal for individuals (today), but it can be/is a problem for companies, particularly large ones that merge. 


Encouraging the use of public IPs on devices/computers with absolutely NO need to be on the public Internet is only going to allow hackers to ruin your holiday dinner when they hack your oven and change the temp to 600?F and you get burnt turkey or they turn off your furnace or turn off your water heater when it's -20?F outside.  


NAT != Firewall. 


Any way you look at it, putting an IP on "every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystems elements" is a bad idea, IMHO.... 


Having each device being uniquely identifiable (if not identified) makes integration of those devices much easier. 


Maybe I'm just missing the big picture.  Conservation, IMHO, just isn't that crucial for IPv6.  


This was, in fact, my point. 


I remember when IPv4 was going to be gone "tomorrow" or "next year" only a couple years ago.  I believe NAT has had a big part in the life extension of IPv4. 


No question. 


Rgds, 
-drc 


From david.conrad at nominum.com  Tue Apr  8 14:46:13 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:46:13 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304081038250.4510-100000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <5F945458-69F2-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Lee,

On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 07:59  AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> Big bang equal infinite.

Took me a while to parse this.  Thought you might be making a 
grammatically incorrect cosmological statement.

> We can all think of worst-case scenarios where
> an attitude that IPv6 addresses are free and undepletable could lead to
> depletion.

I agree.  I am not suggesting v6 is infinite.  I am, however, 
suggesting that the scale of the numbers here is a paradigm shift in 
terms of how address allocation/conservation should be thought of.  
Thinking in terms of the historical /8 allocations to universities et 
al doesn't apply (at least in the sense of address conservation) in v6 
land.

> The example I like to give is of IPv6 addresses replacing
> UPC codes, and every trip to WalMart results in another couple hundred
> addresses in the trash bin at the curb.

But wouldn't these be /128s?  Got oodles of /128s in a single /48 
delegated to WalMart... :-)

> If we treat v6 as if it's
> infinite, then the value of each address is infinitely small and can be
> infinitely wasted.

Of  course.  Again, I am not suggesting v6 is infinite.  It is a 
limited resource, albeit of vast size.  I believe allocation requests 
will be self-limiting, if for no no other reason, there is a cost to 
registration, even for very big numbers, thus there will be a simple 
constraint on the amount of address space allocated, namely money.

Rgds,
-drc



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Tue Apr  8 15:06:12 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:06:12 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454BE@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <2A1D205A-69F5-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Bill,

On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 09:21  AM, Bill Darte wrote:
> But what makes you think the paradigm for address allocation and 
> assignment
> will be human interactive RIR structures that exist today?

I'm not making that assumption (in fact, I actually assume the 
opposite).

> What is the total number of GET requests per second on the Internet 
> today?

Not relevant.  How fast do you want (and how much do you want to pay) 
to update a database?

> Just seems to me that couching the answers to future problems in the
> paradigms of today is the way that we get in trouble.

I'm talking about a single /3.  There are more.  If we use up the first 
in the foreseeable future, assuming address consuming applications 
don't take a revolutionary turn (in which case a different /3 would be 
appropriate), I figure it would make sense to re-evaluate whether fixed 
128 bit addresses is the right model.

Rgds,
-drc



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Tue Apr  8 15:12:34 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:12:34 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <20030408170711.GA50952@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <0DCC6140-69F6-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 10:07  AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I'm not too worried about the number of numbers available.  I am
> very worried about the routing system.
...
> However, let's now try and have a routing system that allows every
> house to have it's own subnet, and be provider independent, and
> not have to renumber when someone sneezes.  That's a huge problem.

Exactly.  Arguing that the RIRs should not allocate address space 
because the address space is limited is simply a waste of time.  Yes, 
it is limited, as are the number of atoms in the Universe.

The _REAL_ problem is whether or not that address space is or will ever 
be routable.  We can't flat route the v4 space or even close to it, 
multiplying that number by 2^96 doesn't help.  2^45 (or 2^48 or 2^32 or 
2^29, pick your big number) has the potential to be a swamp of 
inconceivable proportions.

The question is, what does the ARIN community believe ARIN's role is or 
should be in limiting the creation of this new, bigger, deeper, swamp?

Rgds,
-drc



From gih at telstra.net  Tue Apr  8 14:59:29 2003
From: gih at telstra.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 04:59:29 +1000
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <002e01c2fd47$091e9620$1a3c2e40@laptoy>
References: <0424C254-6933-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030409045124.01e1e220@kahuna.telstra.net>

At 02:48 PM 4/7/2003 -0600, John M. Brown wrote:
>which should support the idea that IPv6 allocation requirements
>should be "more flexible" and such.
>
>I agree its NOT the RIR's job to determine routability.  Let
>the market decide that.


In which case the proposals I've heard to split up the V6 address space on a
country-by-country basis get harder and harder to fend off. The RIR structure
is, as far as I can tell, attuned to creating a rational deployment 
scenario that
preserves the viability and utility of the network in its entirety. We've 
always
argued that other address distribution mechanisms would result in a 
non-functional
network, and one of the grounds we've used is that of a fragmented address
deployment that would be beyond the capability of equipment (hardware
and software) to support. I'm really not sure that we are prepared to walk
away and call routability a function of the market.

(I also also wonder how such a market could function in an inter-provider world
with a market for routing advertisements. Who pays whom for adding a distinct
routing entry in the global routing tables appears to me to get pretty 
convoluted
pretty quickly.)

regards,

    Geoff Huston






From bmanning at karoshi.com  Tue Apr  8 15:38:38 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <0DCC6140-69F6-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> from "David Conrad" at Apr 08, 2003 12:12:34 PM
Message-ID: <200304081938.h38JccA14162@karoshi.com>

> The _REAL_ problem is whether or not that address space is or will ever 
> be routable.  We can't flat route the v4 space or even close to it, 
> multiplying that number by 2^96 doesn't help.  2^45 (or 2^48 or 2^32 or 
> 2^29, pick your big number) has the potential to be a swamp of 
> inconceivable proportions.

	actually, its pretty close.  slightly older view of
	IPv6 has the top/left 32 bits as fixed, the bottom
	64 bits as fixed.  the second 32 bits as the delegation
	space for which CIDR applies....  which is the same
	issue as flat routing of the IPv4 space as /32s.
	Newer versions of address architecture have "freed"
	up the constraints on the left hand side...
> 
> The question is, what does the ARIN community believe ARIN's role is or 
> should be in limiting the creation of this new, bigger, deeper, swamp?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 



From crain at iana.org  Tue Apr  8 16:38:04 2003
From: crain at iana.org (John L Crain)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:38:04 -0700
Subject: [ppml] 60/8 allocated to APNIC by IANA
Message-ID: <3721015769.20030408133804@iana.org>

Hi Folks,

This is a heads up to let you know that the IANA has allocated the following range of IPv4 addresses to APNIC.

60.0.0.0/8

A notation of the allocation has been made at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space>.

The range 223/8 was at the same time returned to the IANA and it's status marked as IANA Reserved.


You may wish to adjust your filters accordingly.
  

-- 
Best regards,
 John Crain                         mailto:crain at iana.org



From pwilson at apnic.net  Tue Apr  8 23:59:35 2003
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:59:35 +1000
Subject: [ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
In-Reply-To: <3E91C47A.40000@thinkingcat.com>
Message-ID: <63B9746D4A92BF498D78584958F537E30C94F1@lotus.exchange>

Dear all,

As you may know, APNIC passed an experimental allocations policy last year.
The relevant document is available at:

http://www.apnic.net/docs/drafts/apnic-draft-experiment-v001.txt

Here are some comments which I think represent the general thinking on this
in our part of the world.



> 1/  What problem is this proposal intended to solve?
> That experimental allocations have been done on an
> ad hoc basis, or that they have been done through IETF/IANA?

The problem from APNIC's point of view is that APNIC members or others in
this community may have had needs for address space for experimental
purposes, and yet our policies made no accomodation for this.  A suggestion
was made that APNIC implement a simple policy recognising this need and
providing resources specifically for the purpose, and specifically a for
limited time basis. This policy was proposed at an APNIC meeting, and at no
stage did anyone suggest that 
the policy was inappropriate or outside APNIC's scope.


> 
> I can certainly appreciate the impetus to move beyond
> ad hoc mechanisms.  But the proposal (this version &
> Geoff's posted revision) addresses both points above.
> Some explanation as to why the IETF involvement should
> be deprecated would be helpful.

In APNIC's case, it was never the intention that IETF's involvement be
deprecated.  In fact section 6.1 of the doc above says specifically that an
allocation can be made where the requirement is described in an experimental
RFC.  An early draft of the document included only this provision, however
it was later suggested to add an alternative which is described in 6.2:

      6.2	Alternative publication approved by APNIC

	Experiments may be eligible for an allocation if they are
	described in a document that is available free of charge and
	publicly accessible in a forum approved by APNIC.
	
	Under this criterion, APNIC has the sole discretion to
	determine whether such an experiment is eligible. To do so,
	APNIC may liaise with IETF working groups, other standards
	bodies, RIRs, or Internet experts to evaluate the status of
	the document, the validity of the experiment it describes,
	and the Internet resource requirements of the experiment. 
	
	The requestors must specifically refer to the published
	document, describe their participation in the experiment, and
	provide a summary of the experiment which details their
	requirement for Internet resources.


> 
> 2/  Context -- are there specific cases histories
> that have been problematic (for the RIRs, therefore prompting
> this policy proposal)?  

Proposed experimental uses have entered into the APNIC request process in
the past, and have been dealt with in accordance with the circumstances.
The proponents of the policy in this case anticipated more such requests,
and although we have not made an experimental allocation yet, I believe that
a couple of requests may be in the pipeline (not yet submitted to APNIC).


> 
> 4/  What is "an experiment"?
> 
> a) A measurement effort using deployed standards-based protocols?
>   (I.e., an effort requesting experimental allocations because
>   the participants will not have the normal channels to obtain
>   IP addresses/ASNs, or for which it is advisable/necessary
>   to have all addresses from the same block, etc).
> 
> b) A testbed for new technology (i.e., not standards)?  (E.g.,
>   the 6bone).

Surely either would be candidates.  The APNIC policy does not attempt to
describe the term precisely; however you will also find that APNIC policies
lack precise descriptions of many important terms, not least "ISP",
"operational network", "multihome" and many others.  A critical
responsibility of the RIRs is in fact to make judgements as to how specific
cases can be treated within the policy framework which must be open to some
interpretation.  It is simply impossible for us to operate otherwise.


> 
> If b) (or "a) and b)"), I think further provision for
> technical review (in my personal opinion, by the IETF, which 
> is the Internet
> protocol standards body) is needed.   The argument is that 
> you need input from a broad range of perspectives that 
> understand impacts on all layers of the Internet to judge 
> whether an experimental technology will have adverse impact 
> on the Internet at large. Additionally, experimental 
> deployment of novel technologies is a pretty short step from 
> enabling de facto standards ("running
> code") irrespective of the quality or impact of the 
> technology itself.  Is ARIN really intending to become an 
> arbiter of deployed technology choices?

As you see, 6.1 of the APNIC policy allows experimental allocations
specifically  for the purposes of experimental RFCs, and section 6.2 goives
specific provision for liaison with IETF and/or other standards or expert
bodies.  I can certainly imagine requests which relate to some application
which is outside of IETF scope, and in which the IETF would have no opinion
or interest.


I hope this helps.

Paul Wilson
APNIC


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leslie
Daigle
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2003 4:34 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations



I personally think Geoff Huston's proposed revision (posted to this mailing
list on April 4, 2003) is considerably improved over this proposal, but I
have some general questions/concerns about the overall concept.

1/  What problem is this proposal intended to solve?
That experimental allocations have been done on an 
ad hoc basis, or that they have been done through IETF/IANA?

I can certainly appreciate the impetus to move beyond
ad hoc mechanisms.  But the proposal (this version & 
Geoff's posted revision) addresses both points above.
Some explanation as to why the IETF involvement should
be deprecated would be helpful.

2/  Context -- are there specific cases histories
that have been problematic (for the RIRs, therefore prompting this policy
proposal)?  

(I don't think an answer to this question would affect
the text of the proposal; but having that as part of the discussion would
help with the "what problem are we trying to solve?" question).

3/  The proposal (at least Geoff's revised version) suggests codifying
changes to IETF process (that the IETF will liaise with the RIRs before
publishing documents describing
experiments that require experimental allocations).   While
this certainly seems like a good idea, some dialoguing
between the RIRs & the IETF, and probably the publication
of a consensus-based RFC, are required in order to make that happen.  

4/  What is "an experiment"?  

a) A measurement effort using deployed standards-based protocols?
  (I.e., an effort requesting experimental allocations because
  the participants will not have the normal channels to obtain
  IP addresses/ASNs, or for which it is advisable/necessary
  to have all addresses from the same block, etc).

b) A testbed for new technology (i.e., not standards)?  (E.g.,
  the 6bone).


If b) (or "a) and b)"), I think further provision for technical review (in
my personal opinion, by the IETF, which is the Internet
protocol standards body) is needed.   The argument is that 
you need input from a broad range of perspectives that understand impacts on
all layers of the Internet to judge whether an experimental technology will
have adverse impact on the Internet at large. Additionally, experimental
deployment of novel technologies is a pretty short step from enabling de
facto standards ("running
code") irrespective of the quality or impact of the technology itself.  Is
ARIN really intending to become an arbiter of deployed technology choices?


Leslie.


Member Services wrote:
> This policy proposal is being re-posted to the public
> policy mailing list to encourage continued discussion.
> This policy proposal was previously discussed on this
> mailing list and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting. Following
> previous discussions on this mailing list and at the ARIN X Public 
> Policy Meeting, it has been determined consensus to pass this proposal 
> as a new policy has not yet been achieved.
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> ### * ###
> 
> Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
>  
> There have been a number of experimental address allocations 
> undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental 
> address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with 
> standards bodies, such as the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is 
> currently no systematic means of receiving other Numbering Resources 
> on a temporary basis as part of a recognised experiment in Internet 
> technology deployment. The following policy is proposed:
> 
> The RIRs will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring 
> temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the 
> terms of recognised experimental activity.
> 
> The following criteria for this policy are proposed:
> 
> 1. Public Disclosure of Experimental Requests
> 
> The organisation requesting the resources will have to detail what 
> experimental work they are going to carry out. Such detail can usually 
> be made either:
> 
>   * by submitting a proposal that references a current IETF 
>     Experimental RFC (Detail Two), or 
>   * by submitting an 'experiment proposal' detailing what 
>     resources are required, and what activities will be 
>     carried out (Detail Three).
> 
> Such experimental proposals will, in the normal course of events be 
> made public upon acceptance of the proposal by an RIR. Consideration 
> will be given to non-disclosure constraints, but this is anticipated 
> to be a prohibitive constraint upon the use of public Numbering 
> Resources, even in an experimental context. The RIR will not allocate 
> resources if the entire research experiment cannot be publicly 
> disclosed as per Details Two and Three following.
> 
> 2. Resource Coordination with Standards Development Bodies
> 
> The IETF from time to time describes experimental activities and 
> associated requirements for resources that will be required by 
> participants in the experiment. It is considered as being acceptable 
> for the organisation to reference a current Experimental RFC and 
> indicate the organisation's participation in the experiment.
> 
> Organisations such as the IETF, who describe experimental activities 
> as part of their standards development process, need to consider the 
> associated Numbering Resource requirements with any proposed 
> experiment, and under this proposal will need to liaise with the RIRs 
> as part of the process of publishing a draft as an experimental RFC.
> 
> 3. Resource Coordination with Independent Experiments
> 
> For experimental proposals not covered by Detail Two, the RIR will 
> require the experiment's aims and objectives to be published in a 
> publicly accessible document.
> 
> The RIRs have a strong preference for the use of an Experimental RFC 
> published through the IETF, but will accept other publication 
> mechanisms where the experiment's objectives and practices are 
> publicly and openly available free of charges and free of any 
> constraints of disclosure.
> 
> The RIRs would also normally require that the experiment's outcomes be 
> published in an openly and freely available document, again free of 
> charges and free of any constraints of disclosure.
> 
> 4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal
> 
> The Numbering Resources are allocated on a lease/license basis for a 
> period of one year. The allocation can be renewed on application to 
> the issuing RIR providing information as per in Detail One. The 
> identity and details of the applicant and the allocated Numbering 
> Resources will be published under the conditions of the RIR's normal 
> publication policy (for example, listed as a temporary allocation in 
> the RIR's database).
> 
> 5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment
> 
> The RIR will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis. 
> Additional allocations outside the annual cycle will not be made 
> unless justified by a subsequent complete application. It's important 
> for the requesting organisation to ensure they have sufficient 
> resources requested as part of their initial application for the 
> proposed experimental use.
> 
> 6. Resource Allocation Fees
> 
> Each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation 
> made of these experimental resources. This fee simply covers 
> registration and maintenance, rather than the full allocation process 
> for standard RIR members. This administration fee should be as low as 
> possible as these requests do not have to undergo the same evaluation 
> process as those requested in the normal policy environment.
> 
> 7. Resource Allocation Size
> 
> The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet 
> Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable 
> Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent with 
> the existing RIR minimum allocation sizes, unless small allocations 
> are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If an 
> organisation requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum 
> allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, they should 
> include in their research proposal why this is required.
> 
> 8. Commercial Use Prohibited
> 
> If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used for 
> commercial purposes, or is being used for any activities not 
> documented in the original experiment description provided to the RIR, 
> the issuing RIR reserves the right to immediately withdraw the 
> resource and reassign it to the free pool.
> 
> 9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration
> 
> The RIRs should be in a position to assess and comment on the 
> objectives of the experiment with regard to the requested amount of 
> Numbering Resources. The issuing RIR should be able to modify the 
> requested allocation as appropriate, and in agreement with the 
> proposer. In the event that the proposed modifications are not 
> acceptable, the requesting organization may request an appeal or 
> arbitration using the normal procedures of the RIR. In this case, the 
> original standards body that endorsed the experimental action may be 
> requested to provide additional information regarding the experiment 
> and its objectives to assist in the resolution of the appeal.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat 

Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------




From john at chagres.net  Wed Apr  9 01:47:43 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:47:43 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <0DCC6140-69F6-11D7-A18D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <000001c2fe5b$8c619680$7d7ba8c0@laptoy>


ARIN should make sure that the numbers allocated are unique
to each entity.org.  

The routeability of that space is not a RIR's prime issue.  I'm
not paying them to assure that a prefix is routeable, only that
nobody else has he same bit pattern.

I really think part of this is moot, in that we don't have a 
stampeed of people wanting v6 space in the ARIN region.  

There are people/orgs that want to do real work with v6, but
can't get the space from either ARIN or their transit provider
as the transit provider doesn't offer v6 services.

I know, I've beat this horse silly......  but the fact remains
that there are ARIN members that do not feel they meet the requirements
for v6 space and they would like to use it.  There are orgs that would
become ARIN members just for v6 space alone, but again the current
rules don't let them int.  sort of trade restrictive...



> The question is, what does the ARIN community believe ARIN's 
> role is or 
> should be in limiting the creation of this new, bigger, deeper, swamp?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 



From john at chagres.net  Wed Apr  9 02:12:57 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:12:57 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F750@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <000101c2fe5f$10f2efe0$7d7ba8c0@laptoy>

-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michel Py
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:21 PM
> To: Thomas Narten; Member Services
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
> 
> 
> Thomas / folks,
> 
> > Thomas Narten wrote:
> > I have some comments on this proposal.
> > [large snip]
> 
> I agree with Thomas comments. More specifically:
> 
> > Per above, I don't have a big problem with waiving fees, if 
> the fees 
> > are considered to be an excessive burden. But I'd like to 
> understand 
> > that better. My understanding is that that the fees associated with 
> > getting a /32 are relatively low, and are a small fraction 
> of the $$ 
> > that would be required to provide a production IPv6 
> service. I'd like 
> > to understand more how the existing fees are barriors to 
> getting IPv6 
> > space and providing IPv6 service.

People already own the gear.  v4 production services pay for it.

v6 is a niche (speaking ARIN region)

if it wasn't then we would see Sprint and UUNET trying to SELL it
today, yet you can't give them money for v6.  They don't have it,
ergo its not a real service, product or something thats "production"
(flames begone)

 
> I concur. Furthermore, I would say that if one can't fork out 
> this kind of fee, I would doubt that one has the necessary 
> resources to provide real production services. I do not like 
> the idea of barriers built on money, but the other side of 
> this coin is that I have no problem with a fee that weeds 14 
> year-olds with a cable modem and a free tunnel broker out of 
> the production IPv6 ISP business.

Then you are not aware of the true market place and are only thinking
in terms of the large providers.  I have 4 ISP clients today that would
be happy to start working on v6 services.  And their gear supports it
v4 services paid (paying) for the gear.  v6 has no $$ income attached.


> >> 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> >>   a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> >>   criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> >>   micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> >>   is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> >>   shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
> 
> I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a 
> catastrophe. This would be the creation act of the IPv6 
> swamp. As much as I would like to have my own /48 PI block 
> for home and have it appear in the global routing table this 
> does not scale.

So because we 'think' there will be a massive problem down 
the road we are limiting the deployment of the technology 
today??

I remember when I taught IP routing at 3com in 97 or so (hmm
six years ago), the standard pitch was.  IPv6 will be out
in a year or two and then there will be a fast migration to
it.

6 years later, we still aren't even there.  There aren't even
v6 AAAA's in the root.

v4 was/is different.

> In the long run this would be counter-productive anyway. 
> Let's say that I get a micro-allocation now, no problem as my 
> router won't choke on 500 routes; but if in the long term if 
> I have to buy the megabucks model and the DS3 that comes with 
> a million routes BGP4+ feed, I'm no better than I am today.

In the long term there might actually be v6 services.  I'll gladly
take a micro today, and deal with changes later.




and please strip my name off the bloody CC's.  Its a PIA to get 2
to 4 copies of the same message and all the layered replies.  Just
ship it to the list.

john brown



From john at chagres.net  Wed Apr  9 02:19:58 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:19:58 -0600
Subject: [ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for experimental pur poses 
In-Reply-To: <200304081147.h38BlTY08454@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
Message-ID: <000201c2fe60$0c298b80$7d7ba8c0@laptoy>

RIR's want to do this because they want to be the IANA, at least
for ASN's and IP's..

RIR's wish to take as much control away from IANA, because of the
letters ICANN.  ICANN should be left with letters, not numbers.

RIR's don't believe they are child orgs to IANA, not since Postel
passed away......

I do happen to agree that IANA is the proper and RIGHT place
for experimental allocations.  It would be better received
in the community if ICANN would get a proper CTO.   But thats
a different conversation....

just my $o dot A worth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 5:47 AM
> To: Geoff Huston
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2002-02 Address space allocations for 
> experimental pur poses 
> 
> 
> I have some comments on this proposal.
> 
> > 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
> 
> > There have been a number of experimental address allocations 
> > undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental 
> > address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with 
> > the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is currently no 
> systematic means 
> > of receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis 
> as part of 
> > a recognized experiment in Internet technology deployment. The 
> > following policy is proposed:
> 
> Note: I'm assuming "experiment" means an experiment in the 
> sense of trying some new technology where what is needed is 
> something other than "global unicast address space", for 
> which existing processes are already in place within the RIRs 
> for obtaining such space.
> 
> > ARIN will allocate Numbering Resources to entities 
> requiring temporary 
> > Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of 
> > recognized experimental activity.
> 
> High-level. If IANA has been making experimental allocations 
> in the past, what problem needs fixing? Why is a change 
> needed? I would think
> that:
> 
> 1) experimental allocations are not a regional RIR issue, and we would
>    want uniform review of requests (as opposed to per RIR
>    review). This makes me wonder why an RIR needs to take this on as
>    something they would support.
> 
> 2) if ARIN (or any RIR) felt they needed to do this, there would need
>    to be way to coordinate review of these proposals in a broader
>    context. This includes among the RIRs and the IETF. I see nothing
>    in this proposal that addresses inter-RIR coordination. This seems
>    a shortcoming.
> 
> 3) Jumping ahead to the another part of the document:   
> 
> > 7. Resource Allocation Size
> 
> > The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet 
> > Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable 
> > Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be 
> consistent with 
> > the existing ARIN minimum allocation sizes, unless small 
> allocations 
> > are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If an 
> > organization requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum 
> > allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, their 
> > experimental documentation should have clearly described 
> and justified 
> > why this is required.
> 
> I see absolutely no reason why an experimental allocation of 
> size X (where X is defined by the experiment) should be 
> shoehorned into the current default minimum allocation size. 
> Indeed, the allocation should be for precisely the amount of 
> space that is needed, to minimize abuse. E.g., if an 
> experiment finds out it needs more space than the X it 
> originally envisioned (and justified), shouldn't any increase 
> in this amount also be re-reviewed? Not doing so would seem 
> inconsistent with the point of Section 5.
> 
> I think this points out to a broader issue. IANA is already 
> in a position to make special assignments (of arbitrary) size 
> and perhaps even out of particular address space that has NOT 
> been allocated to the RIRs (e.g., out side of 001). That is, 
> by definition, an experiment is something different than 
> normal IP, so it is unclear to me whether or not experimental 
> allocations should always be allocated out of "routable" 
> space as the above says it must.  It seems to be like IANA 
> should retain control of the management of experimental allocations.
> 
> Also how would RIR-specific allocations for experimental use 
> interact with the sparse allocation procedure discussed 
> during today's meeting (RIPE 261: IPv6 Address Space 
> Management). A large allocation could interfere with this algorithm.
> 
> 
> > 1. Documentation of recognized experimental activity
> 
> > A Recognized Experimental Activity is one where the experiment's 
> > objectives and practices are described in a publicly accessible 
> > document. It is a normal requirement that a Recognized Experimantal 
> > Activity also includes the undertaking that the 
> experiment's outcomes 
> > also be published in a publically accessible document.
> 
> One other critical requirement. Is the experiment actually an 
> experiment? In particular, will the experiment clearly 
> terminate, and can the address space be returned at the end 
> of the experiment (regardless of the outcome of the 
> experience)? I'm worried about end-runs around the normal 
> allocation process; there are experiments that involve 
> getting software deployed where you can't in practice get it 
> turned off or recalled once the "experiment" is supposed to 
> end. Any evaluation of the experiment must verify that a 
> proposed experiment will actually end cleanly.
> 
> > ARIN has a strong preference for the recognition of experimental 
> > activity documentation in the form of a document which has achieved 
> > "IETF consensus" as described in RFC 2434.
> 
> I think this is a good direction to go in. Personally, I 
> think any experiment that requires a chunk of address space 
> absolutely requires an IETF review. Indeed, it needs a rather 
> broad review to ensure the experiment won't harm the internet 
> and will terminate in a fixed amount of time. But what does 
> it mean for ARIN to have "a strong preference" for going this 
> route? The bottom line will be what happens when ARIN gets a 
> request where the requestor doesn't want to do this. What 
> happens then? (Why would a requestor not want to go the IETF 
> route? Perhaps, they have come to ARIN on the hopes that the 
> review will be less rigorous, e.g., after having been turned 
> away by the IETF.)
> 
> If ARIN really "strongly prefers" that experimental activity 
> be documented in an RFC per above, the straightforward way to 
> achieve this would be to simply adopt the policy that 
> experimental allocations are only done for experiments 
> documented through IETF processes.
> 
> > 2. Technical Coordination
> 
> > ARIN requires that a recognized experimental activity is able to 
> > demonstrate that the activity is technically coordinated.
> 
> >     Technical coordination specifically includes 
> consideration of any
> >     potential negative impact of the propsed experiment on the
> >     operation of the Internet and its deployed services, and
> >     consideration of any related experimental activity.
> 
> > ARIN will review planned experimental activities to ensure 
> that they 
> > are technically coordinated.  This review will be conducted 
> with ARIN 
> > and/or third-party expertise and will include liaison with the IETF.
> 
> Definitely, experimental allocations need broad review. I'm 
> worried that the above wording isn't strong enough. It isn't 
> specific enough about what level of review will actually be achieved.
> 
> > 3. Coordination over Resource Use
> 
> > When the IETF's standards development process proposes a 
> change in the 
> > use of Numbering Resources on an experimental basis the IETF should 
> > use a liaison mechanism with the Regional Internet 
> Registries (RIRs) 
> > of this proposal. The RIRs will jointly or severally respond to the 
> > IETF using the same liaison mechanism.
> 
> Hmm. I worry that the liaison channel will be too formal and 
> narrow. I think the liaison process can be good for pointing 
> out that a particular experiment is being considered and 
> providing a "heads up" that an activity needs to be followed 
> up on. But the input should go through more typical channels. 
> E.g, if the IETF has a Last Call on the document, the RIR 
> community could provide input directly through that process. 
> Having the RIR response go through the liaison raises the 
> problem that the RIRs will likely have to speak with a single 
> voice (which is odd, since there is no requirement from what 
> I can see that the RIRs need to speak with one voice with 
> regards to a proposal they are evaluating just by 
> themselves). If they speak with one voice, any feedback is 
> likely to be narrow and specific, rather than reflecting the 
> full range of input that one might expect from the RIR community.
> 
> Thomas
> 



From john at chagres.net  Wed Apr  9 02:38:26 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:38:26 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <200304071507.h37F73o08747@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
Message-ID: <000301c2fe62$a0554c70$7d7ba8c0@laptoy>

lots of stuff, not going to comment on all of it.

from my perspective the current policy restricts ISP's from
even making the request for space.

1. If the policy says 2 years and 200 allocs.  The policy
does not say "we will look the other way if you are nice,
and if you arn't we will come at you".

   To quote John Curan.  Policy needs tobe "Crisp and Clear"

   To imply that the RIR's would look the other way in some
cases and not in others, is NOT crisp and clear.

   My attorney would advise me NOT to sign any agreement that
didn't specifically spell everything out.


2.  you use the term, "as IPv6 gets significant deployment"
    allow me to edit
    "if IPv6 gets significant deployment"

    As long as we restrict the allocation of IPv6 to the point
    where people who have reasonable likelihood of doing something
    can't get the space, we won't see significant deployment.

3.  The more I read about v6 alloc policies, the historical docs,
    etc, the more I get the gut feeling that we are having a 
    gut reaction to the problems that IPv4 almost faced a decade
    ago.

    The sky is falling, We are out of space, Route tables are 
    to big.

    Hmmm,  We have enought v4 space until when ?? 2030 ??
           The sky didn't fall
           Routers got bigger, more memory, smarter routines

    When the likes of <insert favorite big ISP> figures out how to
    aggregate their prefixes the routing table will get smaller.
    (My BGP table is around 75K routes per peer, seems happy)


4.   There are orgs that have the ability to do real live v6 work
     but can't get space.  not even from their transit providers.
     Costs are an issue today.  Every penny counts.

     No garage shop research, ignoring inovation from places that
     have inovated before.  Or should we only have MS, IBM, et al
     doing the research ??




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:07 AM
> To: Member Services
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
> 
> 
> I have some comments on this proposal.
> 
> > 5.1.1
> > 	[under d) add:
> 
> > 	Other organizations are defined as any customer of the LIR.
> 
> I have no issue with this. The intent of the orignal wording 
> was to make it clear that the LIR is assigning address space 
> to someone else, not themselves internally. Clearly, a 
> customer of the ISP is such an example.
> 
> > 	No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses
> > 	required, even if that number is one.
> 
> Not sure why this is needed or what problem this is intended 
> to fix. Specifically, the intent of the LIR requirement is 
> that the LIR be assigning address space in such a way that it 
> will use up that address space at some point in the future as 
> IPv6 gets significant deployment. If ISPs are giving out /48s 
> and /64s, this will presumably happen. But if the ISP is 
> giving each customer a /128 (i.e, one address), it is much 
> less clear how quickly address space is being consumed.
> 
> Looking it another way, if an ISP is planning on giving its 
> customers /128s, why does it /32 worth of address space?
> 
> > 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters
> 
> > 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d)
> 
> > 	To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirement 
> to make 200
> > 	/48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone
> > 	requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy
> > 	is amended.  In the event that this policy is amended the
> > 	existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or
> > 	waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial
> > 	allocation date.
> 
> The intention of 5.1.1 is to give allocations to 
> organizations that are assigning address space to end sites. 
> As we don't really know in what time IPv6 will really take 
> off, it is hard to come up with a hard rule that says at what 
> point an orgnization is making a Bad Faith effort at assign 
> space to customers. The "plan" for "200 sites", over "2 
> years" was an attempt to capture the notion that allocations 
> go to organizations who are serious about assigning space to 
> end sites, as opposed to those that just want a "permanent" 
> allocation that is "PI", but can't otherwise meet the 
> intention that they (eventually) assign to significant 
> numbers of end sites.
> 
> At the time this text was originally discussed, I think the 
> individual RIRs made it fairly clear that they did not intend 
> to immediately go after LIRs after 2 years to see if they 
> really had 200 customers. What they wanted was a tool to push 
> back if a particular LIR clearly wasn't doing anything with 
> IPv6, had no real intentions too, and meanwhile, looking at 
> what other LIRs were doing, IPv6 was actually taking off and 
> compared to other LIRs, a particular LIR was really not 
> making a Good Faith attempt at meeting its obligations. Those 
> LIRs would be targets.
> 
> So, I'd certainly be willing to consider changes that made 
> the above more clear, or made potential LIRs feel better 
> about applying (when they should). But I'd be opposed to 
> policy changes that undermines the basic intent.
> 
> Having said that, I'm opposed to the above wording changes 
> for 3 different reasons:
> 
> 1) it goes against the spirit of being an LIR and seems to allow folks
>    to get an IPv6 allocation when they have no plans to deploy
>    IPv6. We should not be giving /32s to organizations that have not
>    intention of assigning address space to end sites.
> 
> 2) I'm also opposed to a 10 year waiver on fees. That is way too
>    long. I think it is fine to have a fee waiver for a year or two,
>    subject to extension as needed (which is more-or-less already the
>    current situation, I believe). But I see no reason to lock in a ten
>    year time period. That is excessive.
> 
> 3) As a general rule, it seems bad policy to say that for any policy
>    we put into place today, it is exempt from future policies or
>    future policy changes. We always need to reserve the right to
>    correct mistakes. That does not mean that new policies should
>    ignore previous policies. Indeed, it should be required that new
>    policies consider the impact they have to existing allocation
>    holders. But they should retain the option to modifying previous
>    policies.
> 
> > 5.8.2 Waiver of fees
> 
> > 	a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees
> > 	shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and
> > 	receiving space before Dec 31, 2004.  In the even that this
> > 	policy is amended the existing IPv6 space holders shall
> > 	under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until
> > 	Dec 31, 2006.
> 
> Per above, I don't have a big problem with waiving fees, if 
> the fees are considered to be an excessive burden. But I'd 
> like to understand that better. My understanding is that that 
> the fees associated with getting a /32 are relatively low, 
> and are a small fraction of the $$ that would be required to 
> provide a production IPv6 service. I'd like to understand 
> more how the existing fees are barriors to getting IPv6 space 
> and providing IPv6 service.
> 
> > 	b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal
> > 	ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007.  All early adopters
> > 	will have the same billing date regardless of the date
> > 	they received their allocation.
> 
> > 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> 
> > 	a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> > 	criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> > 	micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> > 	is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> > 	shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
> 
> This goes against the intent of the IPv6 policy, namely that 
> only LIRs get address space from the RIRs, and that end sites 
> do not. The above seems to allow end sites to get /48s 
> directly from RIRs. This is a mistake and will open the floodgates.
> 
> > 	b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in
> > 	5.8.2.
> 
> > 	c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to
> > 	make further allocations or assignments out of their /48.  It
> > 	is intended for their internal use only.
> 
> > 	d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall
> > 	return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their
> > 	upstream provider (a LIR).  This is requested in a good faith
> > 	manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations
> > 	granted under these waived criteria must be returned.
> 
> Thomas
> 



From narten at us.ibm.com  Wed Apr  9 09:04:30 2003
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 09:04:30 -0400
Subject: [ppml] 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations 
In-Reply-To: Message from pwilson@apnic.net
   of "Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:59:35 +1000." <63B9746D4A92BF498D78584958F537E30C94F1@lotus.exchange> 
Message-ID: <200304091304.h39D4U305244@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>

Hi Paul.

> The problem from APNIC's point of view is that APNIC members or others in
> this community may have had needs for address space for experimental
> purposes, and yet our policies made no accomodation for this.

One of the things that came out during the ARIN discussion is that
there is lack of understanding what the term "experiment" actually
means. In some cases, it is believed to be an exception to the normal
RIR allocation rules, where someone needs unicast address space, but
doesn't meet the current criteria. Here the intention may well be to
use the address space for normal purposes. That is, the "experiment"
is not an experiment in the sense of using technology differently
(whether existing technology or something non-standards based) from
what is currently in use. The issue is finding a way to allocate
address space to be used for normal purposes. In general, I don't have
an issue with this kind of "experiment".

But there are other types of experiments too. For technology
experiments, where the experimentation may potentially have
interesting effects on the internet itself (e.g., operationally), I
really think those experiments need to be reviewed carefully first by
a broad section of the community. I have the general concern that if
each of the RIRs allow such experiments, then folks will go venue
shopping to find a place where they can get an allocation with the
fewest questions asked. And for those that worry about these things,
there would now be many more places/venues where they need to be
paying attention for such proposals in order to review them all. I
don't see this as a benefit.

> A suggestion was made that APNIC implement a simple policy
> recognising this need and providing resources specifically for the
> purpose, and specifically a for limited time basis. This policy was
> proposed at an APNIC meeting, and at no stage did anyone suggest
> that the policy was inappropriate or outside APNIC's scope.

I wasn't aware of this policy being adopted in APNIC until after it
had already been adopted (and I believe others had the same
problem). So yes, you can say no one objected, but I'll argue that
perhaps the policy didn't receive sufficent review from the broader
community. I worry that a similar situation will arise when someone
proposes a specific experiment.

> > I can certainly appreciate the impetus to move beyond
> > ad hoc mechanisms.  But the proposal (this version &
> > Geoff's posted revision) addresses both points above.
> > Some explanation as to why the IETF involvement should
> > be deprecated would be helpful.

> In APNIC's case, it was never the intention that IETF's involvement
> be deprecated.  In fact section 6.1 of the doc above says
> specifically that an allocation can be made where the requirement is
> described in an experimental RFC.

In the cases where an experimental RFC makes the allocation, the
request would go through IANA. Why do we need multiple ways of
processing such proposals? The current proposal expands the number of
ways persons can make requests. I don't see that as a benefit.

>       6.2	Alternative publication approved by APNIC

> 	Experiments may be eligible for an allocation if they are
> 	described in a document that is available free of charge and
> 	publicly accessible in a forum approved by APNIC.
> 	
> 	Under this criterion, APNIC has the sole discretion to
> 	determine whether such an experiment is eligible. To do so,
> 	APNIC may liaise with IETF working groups, other standards
> 	bodies, RIRs, or Internet experts to evaluate the status of
> 	the document, the validity of the experiment it describes,
> 	and the Internet resource requirements of the experiment. 
> 	
> 	The requestors must specifically refer to the published
> 	document, describe their participation in the experiment, and
> 	provide a summary of the experiment which details their
> 	requirement for Internet resources.

Having multiple places where experiments can be approved, runs the
risk of having different criteria in different venues, which can lead
to venue shopping. This doesn't seem like a feature to me. 

> > 
> > 2/  Context -- are there specific cases histories
> > that have been problematic (for the RIRs, therefore prompting
> > this policy proposal)?  

> Proposed experimental uses have entered into the APNIC request process in
> the past, and have been dealt with in accordance with the circumstances.
> The proponents of the policy in this case anticipated more such requests,
> and although we have not made an experimental allocation yet, I believe that
> a couple of requests may be in the pipeline (not yet submitted to APNIC).

It would be really helpful, I think, if folks would point to specific
proposals and/or allocations so we can see in concrete terms what
types of experiments people are thinking about. I suspect that a large
part of the problem is differing ideas of what "experimental
allocations" are intended to cover.


> > 4/  What is "an experiment"?
> > 
> > a) A measurement effort using deployed standards-based protocols?
> >   (I.e., an effort requesting experimental allocations because
> >   the participants will not have the normal channels to obtain
> >   IP addresses/ASNs, or for which it is advisable/necessary
> >   to have all addresses from the same block, etc).
> > 
> > b) A testbed for new technology (i.e., not standards)?  (E.g.,
> >   the 6bone).

> Surely either would be candidates.

And what about proposals that were first brought to the IETF and
didn't get support there because of technical problems associated with
the proposal? The same proposal is then brought to the individual RIRs
to see if they get a more sympathetic ear there? This is an area where
I do have a real concern.

Thomas


From memsvcs at arin.net  Wed Apr  9 11:17:08 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.51.0304091111320.29410@ops.arin.net>


The ARIN Board of Trustees is considering making
changes to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy
Evaluation Process. These changes were discussed at
the ARIN XI meeting in Memphis, on April 7, 2003.

The presentation slides are located at:

http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/

Comments are welcome and encouraged and should be
sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).


Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From william at elan.net  Wed Apr  9 11:13:09 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP abandoned?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304090741020.3292-100000@sokol.elan.net>

I was not expecting my proposals for micro-assignments or the one for 
ipv4 changes to pass - it was more of to get a reaction from the community
to these needs, So AC decision to abandon these is just fine as they are 
going to look into these issues and understood that something may need to 
be done. I'll comment on micro-allocations separatly as the direction AC 
has suggested is not quite what community may want when they are talking
about micro-assignments.

But I was kind of expecting the "Whois AUP" policy to get good reaction 
and in fact it did - there were no negative comments on the floor and two 
suggestions were that policy needs to be unified - i.e. AUP for both whois 
and bulk whois (that is in fact what policy was intended to do!) and that 
1 month time to resign agreement is too short. 

However for some reason AC has decided to abondon the policy, The justification
was that new policy needs to be created that is for both whois aup and bulk
whois aup. Again - that is what I was intending - look at the very fist line
in the proposal "The proposal -->changes<-- current bulk whois aup to 
become general whois aup", it was intended that this policy by itself will 
replace current bulk whois. In light of suggestions from the floor to make 
it more clear, I'd propose the following modifications to my policy proposal:
  In section 3 - replace sentence that begins with "These organizations must
sign 'Acceptable Use Policty for Bulk Copies of ARIN WHOIS Data' agreement" 
with "These organizations must sign an agreement for bulk whois access"
  In section 3 change "resubmit the agreement on monthly basis" to 
"resubmit the agreement when requested by ARIN to do so, which should be 
done at least once per year"

I believe this will be sufficient to incorporate comments from the floor.
As such and considering the revisions and my explanation I would like to 
get clear understanding from ARIN AC (have somebody at AC publicly comment 
on this mailing list) why the policy was abanadoned. If this was purely 
due to misunderstanding about that policy was supposed to be unified for 
all aup access and was not supposed to create two separate whois "aup" 
policies, then I'd like AC to reconsider and not abandon the policy but 
rather consider it work in progress and let me resubmit with changes by 
the next meeting, which would be above or other suggestions that AC may 
have that are relevent. If there are other reasons for abandoing this 
policy then I'd like to hear them, because I'm very confused about AC 
actions right now.

Those people at AC who have voted at AC meeting to abondon this policy - I 
expect public comment on this list why this was done.

--- 
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net



From william at elan.net  Wed Apr  9 11:39:24 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.51.0304091111320.29410@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304090813320.3292-100000@sokol.elan.net>

I'd like people on this mailing to pay take very good look at what is 
being proposed at http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/, this is 
very serious revision of the process in my view both good and bad.

First few slides about "Submitting a Policy Proposal" and "AC role" seems 
quite good, its good to have AC comment on proposals and make sure they 
are well written - I would like however this to be more public on this 
mailing list, rather then in private to authors, but either one is 
acceptable as long as authors are accomodated. Timing seems very similar 
to what we have right now, so I have no comment there.

What I do have major comment are last slide as well as what was said on 
the live meeting. Basicly the ideas is that proposals will in general be 
brought in by AC (AC creates proposals out of ideas that they think are 
good and would be accepted) and be discussed and accepted by consensus on 
live public policy meeting that the DECISIVE role will be left to the 
meeting and NOT TO MAILING LIST as is done currently. This means that few 
companies on the meeting with help from AC and BoT will dominate the 
decisions (and as I have already commented many times and which is not 
disputed is that 50% of meeting attendies are from large ISPs, while 
these companies make only 5% of ARIN membership and far far less as far 
as general ARIN community) - seems like we're abandoning idea of internet 
democracy and rather would like to institute "Corporate Democracy" or 
Roman Senate like situation as far as decision making process. I'm very 
very concerned about this and while its probably a futile cause to change 
this general direction, I'd like people and primarily small companies 
that make majority of ARIN to seriously consider if this is what they 
want from ARIN.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:

> 
> The ARIN Board of Trustees is considering making
> changes to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy
> Evaluation Process. These changes were discussed at
> the ARIN XI meeting in Memphis, on April 7, 2003.
> 
> The presentation slides are located at:
> 
> http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/
> 
> Comments are welcome and encouraged and should be
> sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).
> 
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Apr  9 15:03:29 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:03:29 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <D84169D6-6ABC-11D7-9169-000393BA879A@multicasttech.com>
References: <20030408170711.GA50952@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <D84169D6-6ABC-11D7-9169-000393BA879A@multicasttech.com>
Message-ID: <20030409190329.GA85512@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 02:55:34PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I thought that the rightmost 64 bits were supposed to be used to store 
> the
> MAC address and related info, so a /64 is like a IPv4 /32 ?

Much of the IPv6 documentation talks this way.  On my employer's
test network we are using a /64 broken into /126's for point to
point links with no issues.  Works great.  I've also set up unix
servers with static addresses (rather than doing autodiscovery) on
things like /120's, works great with the code I've tested as well.

So, it would appear forwarding code treats it as a full /128 bit
space, and the only things assuming the lower /64 bits are special
are things that adhere to other standards (autodiscovery, mac
encoded in the address, etc).

It's still unclear to me how IPv6 will really be used.  The ISP's
that I see experimenting with IPv6 are largely treating it the same
way as IPv4.  Yes, there are are bigger addresses, and the bogon
list is different and all that, but really it's IPv4 with bigger
addresses from an ISP point of view.  Sure, people may filter peers
on a /48 or something like that (all that's still up in the air
too, best I can tell), but that's no different than the IPv4 ad-hoc
situation that developed.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From tme at multicasttech.com  Wed Apr  9 14:55:34 2003
From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:55:34 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <20030408170711.GA50952@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <D84169D6-6ABC-11D7-9169-000393BA879A@multicasttech.com>

I thought that the rightmost 64 bits were supposed to be used to store 
the
MAC address and related info, so a /64 is like a IPv4 /32 ?

I think that there is no possibility of running out of IPv6 addresses
from shear exhaustion - there are way too many. However, with some of 
the schemes I have seen (where the address space is carved up to store 
various things) might be in danger of running out.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 05:28:24PM -0500, Bill 
> Darte wrote:
>> Of course, we are not talking about numbering individuals, but 
>> potentially
>> every electrical and electronic component as well as subsystem 
>> elements
>> perhaps....  there is no census data for these things, but 
>> undoubtedly this
>> represents a very large number as well.
>
> But, probably smaller.
>
> For instance, it's easy to invision every house having an IPv6
> network inside it where the refrigerator talks to the toaster or
> whatever.  Sure, all those devices need an address, but a /64 should
> be _more_ than enough for even the largest palace. :)  Even if we
> assume a 2nd network to support "internet" stuff (so the first one
> can be firewalled/secured/protected differently and easily) that's
> two per house.
>
> Items outside the house (electrical grids, water systems, whatnot)
> are likely to be "aggregated" by the authority running them.  Again,
> while /64 subnets may be sparsely populated by what they could
> hold, they would probably often still have hundreds, or thousands,
> or more devices in them.
>
> I'm not too worried about the number of numbers available.  I am
> very worried about the routing system.  Let's allocate one /64 to
> every home for home automation.  Let's allocate one /48 to every
> person for them to do with as they please.  Let's give utilities
> some /40's to make every meter be "online", number wise, no problem.
> However, let's now try and have a routing system that allows every
> house to have it's own subnet, and be provider independent, and
> not have to renumber when someone sneezes.  That's a huge problem.
>
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
> <mime-attachment>



From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Wed Apr  9 16:46:04 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:46:04 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F758@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

Leo,

>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> I thought that the rightmost 64 bits were supposed to be used
>> to store the MAC address and related info, so a /64 is like a
>> IPv4 /32 ?

> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Much of the IPv6 documentation talks this way.  On my
> employer's test network we are using a /64 broken into /126's
> for point to point links with no issues.

One day you will have a surprise. Marshall is not entirely right as the
equivalent of a /32 is indeed a /128 _but yes_ the equivalent of a /30
is indeed a /64, please read:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.tx
t
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.t
xt

There are plans that use the lower 64 bits for different purposes (such
as CGAs, going slowly because of IPR issues). CGAs (Crypto Generated
Addresses) embed a crypto key in the IID and will likely need the full
64 bits. The way you SNAFU your own network is your own business but
don't whine when you have to renumber because you violated IETF
standards. The mask bound to an interface should be a /128 (a loopback,
for example) or a /64 (almost any other kind of interface).

Michel.



From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Apr  9 16:57:28 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:57:28 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F758@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
References: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F758@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <20030409205728.GA88554@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:46:04PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> One day you will have a surprise. Marshall is not entirely right as the
> equivalent of a /32 is indeed a /128 _but yes_ the equivalent of a /30
> is indeed a /64, please read:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.tx
> t
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.t
> xt

Note, I said this was on a test network where we are trying out
many things just to see if they work, not because they are a good
idea for a production service. :)

That said, I've seen the drafts, and to a large extent (which is
one of the reasons we're trying it) I don't see why an ISP can't
set aside a /64 (so externally it looks like one proper block),
but internally use it as /126's for P2P links.  They always get
statically configured, there are no end host services, they have
no MAC.

Note too, for a long time you had to use a /30 in the IPv4 world,
and people finally got smart and reaized a /31 works fine.  I've
already asked one vendor to support /127 IPv6 links. :)

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030409/eaa91d28/attachment.sig>

From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Apr  9 17:58:00 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:58:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <200304071507.h37F73o08747@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304091643380.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Hi,

Thanks for your feedback.  I want to address a few of your points.

You mention that allowing micro-allocations will open the floodgates.
Would this be such a bad thing?  As it stands now IPv6 is basically unused
by almost any definition.  Shouldn't we be promoting the allocation of
IPv6 by whatever means we can, as long as it does not jepordize the
future?  As my policy states there is an end date to micro-allocations
that do not come from a LIR.  There should not be a swamp space problem as
there is with IPv4.

If the RIR's do not really intend to enforce the 200 allocation
requirement, then why is it policy?  That makes no sense to me.  Is it
policy or not?  I'm certainly not going to base decisions against what the
policy states.  What percentage of traditional LIR customers are going to
have a need or a desire for IPv6 in the next two years?  1%?  10%?  I'd
guess the number is less than 1%.  That means that a LIR needs at least
20,000 customers before even thinking about going down that road.  On the
flip side the large carriers have made it pretty clear they are not going
to deploy IPv6 until they have to.  So that leaves a pretty small group of
LIRs that will clearly meet the 200 minimum and care enough to do it.

You mention opposition to allowing early adopters to be free of
restrictions due to new policy changes.  I understand your point.  But on
the flip side if someone is going to invest the time and money to
implement IPv6, why should they have to worry if the rules are going to
change in the middle of that process?  I have provided a time-frame for
that exemption.  If the system needs to be fixed, it can be at a resonable
later date.

The fact is IPv6 is not being implemented.  Members on this list have
explained why.  If my policy revisions are not the answer, I encourage
someone else to come up with a better answer.

As it stands now IPv6 is dry seed with no water in the forecast, at least
in ARIN country.

Regards,

Mury


On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Thomas Narten wrote:

> I have some comments on this proposal.
>
> > 5.1.1
> > 	[under d) add:
>
> > 	Other organizations are defined as any customer of the LIR.
>
> I have no issue with this. The intent of the orignal wording was to
> make it clear that the LIR is assigning address space to someone else,
> not themselves internally. Clearly, a customer of the ISP is such an
> example.
>
> > 	No distinction will be made in terms of number of IP addresses
> > 	required, even if that number is one.
>
> Not sure why this is needed or what problem this is intended to
> fix. Specifically, the intent of the LIR requirement is that the LIR
> be assigning address space in such a way that it will use up that
> address space at some point in the future as IPv6 gets significant
> deployment. If ISPs are giving out /48s and /64s, this will presumably
> happen. But if the ISP is giving each customer a /128 (i.e, one
> address), it is much less clear how quickly address space is being
> consumed.
>
> Looking it another way, if an ISP is planning on giving its customers
> /128s, why does it /32 worth of address space?
>
> > 5.8 Allocation for Early Adopters
>
> > 5.8.1 Waiver of criteria listed in 5.1.1 (d)
>
> > 	To promote the allocation of IPv6 space the requirement to make 200
> > 	/48 assignments within two years shall be waived for anyone
> > 	requesting IPv6 space before Dec 31, 2004 or until this policy
> > 	is amended.  In the event that this policy is amended the
> > 	existing IPv6 space holders shall not be subject to new or
> > 	waived criteria for a period of 10 years from their initial
> > 	allocation date.
>
> The intention of 5.1.1 is to give allocations to organizations that
> are assigning address space to end sites. As we don't really know in
> what time IPv6 will really take off, it is hard to come up with a hard
> rule that says at what point an orgnization is making a Bad Faith
> effort at assign space to customers. The "plan" for "200 sites", over
> "2 years" was an attempt to capture the notion that allocations go to
> organizations who are serious about assigning space to end sites, as
> opposed to those that just want a "permanent" allocation that is "PI",
> but can't otherwise meet the intention that they (eventually) assign
> to significant numbers of end sites.
>
> At the time this text was originally discussed, I think the individual
> RIRs made it fairly clear that they did not intend to immediately go
> after LIRs after 2 years to see if they really had 200 customers. What
> they wanted was a tool to push back if a particular LIR clearly wasn't
> doing anything with IPv6, had no real intentions too, and meanwhile,
> looking at what other LIRs were doing, IPv6 was actually taking off
> and compared to other LIRs, a particular LIR was really not making a
> Good Faith attempt at meeting its obligations. Those LIRs would be
> targets.
>
> So, I'd certainly be willing to consider changes that made the above
> more clear, or made potential LIRs feel better about applying (when
> they should). But I'd be opposed to policy changes that undermines the
> basic intent.
>
> Having said that, I'm opposed to the above wording changes for 3
> different reasons:
>
> 1) it goes against the spirit of being an LIR and seems to allow folks
>    to get an IPv6 allocation when they have no plans to deploy
>    IPv6. We should not be giving /32s to organizations that have not
>    intention of assigning address space to end sites.
>
> 2) I'm also opposed to a 10 year waiver on fees. That is way too
>    long. I think it is fine to have a fee waiver for a year or two,
>    subject to extension as needed (which is more-or-less already the
>    current situation, I believe). But I see no reason to lock in a ten
>    year time period. That is excessive.
>
> 3) As a general rule, it seems bad policy to say that for any policy
>    we put into place today, it is exempt from future policies or
>    future policy changes. We always need to reserve the right to
>    correct mistakes. That does not mean that new policies should
>    ignore previous policies. Indeed, it should be required that new
>    policies consider the impact they have to existing allocation
>    holders. But they should retain the option to modifying previous
>    policies.
>
> > 5.8.2 Waiver of fees
>
> > 	a) To promote the allocation of IPv6 space all IPv6 related fees
> > 	shall be waived until Dec 31, 2006 for anyone requesting and
> > 	receiving space before Dec 31, 2004.  In the even that this
> > 	policy is amended the existing IPv6 space holders shall
> > 	under no circumstances be subject to waived or new fees until
> > 	Dec 31, 2006.
>
> Per above, I don't have a big problem with waiving fees, if the fees
> are considered to be an excessive burden. But I'd like to understand
> that better. My understanding is that that the fees associated with
> getting a /32 are relatively low, and are a small fraction of the $$
> that would be required to provide a production IPv6 service. I'd like
> to understand more how the existing fees are barriors to getting IPv6
> space and providing IPv6 service.
>
> > 	b) For billing purposes fees will be due according to normal
> > 	ARIN billing policies on Jan 1, 2007.  All early adopters
> > 	will have the same billing date regardless of the date
> > 	they received their allocation.
>
> > 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
>
> > 	a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> > 	criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> > 	micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> > 	is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> > 	shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
>
> This goes against the intent of the IPv6 policy, namely that only LIRs
> get address space from the RIRs, and that end sites do not. The above
> seems to allow end sites to get /48s directly from RIRs. This is a
> mistake and will open the floodgates.
>
> > 	b) All fees shall be waived under the same rules listed in
> > 	5.8.2.
>
> > 	c) Those receiving micro allocations shall not be allowed to
> > 	make further allocations or assignments out of their /48.  It
> > 	is intended for their internal use only.
>
> > 	d) When possible those receiving micro allocations shall
> > 	return their allocation and receive a new /48 from their
> > 	upstream provider (a LIR).  This is requested in a good faith
> > 	manner until Jan 1, 2007 at which time all micro allocations
> > 	granted under these waived criteria must be returned.
>
> Thomas
>



From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Apr  9 18:01:58 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:01:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F750@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304091658520.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> >> 5.8.3 Micro Allocations
> >>   a) To promote the allocation and deployment of IPv6 all the
> >>   criteria in 5.1.1 shall be waived to those requesting a /48
> >>   micro allocation before Dec 31, 2004, or until this policy
> >>   is changed.  If this policy is changed, current space holders
> >>   shall not be subject to any new or waived criteria.
>
> > This goes against the intent of the IPv6 policy, namely that
> > only LIRs get address space from the RIRs, and that end sites
> > do not. The above seems to allow end sites to get /48s directly
> > from RIRs. This is a mistake and will open the floodgates.
>
> I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a catastrophe. This
> would be the creation act of the IPv6 swamp. As much as I would like to
> have my own /48 PI block for home and have it appear in the global
> routing table this does not scale.

If you notice the policy also specifies a date at which the space holder
MUST return the space and get new space from their LIR.  So, yes it does
scale.

> In the long run this would be counter-productive anyway. Let's say that
> I get a micro-allocation now, no problem as my router won't choke on 500
> routes; but if in the long term if I have to buy the megabucks model and
> the DS3 that comes with a million routes BGP4+ feed, I'm no better than
> I am today.

Read the full policy.  This is not what it says.

Mury



From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Wed Apr  9 23:17:53 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:17:53 -0400 
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9C074@usresms03.teleglobe.com>

William,

Do you have any concrete numbers for the people who participate on the
mailing lists? Hmmmmmmm, my guess is less than 1% of all interested parties.
One other thing I disagree with you on is your statement about 5% of the
membership, this is not a members meeting or a members mailing list......it
is fully open to the public. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: william at elan.net
To: ppml at arin.net
Sent: 4/9/03 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process

I'd like people on this mailing to pay take very good look at what is 
being proposed at http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/, this is 
very serious revision of the process in my view both good and bad.

First few slides about "Submitting a Policy Proposal" and "AC role"
seems 
quite good, its good to have AC comment on proposals and make sure they 
are well written - I would like however this to be more public on this 
mailing list, rather then in private to authors, but either one is 
acceptable as long as authors are accomodated. Timing seems very similar

to what we have right now, so I have no comment there.

What I do have major comment are last slide as well as what was said on 
the live meeting. Basicly the ideas is that proposals will in general be

brought in by AC (AC creates proposals out of ideas that they think are 
good and would be accepted) and be discussed and accepted by consensus
on 
live public policy meeting that the DECISIVE role will be left to the 
meeting and NOT TO MAILING LIST as is done currently. This means that
few 
companies on the meeting with help from AC and BoT will dominate the 
decisions (and as I have already commented many times and which is not 
disputed is that 50% of meeting attendies are from large ISPs, while 
these companies make only 5% of ARIN membership and far far less as far 
as general ARIN community) - seems like we're abandoning idea of
internet 
democracy and rather would like to institute "Corporate Democracy" or 
Roman Senate like situation as far as decision making process. I'm very 
very concerned about this and while its probably a futile cause to
change 
this general direction, I'd like people and primarily small companies 
that make majority of ARIN to seriously consider if this is what they 
want from ARIN.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:

> 
> The ARIN Board of Trustees is considering making
> changes to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy
> Evaluation Process. These changes were discussed at
> the ARIN XI meeting in Memphis, on April 7, 2003.
> 
> The presentation slides are located at:
> 
> http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/
> 
> Comments are welcome and encouraged and should be
> sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).
> 
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Wed Apr  9 23:19:43 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:19:43 -0400 
Subject: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP aba
	ndoned?
Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9C075@usresms03.teleglobe.com>

This policy was abandoned for the reason of incorporating it into current
policy; at least that is what I understood. 

-----Original Message-----
From: william at elan.net
To: ppml at arin.net
Sent: 4/9/03 11:13 AM
Subject: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP
abandoned?

I was not expecting my proposals for micro-assignments or the one for 
ipv4 changes to pass - it was more of to get a reaction from the
community
to these needs, So AC decision to abandon these is just fine as they are

going to look into these issues and understood that something may need
to 
be done. I'll comment on micro-allocations separatly as the direction AC

has suggested is not quite what community may want when they are talking
about micro-assignments.

But I was kind of expecting the "Whois AUP" policy to get good reaction 
and in fact it did - there were no negative comments on the floor and
two 
suggestions were that policy needs to be unified - i.e. AUP for both
whois 
and bulk whois (that is in fact what policy was intended to do!) and
that 
1 month time to resign agreement is too short. 

However for some reason AC has decided to abondon the policy, The
justification
was that new policy needs to be created that is for both whois aup and
bulk
whois aup. Again - that is what I was intending - look at the very fist
line
in the proposal "The proposal -->changes<-- current bulk whois aup to 
become general whois aup", it was intended that this policy by itself
will 
replace current bulk whois. In light of suggestions from the floor to
make 
it more clear, I'd propose the following modifications to my policy
proposal:
  In section 3 - replace sentence that begins with "These organizations
must
sign 'Acceptable Use Policty for Bulk Copies of ARIN WHOIS Data'
agreement" 
with "These organizations must sign an agreement for bulk whois access"
  In section 3 change "resubmit the agreement on monthly basis" to 
"resubmit the agreement when requested by ARIN to do so, which should be

done at least once per year"

I believe this will be sufficient to incorporate comments from the
floor.
As such and considering the revisions and my explanation I would like to

get clear understanding from ARIN AC (have somebody at AC publicly
comment 
on this mailing list) why the policy was abanadoned. If this was purely 
due to misunderstanding about that policy was supposed to be unified for

all aup access and was not supposed to create two separate whois "aup" 
policies, then I'd like AC to reconsider and not abandon the policy but 
rather consider it work in progress and let me resubmit with changes by 
the next meeting, which would be above or other suggestions that AC may 
have that are relevent. If there are other reasons for abandoing this 
policy then I'd like to hear them, because I'm very confused about AC 
actions right now.

Those people at AC who have voted at AC meeting to abondon this policy -
I 
expect public comment on this list why this was done.

--- 
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net


From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Wed Apr  9 23:26:25 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:26:25 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F3@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a catastrophe.
>> This would be the creation act of the IPv6 swamp. As much as I
>> would like to have my own /48 PI block for home and have it
>> appear in the global routing table this does not scale.

> Mury wrote:
> If you notice the policy also specifies a date at which the space
> holder MUST return the space and get new space from their LIR. So,
> yes it does scale.

Oh yeah? The same way we cleaned the pre-CIDR swamp maybe.

Michel.



From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Wed Apr  9 23:34:33 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:34:33 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F760@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

Leo,

> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> That said, I've seen the drafts, and to a large extent (which
> is one of the reasons we're trying it) I don't see why an ISP
> can't set aside a /64 (so externally it looks like one proper
> block), but internally use it as /126's for P2P links.

True, but in the same topic there is no reason an ISP can't set aside a
/48 out of their /32 and internally use it as /64s for PTP links. Saving
1/65536th of one's address space is not a good enough reason to violate
established standards. Besides, what is it going to change in terms of
saving address space? Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nil. The address space allocated
to that ISP is still going to be a /32 and if the ISP does not have
enough space the fact that they can allocate only 65535 sites instead of
65536 does not change the timing of requesting another /32. Penny wise
and pound foolish this is.

Michel.



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Thu Apr 10 00:05:33 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 21:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F3@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> from "Michel Py" at Apr 09, 2003 08:26:25 PM
Message-ID: <200304100405.h3A45X123506@karoshi.com>

> 
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a catastrophe.
> >> This would be the creation act of the IPv6 swamp. As much as I
> >> would like to have my own /48 PI block for home and have it
> >> appear in the global routing table this does not scale.
> 
> > Mury wrote:
> > If you notice the policy also specifies a date at which the space
> > holder MUST return the space and get new space from their LIR. So,
> > yes it does scale.
> 
> Oh yeah? The same way we cleaned the pre-CIDR swamp maybe.
> 
> Michel.

	Er... we reclaimed 17% of the total IPv4 space after
	CIDR and before ARIN was formed.

--bill


From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Thu Apr 10 00:06:09 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 21:06:09 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F8@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

> Bill Manning wrote:
> Er... we reclaimed 17% of the total IPv4 space after
> CIDR and before ARIN was formed.

I'm afraid this 17% does not include the multiple persons I know that
have a portable /24 from the swamp to use at their home.

Michel.



From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 10 00:17:09 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:17:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F3@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304092310130.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Michel Py wrote:

> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> I don't think this is a mistake; I think this is a catastrophe.
> >> This would be the creation act of the IPv6 swamp. As much as I
> >> would like to have my own /48 PI block for home and have it
> >> appear in the global routing table this does not scale.
>
> > Mury wrote:
> > If you notice the policy also specifies a date at which the space
> > holder MUST return the space and get new space from their LIR. So,
> > yes it does scale.
>
> Oh yeah? The same way we cleaned the pre-CIDR swamp maybe.
>
> Michel.

Hmmmm,

Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout of IPv6?  The
negative comments directed at my proposal never contain any alternative
suggestions.

The fact is IPv6 is not being deployed.  Why?

It seems to me like we have a couple choices:

1) Essentially hoard IPv6 addresses by not creating a policy conducive to
it's deployment.

2) Change the policy.

What's worse, some extra admin work and *possibly* some wasted IPv6
addresses (swamp), or to continue using IPv4 for another 10-20 years?

Mury



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Thu Apr 10 00:24:06 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F8@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> from "Michel Py" at Apr 09, 2003 09:06:09 PM
Message-ID: <200304100424.h3A4O6U23598@karoshi.com>

> 
> > Bill Manning wrote:
> > Er... we reclaimed 17% of the total IPv4 space after
> > CIDR and before ARIN was formed.
> 
> I'm afraid this 17% does not include the multiple persons I know that
> have a portable /24 from the swamp to use at their home.
> 
> Michel.
> 

	yes, well... to quote: "You keep using that word... I do
 	not think it means what you think it means" - I.Montoia

	please define "swamp"?  Some think it is any delegation
	from the range 192.0.0.0-223.255.255.255 that was made 
	prior to the existance of any RIR.  This is not sufficent
	because we have no way of knowing the filtering policies of
	the (order) 10.000,00 ISPs that seem to form the Internet
	(at least by some measures).  It is the filtering policies
	of the ISPs that determine reachablity.  I note in passing
	that the above definition also includes, perhaps, the most
	popular, portable /24 in the world.... 192.168.0.0/24
	Clearly in the swamp.  And used by hundreds of places I
	have been to in the past few years.

--bill


From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 10 00:30:08 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:30:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304090813320.3292-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304092326280.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


I see your concerns.  However, can't the smaller ISPs, myself included,
have the final say by voting in a different AC if things get ugly?

With that in mind, I don't see any problem with the proposed changes to
the proposal process.  If the AC doesn't like the a proposal in the first
place, it isn't going to be adopted anyway.

Mury

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 william at elan.net wrote:

> I'd like people on this mailing to pay take very good look at what is
> being proposed at http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/, this is
> very serious revision of the process in my view both good and bad.
>
> First few slides about "Submitting a Policy Proposal" and "AC role" seems
> quite good, its good to have AC comment on proposals and make sure they
> are well written - I would like however this to be more public on this
> mailing list, rather then in private to authors, but either one is
> acceptable as long as authors are accomodated. Timing seems very similar
> to what we have right now, so I have no comment there.
>
> What I do have major comment are last slide as well as what was said on
> the live meeting. Basicly the ideas is that proposals will in general be
> brought in by AC (AC creates proposals out of ideas that they think are
> good and would be accepted) and be discussed and accepted by consensus on
> live public policy meeting that the DECISIVE role will be left to the
> meeting and NOT TO MAILING LIST as is done currently. This means that few
> companies on the meeting with help from AC and BoT will dominate the
> decisions (and as I have already commented many times and which is not
> disputed is that 50% of meeting attendies are from large ISPs, while
> these companies make only 5% of ARIN membership and far far less as far
> as general ARIN community) - seems like we're abandoning idea of internet
> democracy and rather would like to institute "Corporate Democracy" or
> Roman Senate like situation as far as decision making process. I'm very
> very concerned about this and while its probably a futile cause to change
> this general direction, I'd like people and primarily small companies
> that make majority of ARIN to seriously consider if this is what they
> want from ARIN.
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:
>
> >
> > The ARIN Board of Trustees is considering making
> > changes to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy
> > Evaluation Process. These changes were discussed at
> > the ARIN XI meeting in Memphis, on April 7, 2003.
> >
> > The presentation slides are located at:
> >
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/
> >
> > Comments are welcome and encouraged and should be
> > sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).
> >
> >
> > Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>



From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 10 00:35:29 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:35:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F8@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304092334550.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


So we chuck the baby out with the bathwater?

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Michel Py wrote:

> > Bill Manning wrote:
> > Er... we reclaimed 17% of the total IPv4 space after
> > CIDR and before ARIN was formed.
>
> I'm afraid this 17% does not include the multiple persons I know that
> have a portable /24 from the swamp to use at their home.
>
> Michel.
>



From sob at harvard.edu  Thu Apr 10 08:48:14 2003
From: sob at harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9C074@usresms03.teleglobe.com>
Message-ID: <200304101248.h3ACmEuV021271@newdev.harvard.edu>

> live public policy meeting that the DECISIVE role will be left to the 
> meeting and NOT TO MAILING LIST as is done currently. 

this is not true

Scott


From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Thu Apr 10 11:59:54 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:59:54 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F765@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

> Mury wrote:
> Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout
> of IPv6?

As a matter of fact, I do.
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-intro-00.txt
(and a lot of other things as well on the same web page and ML)


> The negative comments directed at my proposal never
> contain any alternative suggestions.

The ARIN public policy mailing list, as far as I know, is to discuss
policy, not solutions.


> The fact is IPv6 is not being deployed. Why?

Not because the policy is not good. Because the protocol is unfinished,
which combined with other factors leads to the most important reason
that there is zero customer demand.


> What's worse, some extra admin work and *possibly* some
> wasted IPv6 addresses (swamp), or to continue using IPv4
> for another 10-20 years?

The sad truth is that in North America today I have zero use for IPv6.
As a customer or a netizen, I don't have a reason to upgrade. This is
not because the ARIN policy is flawed, this is because of a combination
of factors such as sluggish connectivity, IPv6 services inexistent or
not better than IPv4, lack of a multihoming solution, etc.

Michel.

                       _   ____  __      __  ____   _    _   _    _
                      | | |  _ \ \ \    / / / ___| | \  / | | |  | |
Michel Py             | | | |_| | \ \  / / | |__   |  \/  | | |__| |
Sr. Network Engineer  | | |  __/   \ \/ /  |  _ \  | \  / | |  __  |
CCIE #6673            | | | |       \  /   | |_| | | |\/| | | |  | |
mpy at ieee.org          |_| |_|        \/     \___/  |_|  |_| |_|  |_|
                                IPv6 Multihoming Solutions
                        http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh
                     http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/public/ipv6mh/



From ron at aol.net  Thu Apr 10 11:53:08 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:53:08 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304092326280.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304090813320.3292-100000@sokol.elan.net> <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304092326280.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <20030410155308.GB5388@aol.net>

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:30:08PM -0500, Mury wrote:
> 
> I see your concerns.  However, can't the smaller ISPs, myself included,
> have the final say by voting in a different AC if things get ugly?
> 
> With that in mind, I don't see any problem with the proposed changes to
> the proposal process.  If the AC doesn't like the a proposal in the first
> place, it isn't going to be adopted anyway.

Not necessarily true.  If there appears to be general consensus
regarding adoptation of a particular proposal and yet individuals
on the AC do not personally agree with the proposal, the AC's role
is to represent the membership and facilitate moving such a proposal
through the process.

The new procedure explicitly describes the AC's ability to not
sponsor (reject) a proposal, presumably because the AC does not
see that moving it through the process would likely lead to any
general interest or support (such as Alex's example of yellow
sweaters during the members meeting in Memphis).

We are trying to make the process more focused and thus effective.

-ron
/AC


From owen at delong.com  Thu Apr 10 12:47:49 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:47:49 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304090813320.3292-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304090813320.3292-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1049968069@delong-dhcp17.delong.sj.ca.us>

OK... I think William must have attended a different live meeting than I
did, because he came away with a _VERY_ different impression.

1.	All policies currently are made as recommendations by the AC,
	then last call at meeting and to mailing list for community
	yeah/nea vote.  Then, that result is forwarded to ARIN board
	and board decides whether or not to adopt policy.

2.	The proposed changes DO NOT CHANGE THIS PART OF THE PROCESS.

3.	The proposed changes do create a situation where the AC can
	consolidate similar policies.  This is a GOOD thing.

4.	The proposed changes do create the ability to get your proposal
	past the AC if you feel strongly and can get N (where N appears
	to currently be 4) other people to agree with you.  This prevents
	the AC from being a roadblock to the community while allowing
	it to at least be a filter.

5.	The proposed changes do NOT as far as I could tell shift any focus
	to/from mailing list vs. meeting.  In fact, both are currently
	basically equal as far as I can tell, and, both should continue
	to be about equal.  I can say that the mailing list definitely
	does not have priority over the meeting in the current environment.

Just my impressions.  YMMV.

Owen


--On Wednesday, April 9, 2003 8:39 -0700 william at elan.net wrote:

> I'd like people on this mailing to pay take very good look at what is
> being proposed at http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/, this is
> very serious revision of the process in my view both good and bad.
>
> First few slides about "Submitting a Policy Proposal" and "AC role" seems
> quite good, its good to have AC comment on proposals and make sure they
> are well written - I would like however this to be more public on this
> mailing list, rather then in private to authors, but either one is
> acceptable as long as authors are accomodated. Timing seems very similar
> to what we have right now, so I have no comment there.
>
> What I do have major comment are last slide as well as what was said on
> the live meeting. Basicly the ideas is that proposals will in general be
> brought in by AC (AC creates proposals out of ideas that they think are
> good and would be accepted) and be discussed and accepted by consensus on
> live public policy meeting that the DECISIVE role will be left to the
> meeting and NOT TO MAILING LIST as is done currently. This means that few
> companies on the meeting with help from AC and BoT will dominate the
> decisions (and as I have already commented many times and which is not
> disputed is that 50% of meeting attendies are from large ISPs, while
> these companies make only 5% of ARIN membership and far far less as far
> as general ARIN community) - seems like we're abandoning idea of internet
> democracy and rather would like to institute "Corporate Democracy" or
> Roman Senate like situation as far as decision making process. I'm very
> very concerned about this and while its probably a futile cause to change
> this general direction, I'd like people and primarily small companies
> that make majority of ARIN to seriously consider if this is what they
> want from ARIN.
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:
>
>>
>> The ARIN Board of Trustees is considering making
>> changes to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy
>> Evaluation Process. These changes were discussed at
>> the ARIN XI meeting in Memphis, on April 7, 2003.
>>
>> The presentation slides are located at:
>>
>> http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/
>>
>> Comments are welcome and encouraged and should be
>> sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).
>>
>>
>> Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>




From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 10 13:32:16 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:32:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F765@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304101205010.11872-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> > Mury wrote:
> > Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout
> > of IPv6?
>
> As a matter of fact, I do.
> http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-intro-00.txt
> (and a lot of other things as well on the same web page and ML)

So, you are saying it's a protocol problem and not a policy problem.  This
link has nothing to do with ARIN policy.  If you believe that it's a
protocol problem then when do expect it will be ready for people to use
and try things with?  At that time do expect it to just take off or will
there need to be a gradual test and rollout period?  Do you believe that
people testing your MHAP design should be given some leeway with ARIN to
accomplish that evaluation and testing?

If the AC and the BOD beleive the same, then why do they even have an IPv6
policy?

> > The negative comments directed at my proposal never
> > contain any alternative suggestions.
>
> The ARIN public policy mailing list, as far as I know, is to discuss
> policy, not solutions.

I'm not sure if you are saying that you didn't provide a suggestion,
because your suggestion is a solution and not a policy, or if you are
saying something else.

If you think that IPv6 is not ready for deployment, even if that
deployment is largly experimental, then that should be reflected in a
policy or more specifically the lack of one.

> > The fact is IPv6 is not being deployed. Why?
>
> Not because the policy is not good. Because the protocol is unfinished,
> which combined with other factors leads to the most important reason
> that there is zero customer demand.

Then the policy is bad.

And just for the record more than a couple people on this list, which has
a very low contribution rate, have expressed the desire to get IPv6 space.
So, there is some demand that is not being met.

Of course, it is up for debate whether that demand should be met or not.

Ironically, we took 3 phone calls in the last 2 weeks from people wanting
IPv6 space.  There is some demand.

> > What's worse, some extra admin work and *possibly* some
> > wasted IPv6 addresses (swamp), or to continue using IPv4
> > for another 10-20 years?
>
> The sad truth is that in North America today I have zero use for IPv6.
> As a customer or a netizen, I don't have a reason to upgrade. This is
> not because the ARIN policy is flawed, this is because of a combination
> of factors such as sluggish connectivity, IPv6 services inexistent or
> not better than IPv4, lack of a multihoming solution, etc.

Chicken or the egg?

You have no use for IPv6 because no one has IPv6 space with which they can
develop applications for you to use.

The goal of the policy revision was to get more IPv6 space into people's
hands to experiment with.  It's not going to open a floodgate.  99% of the
people out there don't even know what it is, and 1% of that 1% knows any
of the specifics.  If it did get out of control, AND if that was deemed to
be bad, the policy could be changed to discourage use, yet leave those
early adopters with the promise that they are good for a few years.

Really, to sum things up, the policy as it stands is doing nothing.
Either make the decision to not allocate IPv6, because it isn't ready yet,
or make the policy such that it encourages use for those willing to take
some chances with it.

If nothing else, the ambigous language regarding the 200 host requirement
needs to be struck.

Mury



From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 10 13:34:31 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:34:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Changes to ARIN Policy Proposal Process
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1049968069@delong-dhcp17.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304101233350.11872-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


I didn't attend the meeting, but I read through the slides and what you
detail below is how I understand it as well.

Mury

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> OK... I think William must have attended a different live meeting than I
> did, because he came away with a _VERY_ different impression.
>
> 1.	All policies currently are made as recommendations by the AC,
> 	then last call at meeting and to mailing list for community
> 	yeah/nea vote.  Then, that result is forwarded to ARIN board
> 	and board decides whether or not to adopt policy.
>
> 2.	The proposed changes DO NOT CHANGE THIS PART OF THE PROCESS.
>
> 3.	The proposed changes do create a situation where the AC can
> 	consolidate similar policies.  This is a GOOD thing.
>
> 4.	The proposed changes do create the ability to get your proposal
> 	past the AC if you feel strongly and can get N (where N appears
> 	to currently be 4) other people to agree with you.  This prevents
> 	the AC from being a roadblock to the community while allowing
> 	it to at least be a filter.
>
> 5.	The proposed changes do NOT as far as I could tell shift any focus
> 	to/from mailing list vs. meeting.  In fact, both are currently
> 	basically equal as far as I can tell, and, both should continue
> 	to be about equal.  I can say that the mailing list definitely
> 	does not have priority over the meeting in the current environment.
>
> Just my impressions.  YMMV.
>
> Owen
>
>
> --On Wednesday, April 9, 2003 8:39 -0700 william at elan.net wrote:
>
> > I'd like people on this mailing to pay take very good look at what is
> > being proposed at http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/, this is
> > very serious revision of the process in my view both good and bad.
> >
> > First few slides about "Submitting a Policy Proposal" and "AC role" seems
> > quite good, its good to have AC comment on proposals and make sure they
> > are well written - I would like however this to be more public on this
> > mailing list, rather then in private to authors, but either one is
> > acceptable as long as authors are accomodated. Timing seems very similar
> > to what we have right now, so I have no comment there.
> >
> > What I do have major comment are last slide as well as what was said on
> > the live meeting. Basicly the ideas is that proposals will in general be
> > brought in by AC (AC creates proposals out of ideas that they think are
> > good and would be accepted) and be discussed and accepted by consensus on
> > live public policy meeting that the DECISIVE role will be left to the
> > meeting and NOT TO MAILING LIST as is done currently. This means that few
> > companies on the meeting with help from AC and BoT will dominate the
> > decisions (and as I have already commented many times and which is not
> > disputed is that 50% of meeting attendies are from large ISPs, while
> > these companies make only 5% of ARIN membership and far far less as far
> > as general ARIN community) - seems like we're abandoning idea of internet
> > democracy and rather would like to institute "Corporate Democracy" or
> > Roman Senate like situation as far as decision making process. I'm very
> > very concerned about this and while its probably a futile cause to change
> > this general direction, I'd like people and primarily small companies
> > that make majority of ARIN to seriously consider if this is what they
> > want from ARIN.
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The ARIN Board of Trustees is considering making
> >> changes to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy
> >> Evaluation Process. These changes were discussed at
> >> the ARIN XI meeting in Memphis, on April 7, 2003.
> >>
> >> The presentation slides are located at:
> >>
> >> http://www.arin.net/policy/process_changes/
> >>
> >> Comments are welcome and encouraged and should be
> >> sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (ppml at arin.net).
> >>
> >>
> >> Member Services
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
>
>



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Thu Apr 10 14:48:46 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:48:46 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Big numbers
In-Reply-To: <390E55B947E7C848898AEBB9E5077060750B78@msmdcfs01.msmgmt.com>
Message-ID: <0F90DEEA-6B85-11D7-8A4A-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Jim,

On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 10:44  AM, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
> It can be said that anything can be MADE to work... But will is scale?

Or, as a friend at NASA used to tell me, with enough thrust pigs can 
fly quite well.

> Second: There are at least 2 organizations, that I personnaly have 
> knowledge of,
> that use RW addresses on 95% of all their systems RIGHT NOW as I type 
> this.

RW addresses?

> I, for one, think we should start pushing every provider to start 
> working
> on the v6 implementations, and "get along little doggie."

Most (commercial) ISPs need a business case to justify the expense of 
investing in new technology.  To date, no one I am aware of has come up 
with a compelling business case, at least in the ARIN area.

> We can put off this change as long as we want, but WE as the community 
> all know how much of
> a pain renumbering is. Would you rather do it sooner, with less IPv4 
> addresses to renumber or later
> with far more work?  IPv6, according to some, should stop the need of 
> renumbering........

If that were true, IPv6 would be wildly popular as it would mean 
provider independence.  This is not the case.  Today, renumbering IPv6 
is essentially as easy/difficult as renumbering IPv4.

Rgds,
-drc



From jlewis at lewis.org  Thu Apr 10 22:29:50 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:29:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F8@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304102226250.17422-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Michel Py wrote:

> > Bill Manning wrote:
> > Er... we reclaimed 17% of the total IPv4 space after
> > CIDR and before ARIN was formed.
> 
> I'm afraid this 17% does not include the multiple persons I know that
> have a portable /24 from the swamp to use at their home.

I know (knew?) some who's dead who has (had?) a portable /22 from 
way-pre-arin times.  The really weird thing is, though he's been gone 
several months, his network is still running.

It'd be nice to think he faked his death, but I doubt that.  Is IP space 
inheritable?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Fri Apr 11 00:27:48 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:27:48 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F770@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

> Mury wrote:
> [MHAP]
> when do expect it will be ready for people to use and try things with?

2004.


> At that time do expect it to just take off or will there need to be
> a gradual test and rollout period?

I expect a test period using a 6bone prefix (which has not been
requested yet but will be in the coming months).

> Do you believe that people testing your MHAP design should be given
> some leeway with ARIN to accomplish that evaluation and testing?

At this point in time, no. One of the reasons I intend to request a
6bone prefix is because the 6bone is being phased down. This allows me
some freedom in rolling out a test plan with known imperfections without
to worry about cleaning up the mess after the fact. The experiment will
likely show what needs to be improved after which a request to IANA for
a prefix could be made.


> You have no use for IPv6 because no one has IPv6 space with
> which they can develop applications for you to use.

This is complete BS. I have multiple /48 prefixes including in the
2001:: ARIN production space and multiple BGP4+ feeds and all this is
free. Everyone that wants IPv6 address space so they can develop
applications can have it.


> The goal of the policy revision was to get more IPv6 space into
> people's hands to experiment with.

That's what the 6bone is for and has been very successful at it.

Michel.



From randy at psg.com  Thu Apr 10 19:23:15 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:23:15 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
References: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50456F3@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
	<Pine.BSI.4.44.0304092310130.13052-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <E193lO0-0000tl-00@roam.psg.com>

> Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout of IPv6?

are the RIRs now technology marketing agencies?

randy



From mury at goldengate.net  Fri Apr 11 15:09:10 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:09:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes 
In-Reply-To: <E193lO0-0000tl-00@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304111401360.28860-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Wow,

You know, I'm getting pretty sick of the sarcasm on this list.  A lot of
you make a lot of completely worthless comments.  Is IPv6 a good thing or
not?  If it is, why shouldn't ARIN be creating policies that promote its
use and development?

If you want to make the claim that developing policies that are useful to
the Internet community is a marketing effort that's your own perogative.

I don't recall making any suggestions that ARIN spend money on
"marketing."  I have very specifically been talking about a policy
revision the whole time.  That is what this list is *supposedly* for.

Regards,

Mury


On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> > Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout of IPv6?
>
> are the RIRs now technology marketing agencies?
>
> randy
>



From Andreas.Schmid1 at swisscom.com  Sat Apr 12 04:02:43 2003
From: Andreas.Schmid1 at swisscom.com (Andreas.Schmid1 at swisscom.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:02:43 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
Message-ID: <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B801489965@sxmbx03.corproot.net>

> Wow,
> 
> You know, I'm getting pretty sick of the sarcasm on this 
> list.  A lot of you make a lot of completely worthless 
> comments.  Is IPv6 a good thing or not?  If it is, why 
> shouldn't ARIN be creating policies that promote its use and 
> development?

A simple answer to that: because the people are not aware of the good
thing. And once they become aware of that - it will almost be too late
(and cost for the introduction will be higher than if they started
before).

Andreas

> 
> If you want to make the claim that developing policies that 
> are useful to the Internet community is a marketing effort 
> that's your own perogative.
> 
> I don't recall making any suggestions that ARIN spend money 
> on "marketing."  I have very specifically been talking about 
> a policy revision the whole time.  That is what this list is 
> *supposedly* for.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mury
> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > > Do you have any recommendations to encourage the rollout of IPv6?
> >
> > are the RIRs now technology marketing agencies?
> >
> > randy
> >
> 
> 


From william at elan.net  Mon Apr 14 11:08:03 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP aba
 ndoned?
In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1906E9C075@usresms03.teleglobe.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304101031060.32062-100000@sokol.elan.net>

> This policy was abandoned for the reason of incorporating it into current
> policy; at least that is what I understood. 

That is semantics:
 A changes B
 A extendes B
 A is merged with B
 A incorporated into B
 etc.

And in the past AC showed no interest in working on this policy before and 
failed in all the opportunities:
1. I expressed interest in general whois aup at Eugene meeting, I was told 
by ARIN to prepare a policy proposal on this which I did. Never in that 
time between meetings was I ever contacted by AC on the issue and I would 
not have prepared my proposal if I knew AC was working on the issue.
2. Before Whois AUP was proposed as a policy an open draft was posted to 
ppml. I did not receive any comments from members of AC on this.
3. After becoming a policy proposal, there was one month given to comment 
on the proposal and there again weren't any comments by AC
4. On the live meeting there was time to comment, comments went from the 
floor but not from the AC (beyond asking how this changes current bulk 
whois policy, I belive AC did not realize I meant to replace it entirely)


And the bigger problem is that AC has exceeded its authority and what it 
is supposed todo with new policy proposal based on current policy making 
rules. AC is supposed to judge support & consensus on any given proposal 
and do the following:
 1. If proposal has little or no support -
      AC can abandon it and possibly use its ideas in another proposal
 2. If proposal has some support but not everybody agrees with it or if 
    problems are found -
      AC is supposed to continue proposal for futher discussions and 
      work with authors to bring new version for next meeting that would 
      have more support and would have previous problems fixed
 3. If proposal has majority or greater support (general concensus) but 
    some flaws in wording or clarifications are necessary - 
      AC is supposed to work with the author to make necessary changes in 
      wording and then send the proposal to ppml for additional discussions
      and then to BoT and to last call. Generally it would not need to go 
      to additional public meeting having already received support there.
 4. If proposal is supported by everyone as is - 
      AC is supposed to without modifications send to last call and to BoT

For all previous proposals and in previous meetings the above was pretty 
much what AC did, so even proposals that have some (but not even 50%) 
support in the way they were written were continued to new versions. Very 
few proposals were abandoned before, but this was not the case for this 
meeting and this is where AC exceeded its authority and on this meeting if 
you look at it - all proposals that were not brought in by memberts of AC 
or BoT were abandoned - this is even where proposals had greater majority 
support.

Now Whois AUP proposal clearly falls into #3 above. Pretty much everybody 
on the meeting supported it, same on the mailing list. But in both cases 
several people asked for clarifications of some details (such as non 
policy operation issues on how to do authentication for bulk whois amd 
policy issues on what previous policies/aup proposal obsolutes). This is 
all fixabled without great changes to proposal generally by modifiying 
some words and by adding explanation section above or below on what would 
be obsoluted and how proposal would fit into existing policies. 

As far as I'm concerned AC had no right to abondon the proposal, rather it 
should have contacted me if they wanted some changes and we could then bring
up new version to last call and get it done with and approved fairly quickly.
Besides that, having this done quickly would be great benefit to ARIN as 
there is good chance after adaption, the load on ARIN whois servers can go 
down 25-50% by having some of that moved to automatic bulk whois procedure.
That is both financial and operational gain for everybody. And I (and couple
other people) have interest in this for research purposes as well - for 
example to create real-time bogons list that is more specific then /8s.

I think ARIN AC can still save its face and time for everybody having to 
review the proposal again if it reversed the decision to abandon the 
proposal. So I'm going to do the following:
1. Write new version with modifications necessary to clarify some points.
  This version will be sent as new proposal by end of next week. Please 
  note that if AC does not reverse current decision, the version will  
  still go through and I'm not going to ask for any AC involvement again. 
  (If there are modification to policy making as BoT is suggesting, I have 
   enough additional people who will back me up on whois aup that I do not 
   need to get AC involved and I will not)
2. Write official letter of appeal to AC and request that it convine with
all AC memberts participating and reverse decision to abandon the proposal
on grounds that its exceeded it authority and improperly judged support of 
the proposal when it abandoneded it.

Both of the above you'll see by end of this week or next depending on how 
much extra time I have (I'm still in midwest and not back im my office..)

But be assured, if the decision to abandone is not reversed, by next 
meeting the same proposal will be back and then I'll directly ask what 
support it has as-is (hopefully then all things will be clear in new 
version) and I will not seek any AC involvement (see above on all the 
opportunities it had where it failed to even try).

---
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net



From jlewis at lewis.org  Mon Apr 14 16:38:22 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:38:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN meeting virtual attendance
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304141626150.1096-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

As is pretty clear from recent threads, there are ARIN members who, for 
whatever reasons, don't or can't attend the public meetings, but would 
like to have some input into ARIN's policies as well as voice their 
concerns over the current state of ARIN <-> member interaction.

Since we're a relatively high-tech group, has anyone ever looked into what
it takes to setup virtual attendance?  i.e. I'm guessing a good number of
network operators have either participated DoveBid's auctions (getting the
network and office goodies at auction from your failed telecom
competitors) or know people who have.  I've personally been to these both
in person and virtually.  In virtual mode, you get to listen in on the
auction and speak when necessary (i.e. to bid).  With a bit of hardware, I
bet this could even be done with VOIP, removing the need for anyone (ARIN
or the members) to pay for the long distance calls for virtual attenders.  
I don't know what hardware/software is involved in this (i.e. what DoveBid 
uses), but IIRC, ARIN does have several million in the bank.  What better 
way to spend our money than to facilitate member participation?

I think this would be a great way to get more member participation at the
meetings...and (for personal reasons) it's the only way I can see myself
getting to a meeting in the near future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 david.conrad at nominum.com  Mon Apr 14 20:07:42 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:07:42 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
In-Reply-To: <029501c302da$07ba6cd0$93b58742@ssprunk>
Message-ID: <46E698E2-6ED6-11D7-BE91-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Hi,

NANOG was the wrong place for this, ppml at arin.net cc'd instead.

On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 03:47  PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
>> --On Monday, April 14, 2003 16:20 -0500 Stephen Sprunk
> <stephen at sprunk.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> RIRs should allow a member to voluntarily renumber several disparate
>>> allocations into a single prefix.  The original allocations would be
>>> forfeit after a reasonable renumbering period, e.g. 6 months.  If the
>>> member has at least one PI allocation, they should be allowed to 
>>> combine
>>> it with PA allocations into a new, larger PI allocation.
>>
>> <http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_6.html>
>>
>> This proposal will be coming out for final call on ppml at arin.net 
>> shortly,
>> slightly modified to address concerns raised on the mailing list and 
>> at
> the
>> public policy meeting last week in Memphis.
>
> Not bad, but there's two specific things I'd add:
>
> 1. Entities should be able to trade in PA blocks as well, provided 
> they are
> trading in at least one PI block.

I don't understand this.  If it is PA, then it isn't using a "routing 
slot", so what advantage is gained by including it?

> 2.  The policy should explicitly state that no justification is 
> required
> beyond that necessary to establish tenancy in the returned blocks.
>
> I'll wander over to ppml at arin.net, as it's apparently become more 
> productive
> than it was in the past.

One would hope...

Rgds,
-drc



From baptista at dot-god.com  Mon Apr 14 22:18:58 2003
From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN is milking the COW
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0304142214500.3554-100000@dot-god.com>


The internet numbers authority has recently been accused of milking the
cow.  An appropriate reference for an organization which allocates numbers
and provides reverse dns.  A service they charge $2,500 USD for but is
only worth at best $6.00 USD.

I could do the reverse for less.  Is the IANA RIR MLM operation out of
control?

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god via inclusive namespace
www.dot-god.com

another useless fact ....
In England, murder is murder. There are no degrees of murder, as in
the United States.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:01:44 -0500
From: Matthew S. Hallacy <poptix at techmonkeys.org>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>, nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Independent space from ARIN


On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 02:21:01AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> * Why do we have to pay very large sums of money ($2500+ per year at a
>   minimum) for this wonderful IP policing service. Where in the heck does
>   all that money go?

>From http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html :

Out of the $7,861,700.00 they raked in last year:

SALARIES		$2,326,653.85
FRINGE BENEFITS		$1,045,063.15
HIRING COSTS		$75,000.00
TRAVEL AND CONFERENCE	$631,732.40
COMMUNICATIONS		$236,699.62
COMPUTER		$118,941.75
DEPRECIATION		$445,750.00
RENT & OCCUPANCY	$461,287.00
GENERAL OFFICE		$192,400.00
LEGAL FEES		$100,000.00
Legal Defense Fund	$200,000.00
ICANN SUPPORT		$188,480.00
Other Internet Support - Merit & ISOC  $100,000.00
LACNIC SUPPORT		$66,000.00
CONSULTING		$184,000.00
Total			$6,372,007.76


In other words, they're milking the cash cow.

> * Why are we expected to continue the status quo of paying thousands of
>   dollars for addresses in IPv6? Without the threat of an artifical
>   shortage to "manage", what possible reason is there to justify ARIN's
>   existance or fees? Why do we all get the feeling IPv6 isn't an end to
>   the expenses, but rather a vast new market of registration and renewal
>   fees?

Because the owners of the cash cow don't want it to go away.

> --
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

-- 
Matthew S. Hallacy                            FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified
http://www.poptix.net                           GPG public key 0x01938203




From stephen at sprunk.org  Tue Apr 15 00:47:00 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 23:47:00 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
References: <46E698E2-6ED6-11D7-BE91-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <200304150456.h3F4uf006634@defiant.dfw.nostrum.com>

Thus spake "David Conrad" <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 03:47  PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > 1. Entities should be able to trade in PA blocks as well, provided
> > they are trading in at least one PI block.
>
> I don't understand this.  If it is PA, then it isn't using a "routing
> slot", so what advantage is gained by including it?

OTOH, what harm is done by including it?

Consider a multihomed entity with one PI block and nine PA blocks; they
consume anywhere from one to ten "routing slots" depending on how
aggressively various providers filter.  Knocking this down to one "routing
slot" both gives uniform routing across the entity's addresses and reduces
the amount of bookkeeping ARIN must do (after the renumbering is over).

Aggressive marketing of this policy (even without my change) will go a long
way towards cleaning up the swamp.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


From stephen at sprunk.org  Tue Apr 15 01:46:13 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 00:46:13 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304141845300.14579-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <037301c30314$12346a00$93b58742@ssprunk>

[ Cc ppml, Bcc nanog ]

Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > 1. Entities should be able to trade in PA blocks as well, provided
> > they are trading in at least one PI block.
>
> They can.  I'm sure their provider will be happy to oblige, for a small
> fee.

No, I mean that you should be able to trade in both PI and PA blocks for a
single new PI block.  The policy, as written, only allows trade-ins of PI
blocks.  See my replies to David Conrad in this thread.

> > 2.  The policy should explicitly state that no justification is required
> > beyond that necessary to establish tenancy in the returned blocks.
>
> How do you perceive that as being different from what's there?

I don't see any explicit reference to what justification is or isn't
necessary.  My fear is that the folks actually processing trade-in requests
will insist on efficiency documentation (a la RFC2050) before proceeding.
While I'd love to take your word that won't happen, why not make it part of
the policy and eliminate any possible confusion?

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From woody at pch.net  Tue Apr 15 02:13:36 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 23:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
In-Reply-To: <037301c30314$12346a00$93b58742@ssprunk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304142312220.20219-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    > No, I mean that you should be able to trade in both PI and PA blocks for a
    > single new PI block.

Yes, but you're wrong.  You can trade in PI and PA blocks for a single new
PA block.

    > > > 2.  The policy should explicitly state that no justification is required
    > > > beyond that necessary to establish tenancy in the returned blocks.
    > >
    > > How do you perceive that as being different from what's there?
    >
    > I don't see any explicit reference to what justification is or isn't
    > necessary.

Last I knew, and I'm the author, it said no justification was necessary.

                                -Bill




From stephen at sprunk.org  Tue Apr 15 02:40:14 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 01:40:14 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304142312220.20219-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c3031a$11d04240$93b58742@ssprunk>

Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > No, I mean that you should be able to trade in both PI and PA
> > blocks for a single new PI block.
>
> Yes, but you're wrong.  You can trade in PI and PA blocks for a
> single new PA block.

Nobody with PI space would voluntarily trade it for PA space; that makes no
sense.

If someone has a PI prefix, the damage (to the routing tables) has been done
and increasing the size of said PI allocation does no harm.  FWIW, I
required at least one PI block in each trade-in specifically to prevent a
generic PA-to-PI loophole.

> > I don't see any explicit reference to what justification is or isn't
> > necessary.
>
> Last I knew, and I'm the author, it said no justification was necessary.

I'm really not trying to be a nuisance since I'm in favor of this policy,
but I'm looking at http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_6.html, and I don't see
any mention of what paperwork is (or more importantly, isn't) required to
qualify.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From woody at pch.net  Tue Apr 15 02:51:33 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 23:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
In-Reply-To: <000f01c3031a$11d04240$93b58742@ssprunk>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304142348280.20219-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

    > Nobody with PI space would voluntarily trade it for PA space; that makes no
    > sense.

Yup, that's why no policy is necessary in this regard.

    > > > I don't see any explicit reference to what justification is or isn't
    > > > necessary.
    > > Last I knew, and I'm the author, it said no justification was necessary.
    > I'm really not trying to be a nuisance since I'm in favor of this policy,
    > but I'm looking at http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_6.html, and I don't see
    > any mention of what paperwork is (or more importantly, isn't) required to
    > qualify.

Mmm, you're right.  The explicit no-paperwork clause was in 2002-5.

2002-6 also doesn't explicitly not require dancing clowns on my lawn.  If
I'm writing policies, I try to keep them succinct.

                                -Bill




From owen at delong.com  Tue Apr 15 03:18:07 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 00:18:07 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <033701c3030f$8127d550$93b58742@ssprunk>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304141833370.14579-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
 <033701c3030f$8127d550$93b58742@ssprunk>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1050365887@dhcp157-162.corp.tellme.com>

Wow... Where'd you buy real estate without having to pay property
taxes?  I want some!!!

Seriously... The county clerk is paid from tax revenues.  On my property,
that's almost $5,000 per year, and I own a very small (<1200 sq ft.) house.

Further, property taxes vary with the "assessed value" of the property.
Last I checked, there's a whole other agency in the county dedicated to
determining how much to charge you... (County Assessors office).

Since, generally, larger parcels have larger value, yes, they do charge
based on the size of the parcel to a certain extent.

Sorry... Your analogy only serves to defend ARIN's current practice
if you analyze it completely.  Not that I completely disagree with
the position you were trying to put forward.  Just that I think your
analogy doesn't help your case.

Owen

--On Tuesday, April 15, 2003 0:22 -0500 Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org> 
wrote:

>
> Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net>
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> > That's why RIRs lease addresses to you, not sell them -- they get
>> > to keep collecting money forever even if they do no additional work.
>>
>> RIRs _allocate_ addresses, meaning that they provide the _service_ of
>> _registering uniqueness_.  You pay a _membership fee_ to support the
>> ongoing operation of the registry, and allow it to continue providing you
>> with the _service of uniqueness_ for your addresses.
>>
>> You don't buy them, you don't lease them.  You buy the service of the
>> RIR's maintenance of a database which ensures unique allocations.
>
> When I buy real estate, I don't have to pay yearly fees to the county
> clerk to keep my title "unique", nor does the clerk charge me a different
> fee based on the size of the parcel.  They are solely concerned with the
> number of parcels I own and making sure nobody else claims them too.
> This is an accepted fee structure for a "service of uniqueness".
>
> If ARIN were truly a registry, they would charge by the prefix, not by the
> address, and said fees would only be incurred when a change was made.
> ARIN's fee structure clearly has far more in common with a landlord than
> with a title clerk. If it walks and talks like a duck, it's probably a
> duck.
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>




From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Apr 15 14:31:04 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:31:04 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Advisory Council Activity
Message-ID: <2147483647.1050409864@d57.wireless.hilander.com>

This information was all in my AC Report at the member meeting on 
Wednesday, but I wanted to share it with the PPML group as well.  The 
Advisory Council is actively discussing policy issues in the following 
areas:

*) The RIRs' relationship with IANA
*) A general whois AUP, similar to the bulk whois AUP
*) Amnesty Requests
*) Abuse Contact Requirements
*) Residential Customer Privacy
*) IPv6 Allocation Policy
*) Rwhois Server Operational Requirements
*) Experimental Allocations
*) ARIN's minimum IPv4 allocation/assignment size
*) Open Access Cable Issues
*) Key signing key management
*) Aggregation Requests

Several AC members are assigned to each discussion topic.  There are 
specific deliverables associated with each group (such as a policy 
proposal, a presentation of issues, etc).  When a policy proposal is ripe 
for public consumption it will be posted to the public policy mailing list 
for discussion.

If anybody has an issue related to ARIN policies that you would like the AC 
to look into, please feel free e-mail us at ac at arin.net.  Right now this is 
an open-post list, however if spam becomes an issue we may change it to 
only allow posts from subscribers to ppml at arin.net.

Alec
ARIN Advisory Council Chair




From stephen at sprunk.org  Tue Apr 15 21:38:59 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:38:59 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Dealing with ARIN.. my experiences & tips
References: <20030415201946.90904.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>
Message-ID: <00e101c303bf$3b24a500$93b58742@ssprunk>

[ Cc ppml, Bcc nanog ]

Thus spake <bdragon at gweep.net>
> The problem is that PA space is questionable. As you stated, if the only
> way to do something one wants to do is to lie/cheat/steal/kill, many
> people will do it.

One could falsify efficiency documentation on your PI space as well; PA
space isn't inherently more susceptible to fraud.

> Some of the "P" in the PA will break the rules in order to drive sales.
> So, the inherent assumption that a provider is already compliant is
> not a given, which strikes down the argument.

ARIN's policies rely on the assumption that all SWIPs to customers are
legitimate -- in practice if not in theory.  If you are going to throw rocks
at that assumption, you're going to have to redesign the whole RIR system.

> I'ld also advocate that it a provider is below 25% usage, that they
> have address space rescinded, including blocks not presently assigned
> to any RIR.

There is currently no precedent for revoking any allocation made by an RIR,
InterNIC, or IANA.  While your intentions are probably good, the
consequences of this are so staggering you'll never get consensus.

> If an entity can not be contacted for 2 compliance periods (for example,
> a swamp /24 to some long-dead company) that they be considered
> defunct, and the space rescinded.

Bill Manning/ISI already has been working for several years now to reclaim
unused address space.

> But, then again, I'm fairly liberal. I'm sure the more conservative
> among us (and those hanging onto former customer /24s, /8s, etc)
> would absolutely hate this, since they are getting something for nothing
> and don't like having to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

There are significant legal obstacles to recovering fees from allocations
made during the InterNIC days, and this would only be viable if we agreed
that RIRs can revoke unpaid legacy allocations.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From martinandersen at passagen.se  Wed Apr 16 01:00:00 2003
From: martinandersen at passagen.se (martinandersen at passagen.se)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:00:00 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP aba ndoned?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304101031060.32062-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <3E5AD488000182AA@webmail-se1.sol.no1.asap-asp.net>

I think you've misunderstood it all.

The conclusion from the meeting was that it would make sense to simply extend
the current bulk download AUP to cover general usage as well (instead of
having two separate ones). The AC will work on this. 

- Martin Andersen

>-- Original message --
>From: william at elan.net
>To: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
>Cc: "'ppml at arin.net '" <ppml at arin.net>
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP abandoned?
>Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>> This policy was abandoned for the reason of incorporating it into current
>> policy; at least that is what I understood. 
>
>That is semantics:
> A changes B
> A extendes B
> A is merged with B
> A incorporated into B
> etc.
>
>And in the past AC showed no interest in working on this policy before and
>
>failed in all the opportunities:
>1. I expressed interest in general whois aup at Eugene meeting, I was told
>
>by ARIN to prepare a policy proposal on this which I did. Never in that

>time between meetings was I ever contacted by AC on the issue and I would
>
>not have prepared my proposal if I knew AC was working on the issue.
>2. Before Whois AUP was proposed as a policy an open draft was posted to
>
>ppml. I did not receive any comments from members of AC on this.
>3. After becoming a policy proposal, there was one month given to comment
>
>on the proposal and there again weren't any comments by AC
>4. On the live meeting there was time to comment, comments went from the
>
>floor but not from the AC (beyond asking how this changes current bulk 
>whois policy, I belive AC did not realize I meant to replace it entirely)
>
>
>And the bigger problem is that AC has exceeded its authority and what it
>
>is supposed todo with new policy proposal based on current policy making
>
>rules. AC is supposed to judge support & consensus on any given proposal
>
>and do the following:
> 1. If proposal has little or no support -
>      AC can abandon it and possibly use its ideas in another proposal
> 2. If proposal has some support but not everybody agrees with it or if

>    problems are found -
>      AC is supposed to continue proposal for futher discussions and 
>      work with authors to bring new version for next meeting that would
>
>      have more support and would have previous problems fixed
> 3. If proposal has majority or greater support (general concensus) but

>    some flaws in wording or clarifications are necessary - 
>      AC is supposed to work with the author to make necessary changes in
>
>      wording and then send the proposal to ppml for additional discussions
>      and then to BoT and to last call. Generally it would not need to go
>
>      to additional public meeting having already received support there.
> 4. If proposal is supported by everyone as is - 
>      AC is supposed to without modifications send to last call and to BoT
>
>For all previous proposals and in previous meetings the above was pretty
>
>much what AC did, so even proposals that have some (but not even 50%) 
>support in the way they were written were continued to new versions. Very
>
>few proposals were abandoned before, but this was not the case for this

>meeting and this is where AC exceeded its authority and on this meeting
if
>
>you look at it - all proposals that were not brought in by memberts of AC
>
>or BoT were abandoned - this is even where proposals had greater majority
>
>support.
>
>Now Whois AUP proposal clearly falls into #3 above. Pretty much everybody
>
>on the meeting supported it, same on the mailing list. But in both cases
>
>several people asked for clarifications of some details (such as non 
>policy operation issues on how to do authentication for bulk whois amd 
>policy issues on what previous policies/aup proposal obsolutes). This is
>
>all fixabled without great changes to proposal generally by modifiying 
>some words and by adding explanation section above or below on what would
>
>be obsoluted and how proposal would fit into existing policies. 
>
>As far as I'm concerned AC had no right to abondon the proposal, rather
it
>
>should have contacted me if they wanted some changes and we could then bring
>up new version to last call and get it done with and approved fairly quickly.
>Besides that, having this done quickly would be great benefit to ARIN as
>
>there is good chance after adaption, the load on ARIN whois servers can
go
>
>down 25-50% by having some of that moved to automatic bulk whois procedure.
>That is both financial and operational gain for everybody. And I (and couple
>other people) have interest in this for research purposes as well - for

>example to create real-time bogons list that is more specific then /8s.
>
>I think ARIN AC can still save its face and time for everybody having to
>
>review the proposal again if it reversed the decision to abandon the 
>proposal. So I'm going to do the following:
>1. Write new version with modifications necessary to clarify some points.
>  This version will be sent as new proposal by end of next week. Please

>  note that if AC does not reverse current decision, the version will  
>  still go through and I'm not going to ask for any AC involvement again.
>
>  (If there are modification to policy making as BoT is suggesting, I have
>
>   enough additional people who will back me up on whois aup that I do not
>
>   need to get AC involved and I will not)
>2. Write official letter of appeal to AC and request that it convine with
>all AC memberts participating and reverse decision to abandon the proposal
>on grounds that its exceeded it authority and improperly judged support
of
>
>the proposal when it abandoneded it.
>
>Both of the above you'll see by end of this week or next depending on how
>
>much extra time I have (I'm still in midwest and not back im my office..)
>
>But be assured, if the decision to abandone is not reversed, by next 
>meeting the same proposal will be back and then I'll directly ask what 
>support it has as-is (hopefully then all things will be clear in new 
>version) and I will not seek any AC involvement (see above on all the 
>opportunities it had where it failed to even try).
>
>---
>William Leibzon
>Elan Communications Inc. 
>william at elan.net
>


_______________________________________________________
S?k f?retag p? Gula Sidorna
http://www.gulasidorna.se




From william at elan.net  Wed Apr 16 00:57:20 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP aba
 ndoned?
In-Reply-To: <3E5AD488000182AA@webmail-se1.sol.no1.asap-asp.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304152143400.27702-100000@sokol.elan.net>

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 martinandersen at passagen.se wrote:

> I think you've misunderstood it all.
> 
> The conclusion from the meeting was that it would make sense to simply extend
> the current bulk download AUP to cover general usage as well (instead of
> having two separate ones). The AC will work on this. 
> 
> - Martin Andersen
> 

And so what is the difference there with what I already proposed?
 - My policy proposal was primarily repeat of current bulk whois aup, 
   extending it to become general whois aup. In fact with exception of one
   statement taken out of verisign aup it pretty much was current bulk 
   whois aup.
 - It changed bulk whois aup from being aup to becoming just service agreement
   for access to bulk whois data.

Again seems to me people misunderstood that I never meant to have two whois
aups exist - just one for whois and have that included in bulk whois service
agreement.

If members of AC have particular suggestions on the wording of the policy,
they are more then welcome to send their comments to this list or to me 
privately (note: I'd usually post all important private comments to ppml 
anyway - you'v already seen that).

> >-- Original message --
> >From: william at elan.net
> >To: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> >Cc: "'ppml at arin.net '" <ppml at arin.net>
> >Subject: RE: [ppml] Reaction to my policy proposals. Why was Whois AUP abandoned?
> >Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >> This policy was abandoned for the reason of incorporating it into current
> >> policy; at least that is what I understood. 
> >
> >That is semantics:
> > A changes B
> > A extendes B
> > A is merged with B
> > A incorporated into B
> > etc.
> >
> >And in the past AC showed no interest in working on this policy before and
> >
> >failed in all the opportunities:
> >1. I expressed interest in general whois aup at Eugene meeting, I was told
> >
> >by ARIN to prepare a policy proposal on this which I did. Never in that
> 
> >time between meetings was I ever contacted by AC on the issue and I would
> >
> >not have prepared my proposal if I knew AC was working on the issue.
> >2. Before Whois AUP was proposed as a policy an open draft was posted to
> >
> >ppml. I did not receive any comments from members of AC on this.
> >3. After becoming a policy proposal, there was one month given to comment
> >
> >on the proposal and there again weren't any comments by AC
> >4. On the live meeting there was time to comment, comments went from the
> >
> >floor but not from the AC (beyond asking how this changes current bulk 
> >whois policy, I belive AC did not realize I meant to replace it entirely)
> >
> >
> >And the bigger problem is that AC has exceeded its authority and what it
> >
> >is supposed todo with new policy proposal based on current policy making
> >
> >rules. AC is supposed to judge support & consensus on any given proposal
> >
> >and do the following:
> > 1. If proposal has little or no support -
> >      AC can abandon it and possibly use its ideas in another proposal
> > 2. If proposal has some support but not everybody agrees with it or if
> 
> >    problems are found -
> >      AC is supposed to continue proposal for futher discussions and 
> >      work with authors to bring new version for next meeting that would
> >
> >      have more support and would have previous problems fixed
> > 3. If proposal has majority or greater support (general concensus) but
> 
> >    some flaws in wording or clarifications are necessary - 
> >      AC is supposed to work with the author to make necessary changes in
> >
> >      wording and then send the proposal to ppml for additional discussions
> >      and then to BoT and to last call. Generally it would not need to go
> >
> >      to additional public meeting having already received support there.
> > 4. If proposal is supported by everyone as is - 
> >      AC is supposed to without modifications send to last call and to BoT
> >
> >For all previous proposals and in previous meetings the above was pretty
> >
> >much what AC did, so even proposals that have some (but not even 50%) 
> >support in the way they were written were continued to new versions. Very
> >
> >few proposals were abandoned before, but this was not the case for this
> 
> >meeting and this is where AC exceeded its authority and on this meeting
> if
> >
> >you look at it - all proposals that were not brought in by memberts of AC
> >
> >or BoT were abandoned - this is even where proposals had greater majority
> >
> >support.
> >
> >Now Whois AUP proposal clearly falls into #3 above. Pretty much everybody
> >
> >on the meeting supported it, same on the mailing list. But in both cases
> >
> >several people asked for clarifications of some details (such as non 
> >policy operation issues on how to do authentication for bulk whois amd 
> >policy issues on what previous policies/aup proposal obsolutes). This is
> >
> >all fixabled without great changes to proposal generally by modifiying 
> >some words and by adding explanation section above or below on what would
> >
> >be obsoluted and how proposal would fit into existing policies. 
> >
> >As far as I'm concerned AC had no right to abondon the proposal, rather
> it
> >
> >should have contacted me if they wanted some changes and we could then bring
> >up new version to last call and get it done with and approved fairly quickly.
> >Besides that, having this done quickly would be great benefit to ARIN as
> >
> >there is good chance after adaption, the load on ARIN whois servers can
> go
> >
> >down 25-50% by having some of that moved to automatic bulk whois procedure.
> >That is both financial and operational gain for everybody. And I (and couple
> >other people) have interest in this for research purposes as well - for
> 
> >example to create real-time bogons list that is more specific then /8s.
> >
> >I think ARIN AC can still save its face and time for everybody having to
> >
> >review the proposal again if it reversed the decision to abandon the 
> >proposal. So I'm going to do the following:
> >1. Write new version with modifications necessary to clarify some points.
> >  This version will be sent as new proposal by end of next week. Please
> 
> >  note that if AC does not reverse current decision, the version will  
> >  still go through and I'm not going to ask for any AC involvement again.
> >
> >  (If there are modification to policy making as BoT is suggesting, I have
> >
> >   enough additional people who will back me up on whois aup that I do not
> >
> >   need to get AC involved and I will not)
> >2. Write official letter of appeal to AC and request that it convine with
> >all AC memberts participating and reverse decision to abandon the proposal
> >on grounds that its exceeded it authority and improperly judged support
> of
> >
> >the proposal when it abandoneded it.
> >
> >Both of the above you'll see by end of this week or next depending on how
> >
> >much extra time I have (I'm still in midwest and not back im my office..)
> >
> >But be assured, if the decision to abandone is not reversed, by next 
> >meeting the same proposal will be back and then I'll directly ask what 
> >support it has as-is (hopefully then all things will be clear in new 
> >version) and I will not seek any AC involvement (see above on all the 
> >opportunities it had where it failed to even try).
> >
> >---
> >William Leibzon
> >Elan Communications Inc. 
> >william at elan.net
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> S?k f?retag p? Gula Sidorna
> http://www.gulasidorna.se



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed Apr 16 12:27:36 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:27:36 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Advisory Council Activity
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454F6@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Alec, All,

Each member of the AC now has a plateful of responsibility.....
create/shepard identified policy and process.......  

To the extent that many parallel tracks for policy development are in play,
and not every AC member has the same longevity with ARIN or experience with
policy development,..... I think it is important that we get agreement on
what should be considered in policy development.  That is... the policy
development template or guidelines.....

I notice that this does not appear below and I do not recall that it was
addressed in your assignment emails.  

The AC with particular input by Ron and myself created some guidelines and
that was sent to Scott Bradner.  Ron apparently (by comment at the Tues.
dinner) has offered "another pair of eyes" to Scott and I volunteered to
continue to be involved at the meeting.  Regardless of who is involved on
the AC or the Board it seems crucial to me that the AC be able to articulate
clearly and in writing what it considers when crafting policy.  This is
important for the AC in that we need to be on the same page as we travel
these policy development tracks we are on, but also to be able to relate to
the BoT and to the ARIN community what we deem important considerations 'in
general' with all policies.  Also, there are aspect which we deem irrelevant
to all policy.  

To be sure, individual policies will have their idiosyncracies.  By
articulating through a policy template or guideline document what we
perceive to be relevant and important considerations, we may then spend most
of our time talking about idiosyncracies rather than the general
considerations when we justify or debate individual policies.

It is my opinion that you (Alec) need to embrace and shepard this activity
with input from all of the AC (and from Scott if he would like to
contribute).  I feel that this is an AC issue, it is crucial to our
credibility and success in our new policy role definition, and it cannot be
accomplished too soon.

bd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:ahp at hilander.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 1:31 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Advisory Council Activity
> 
> 
> This information was all in my AC Report at the member meeting on 
> Wednesday, but I wanted to share it with the PPML group as well.  The 
> Advisory Council is actively discussing policy issues in the 
> following 
> areas:
> 
> *) The RIRs' relationship with IANA
> *) A general whois AUP, similar to the bulk whois AUP
> *) Amnesty Requests
> *) Abuse Contact Requirements
> *) Residential Customer Privacy
> *) IPv6 Allocation Policy
> *) Rwhois Server Operational Requirements
> *) Experimental Allocations
> *) ARIN's minimum IPv4 allocation/assignment size
> *) Open Access Cable Issues
> *) Key signing key management
> *) Aggregation Requests
> 
> Several AC members are assigned to each discussion topic.  There are 
> specific deliverables associated with each group (such as a policy 
> proposal, a presentation of issues, etc).  When a policy 
> proposal is ripe 
> for public consumption it will be posted to the public policy 
> mailing list 
> for discussion.
> 
> If anybody has an issue related to ARIN policies that you 
> would like the AC 
> to look into, please feel free e-mail us at ac at arin.net.  
> Right now this is 
> an open-post list, however if spam becomes an issue we may 
> change it to 
> only allow posts from subscribers to ppml at arin.net.
> 
> Alec
> ARIN Advisory Council Chair
> 
> 


From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Apr 16 12:17:56 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:17:56 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Advisory Council Activity
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454F6@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF0454F6@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1050488276@macleod.hilander.com>

--On Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:27 -0500 Bill Darte 
<billd at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:

>
> It is my opinion that you (Alec) need to embrace and shepard this activity
> with input from all of the AC (and from Scott if he would like to
> contribute).  I feel that this is an AC issue, it is crucial to our
> credibility and success in our new policy role definition, and it cannot
> be accomplished too soon.

You are correct that I did overlook that item, I apologize.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com


From john at chagres.net  Wed Apr 16 15:08:27 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:08:27 -0600
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
Message-ID: <000001c3044b$909ad3b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>

It appears that the AC has been having a number
of people resign from the AC.

There has been no characterization of why those people
have decided to leave.

It seems to me that this is more than in the past.

I'd like to understand the total number of people
that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
the AC.

Since we are looking at policy process reform it may
be good to also see if there are other problems
that need to be addressed.

John Brown,
A Former member of the ARIN AC




From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed Apr 16 16:17:55 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:17:55 -0500
Subject: FW: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045500@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Meant to send this reply to both John and the ppml..... but failed to
include ppml.....

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> 
> 
> John,
> 
> People resign for a variety of reasons.  These reasons are 
> generally made available at the discretion of the individual. 
>  When you resigned, there was not call for you to explain, 
> nor was any offered to the AC as I recall..... and I do not 
> see that it is anyones business beyond that.
> 
> I do think that when there are lots of resignations, it begs 
> ARIN to ensure that persons running for the AC fully embrace 
> the commitments they are making to serve the community 
> throughout there 3 yr. term.  If however life reaches up an 
> grabs you by the pants, well you have to do what you have to 
> do... not necessarily explain it.
> 
> I think having 15 members of the AC makes sense in order for 
> there to be sufficient numbers remaining even when we have an 
> unusually high number of resignations as has happened recently.
> 
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:08 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
> > 
> > 
> > It appears that the AC has been having a number
> > of people resign from the AC.
> > 
> > There has been no characterization of why those people
> > have decided to leave.
> > 
> > It seems to me that this is more than in the past.
> > 
> > I'd like to understand the total number of people
> > that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
> > the AC.
> > 
> > Since we are looking at policy process reform it may
> > be good to also see if there are other problems
> > that need to be addressed.
> > 
> > John Brown,
> > A Former member of the ARIN AC
> > 
> > 
> 


From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Apr 16 16:13:25 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:13:25 -0600
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
In-Reply-To: <000001c3044b$909ad3b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>
References: <000001c3044b$909ad3b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1050502405@macleod.hilander.com>

--On Wednesday, April 16, 2003 13:08 -0600 "John M. Brown" 
<john at chagres.net> wrote:

>
> I'd like to understand the total number of people
> that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
> the AC.

According to my tally a total of eight people have resigned from the AC 
during ARIN's five year existence.  In addition to those people Doug 
Humphrey left before his term was up because he was appointed to the Board 
of Trustees.

As far as why people have resigned, it is each person's business why he/she 
chose to resign.  If any other former members of the AC are on this list 
they are free to describe their reasons in whatever level of detail they 
wish, or not at all.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com


From thinman at clp.cw.net  Wed Apr 16 16:39:45 2003
From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:39:45 -0400
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045500@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <JPEIJPHKLJKHFJAGFLKHIELMDPAA.thinman@clp.cw.net>

John,

Out of the kindness of my heart, I'll let you know why I ressigned...

I resigned due to health reasons. The commitment was there, but you get to a
point, as Bill stated, when life kind of takes you by surprise and you have
to sit down for awhile.

Thanks,
Tanya



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:18 PM
To: ARIN Public Policy (E-mail); 'john at chagres.net'
Subject: FW: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months


Meant to send this reply to both John and the ppml..... but failed to
include ppml.....

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

>
>
> John,
>
> People resign for a variety of reasons.  These reasons are
> generally made available at the discretion of the individual.
>  When you resigned, there was not call for you to explain,
> nor was any offered to the AC as I recall..... and I do not
> see that it is anyones business beyond that.
>
> I do think that when there are lots of resignations, it begs
> ARIN to ensure that persons running for the AC fully embrace
> the commitments they are making to serve the community
> throughout there 3 yr. term.  If however life reaches up an
> grabs you by the pants, well you have to do what you have to
> do... not necessarily explain it.
>
> I think having 15 members of the AC makes sense in order for
> there to be sufficient numbers remaining even when we have an
> unusually high number of resignations as has happened recently.
>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:08 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
> >
> >
> > It appears that the AC has been having a number
> > of people resign from the AC.
> >
> > There has been no characterization of why those people
> > have decided to leave.
> >
> > It seems to me that this is more than in the past.
> >
> > I'd like to understand the total number of people
> > that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
> > the AC.
> >
> > Since we are looking at policy process reform it may
> > be good to also see if there are other problems
> > that need to be addressed.
> >
> > John Brown,
> > A Former member of the ARIN AC
> >
> >
>



From memsvcs at arin.net  Wed Apr 16 16:58:30 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN XI Meeting Minutes Posted
Message-ID: <200304162058.QAA05154@ops.arin.net>

ARIN recently concluded its eleventh Public Policy and Member 
Meetings held in Memphis, Tennessee, April 6 - 9, 2003.
Minutes of these meetings, as well as the presentations given, 
are now available on the ARIN website at: 

  http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_XI/index.html

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 



From memsvcs at arin.net  Wed Apr 16 17:06:06 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:06:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
Message-ID: <200304162106.RAA06579@ops.arin.net>

The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the 
following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of 
Trustees for consideration. 

This is a last call for comments on this policy 
proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. 
Comments received during this period will be included 
with the proposal when it is presented to the Board 
of Trustees for their consideration. 

Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last 
call will expire at 23:59 EDT on April 30, 2003. 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


*** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2003-5 *** 

2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements 

Background: 

RWhois was created in part to allow ISP's locally operate and control 
their own reassignment information. The purpose of placing this data 
in a RWhois server was two-fold: 

  1) Allow RIR staff to examine reassignment utilization 
  2) Allow access to the general public on reassignment information. 

Many ISPs have opted to use RWhois servers for their reassignment 
information over sending SWIPs to ARIN. But some of the ISP's who 
have selected to use RWhois servers for their reassignment information 
have not kept the servers operational 24x7, contents of the database up 
to-date, or are restricting access only to ARIN staff. This lack of a 
uniform set of operations of RWhois servers has resulted in confusion 
for end-users and ARIN staff. 

Policy Proposal: 

Therefore, it is proposed a set of minimal requirements of operating 
a RWhois server for those ISPs who decide to use RWhois to 
manage their IP reassignment information be established and enforced. 

  The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are: 

  The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 
  to both the general public and ARIN staff. 

  The RWhois server must allow public access to reassignment information. 
  The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval 
  from a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring 
  attempts, and other nefarious acts. 

  The RWhois server must return reassignment information for the IP 
  address queried. The RWhois server may follow the privacy protections 
  for customers as described in the multi-homed policy. The RWhois server 
  must give customer information as described in the multi-homed policy 
  to ARIN staff. 

  The RWhois server may return results for non-IP queries. 

  The RWhois server must respond to a query with the minimal set of 
  attributes per object as defined by ARIN staff. 

  The RWhois server may include optional attributes per object that are 
  defined by the operator. 

  The RWhois server must return results that are up-to-date on 
  reassignment information. 

Note that this policy only applies to those organizations
who choose RWhois as their reassignment option.

## END ##



From memsvcs at arin.net  Wed Apr 16 17:07:05 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-5
Message-ID: <200304162107.RAA06676@ops.arin.net>

The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the 
following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of 
Trustees for consideration. 

This is a last call for comments on this policy 
proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. 
Comments received during this period will be included 
with the proposal when it is presented to the Board 
of Trustees for their consideration. 

Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last 
call will expire at 23:59 EDT on April 30, 2003. 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


*** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2002-5 *** 

Policy Proposal 2002-5: Amnesty Requests 

If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or 
end-user, relinquishes a larger block of portable address 
space to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a smaller 
block, /24 or shorter, in exchange. The organization will 
not be required to justify their use of the new, smaller 
block. The organization must return the block to be 
exchanged within 12 months. ARIN staff shall, at their 
discretion, determine whether the smaller replacement block 
shall be a subnet of the returned block, or a block allocated 
from some different range. If any of the relinquished blocks 
had associated maintenance fees, then the new block will be 
subject to the appropriate fees for that block size. 
Likewise those without maintenance fees shall remain so. 

## END ##



From memsvcs at arin.net  Wed Apr 16 17:07:59 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:07:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6
Message-ID: <200304162107.RAA06856@ops.arin.net>

The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the 
following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of 
Trustees for consideration. 

This is a last call for comments on this policy 
proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. 
Comments received during this period will be included 
with the proposal when it is presented to the Board 
of Trustees for their consideration. 

Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last 
call will expire at 23:59 EDT on April 30, 2003. 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


*** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2002-6 *** 

Policy Proposal 2002-6: Aggregation Requests 

If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or
end-user, relinquishes a group of portable, non-aggregatable 
address blocks to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a 
block in exchange, /24 or shorter, but no more than the 
shortest block that could contain all of the returned blocks. 
Exchanged space shall be returned within 12 months. For 
example, if an organization relinquished three /24s, they 
should be allowed to take either a /24, a /23, or a /22 in 
exchange.  If the gain in the number of addresses is greater 
than 4096, the aggregation request must be evaluated by the 
ARIN staff in accordance with the current IPv4 allocation 
policy.  If all of the previous address blocks were maintained 
in the ARIN database without maintenance fees, the replacement 
space shall be as well, but if any one of the returned blocks 
had associated maintenance fees, then the replacement block 
shall also be subject to maintenance fees.

## END ##



From Suzanne_Woolf at isc.org  Wed Apr 16 18:03:20 2003
From: Suzanne_Woolf at isc.org (Suzanne Woolf)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:03:20 +0000
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
In-Reply-To: <000001c3044b$909ad3b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>
References: <000001c3044b$909ad3b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>
Message-ID: <20030416220320.GA61237@farside.isc.org>


John,

On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:08:27PM -0600, John M. Brown wrote:
> I'd like to understand the total number of people
> that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
> the AC.
> 
> Since we are looking at policy process reform it may
> be good to also see if there are other problems
> that need to be addressed.

Your concern for the process is exactly what the AC and ARIN need to
see. I was a little surprised not to see more discussion in the
meeting of the proposal and hope to see more here.

Could you state your reasons for resigning? Do the proposed changes in
the policy process address your reasons in any way? Do you think the
proposed changes would improve the AC and ARIN from your perspective,
aggravate problems, or not really change anything?


Suzanne



From broseman at ix.netcom.com  Wed Apr 16 21:52:55 2003
From: broseman at ix.netcom.com (Barbara Roseman)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:52:55 -1000
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
In-Reply-To: <000001c3044b$909ad3b0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030416155016.022102c0@popd.ix.netcom.com>

John, and everyone,

I resigned from the ARIN AC because of a perceived conflict of interest 
with my new position working with ICANN.

-Barb

At 01:08 PM 4/16/2003 -0600, John M. Brown wrote:
>It appears that the AC has been having a number
>of people resign from the AC.
>
>There has been no characterization of why those people
>have decided to leave.
>
>It seems to me that this is more than in the past.
>
>I'd like to understand the total number of people
>that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
>the AC.
>
>Since we are looking at policy process reform it may
>be good to also see if there are other problems
>that need to be addressed.
>
>John Brown,
>A Former member of the ARIN AC



From william at elan.net  Wed Apr 16 17:23:55 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <200304162106.RAA06579@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304161317150.9544-100000@sokol.elan.net>

I planned to send this comments to Mark Kosters and cc to ppml but never 
got around to it. I have problems with some wording of this policy (but 
not with main issue being addresses). I did expect that some of this would be 
addressed in the final revision and did not expect policy to go to last 
call AS-IS. Here are my particular suggestions:

1. I think policy should be more generic appliying to any whois service 
that is approved by ARIN and is being used to show reassignment data by ISP.
Currently this is primarily rwhois, but there are 4 isps doing just plain 
whois and in the future some policy needs to be developed on what services 
is accepted (such as when crisp is ready). But as far as this policy, the 
changes I proposed are that word "Rwhois" be replaced with "isp maintained 
reassigment whois service". Possibly it can be done in the name of the 
policy and first time its mentioned and then it can say rwhois for 
additional cases explaining that would be a acronym for "reassignment 
whois server" but does not necessarily means its rwhois protocol.

2. I have recomendations with some wording on requirements:
 a. Move first sentence of paragraph 2 into paragraph 1 - it belongs more 
    clearly there and maybe add the very last paragraph here as well (most 
   important points must be first). So possibly change paragraph 1 to something
   like "Reassignment server must allow public access to reassigment
   information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and must return results that 
   are up-to-date"
   This is shorter and better in my view but whatever...

 b. Separate first sentence of paragraph 3 on by itself - i.e.
   "The RWhois server must return reassignment information for the IP 
   address queried", possibly add it to paragraph 1 above, i.e.
   "... up-to-date and must return reassignment information for the ip 
   address queried"
 
 c. For same paragraph 3, I do not think specifically mentioning "multi-homed"
    policy is good, it may change in the future and different privacy
    considerations in other policies may be created. Better to possibly say
    "The reassignment server may follow privacy considerations for public 
    access as described in ARIN policies but most provide exact detail on
    assignments and allocations to ARIN staff"

 d. Possibly combine paragraphs on attributes that are returned, i.e.
   "The RWhois server must respond to a query with the minimal set of 
    attributes per object as defined by ARIN staff. The RWhois server may 
    include optional attributes per object that are defined by the operator."

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the 
> following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of 
> Trustees for consideration. 
> 
> This is a last call for comments on this policy 
> proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. 
> Comments received during this period will be included 
> with the proposal when it is presented to the Board 
> of Trustees for their consideration. 
> 
> Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last 
> call will expire at 23:59 EDT on April 30, 2003. 
> 
> Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> *** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2003-5 *** 
> 
> 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements 
> 
> Background: 
> 
> RWhois was created in part to allow ISP's locally operate and control 
> their own reassignment information. The purpose of placing this data 
> in a RWhois server was two-fold: 
> 
>   1) Allow RIR staff to examine reassignment utilization 
>   2) Allow access to the general public on reassignment information. 
> 
> Many ISPs have opted to use RWhois servers for their reassignment 
> information over sending SWIPs to ARIN. But some of the ISP's who 
> have selected to use RWhois servers for their reassignment information 
> have not kept the servers operational 24x7, contents of the database up 
> to-date, or are restricting access only to ARIN staff. This lack of a 
> uniform set of operations of RWhois servers has resulted in confusion 
> for end-users and ARIN staff. 
> 
> Policy Proposal: 
> 
> Therefore, it is proposed a set of minimal requirements of operating 
> a RWhois server for those ISPs who decide to use RWhois to 
> manage their IP reassignment information be established and enforced. 
> 
>   The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are: 
> 
>   The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 
>   to both the general public and ARIN staff. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must allow public access to reassignment information. 
>   The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval 
>   from a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring 
>   attempts, and other nefarious acts. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must return reassignment information for the IP 
>   address queried. The RWhois server may follow the privacy protections 
>   for customers as described in the multi-homed policy. The RWhois server 
>   must give customer information as described in the multi-homed policy 
>   to ARIN staff. 
> 
>   The RWhois server may return results for non-IP queries. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must respond to a query with the minimal set of 
>   attributes per object as defined by ARIN staff. 
> 
>   The RWhois server may include optional attributes per object that are 
>   defined by the operator. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must return results that are up-to-date on 
>   reassignment information. 
> 
> Note that this policy only applies to those organizations
> who choose RWhois as their reassignment option.
> 
> ## END ##



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed Apr 16 19:32:19 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:32:19 -0500
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045502@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Tanya,

Thanks for your courage and willingness to state your reasoning, though I
certainly did not call for or expect such a statement.  Your integrity was
obvious from the many years of continuous involvement in ARIN and the public
meetings.  It was also evident that many others felt that way by your
election to the position.  I regret your absence.  Also, I wish you God
speed and hope your recovery is complete and soon.

Bill Darte
Your friend and colleague

-----Original Message-----
From: Tanya Hinman
To: Bill Darte; ARIN Public Policy (E-mail); john at chagres.net
Sent: 4/16/03 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months

John,

Out of the kindness of my heart, I'll let you know why I ressigned...

I resigned due to health reasons. The commitment was there, but you get
to a
point, as Bill stated, when life kind of takes you by surprise and you
have
to sit down for awhile.

Thanks,
Tanya



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill
Darte
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:18 PM
To: ARIN Public Policy (E-mail); 'john at chagres.net'
Subject: FW: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months


Meant to send this reply to both John and the ppml..... but failed to
include ppml.....

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

>
>
> John,
>
> People resign for a variety of reasons.  These reasons are
> generally made available at the discretion of the individual.
>  When you resigned, there was not call for you to explain,
> nor was any offered to the AC as I recall..... and I do not
> see that it is anyones business beyond that.
>
> I do think that when there are lots of resignations, it begs
> ARIN to ensure that persons running for the AC fully embrace
> the commitments they are making to serve the community
> throughout there 3 yr. term.  If however life reaches up an
> grabs you by the pants, well you have to do what you have to
> do... not necessarily explain it.
>
> I think having 15 members of the AC makes sense in order for
> there to be sufficient numbers remaining even when we have an
> unusually high number of resignations as has happened recently.
>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:08 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
> >
> >
> > It appears that the AC has been having a number
> > of people resign from the AC.
> >
> > There has been no characterization of why those people
> > have decided to leave.
> >
> > It seems to me that this is more than in the past.
> >
> > I'd like to understand the total number of people
> > that have resigned, and why they have resigned from
> > the AC.
> >
> > Since we are looking at policy process reform it may
> > be good to also see if there are other problems
> > that need to be addressed.
> >
> > John Brown,
> > A Former member of the ARIN AC
> >
> >
>


From william at elan.net  Wed Apr 16 17:50:59 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-5
In-Reply-To: <200304162107.RAA06676@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304161445350.11822-100000@sokol.elan.net>

If we really want to see organizations relinquish space to below /20 
boandary (this creating new micro-assignments) then we must have new fee 
schedule that takes care of micro-assignments properly. This issue of 
changing fee schedule with more layers for smaller blocks has been hanging 
around ARIN for a while. It been mentioned in Las Vegas and Eugene and 
financial comitee did promise to work on it since ARIN has quite good 
positive revenue but nothing has come to that so far... But it would 
really be usefull if we want 2002-5 and 2002-6 to actually be used for 
blocks < /20.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the 
> following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of 
> Trustees for consideration. 
> 
> This is a last call for comments on this policy 
> proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. 
> Comments received during this period will be included 
> with the proposal when it is presented to the Board 
> of Trustees for their consideration. 
> 
> Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last 
> call will expire at 23:59 EDT on April 30, 2003. 
> 
> Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> *** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2002-5 *** 
> 
> Policy Proposal 2002-5: Amnesty Requests 
> 
> If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or 
> end-user, relinquishes a larger block of portable address 
> space to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a smaller 
> block, /24 or shorter, in exchange. The organization will 
> not be required to justify their use of the new, smaller 
> block. The organization must return the block to be 
> exchanged within 12 months. ARIN staff shall, at their 
> discretion, determine whether the smaller replacement block 
> shall be a subnet of the returned block, or a block allocated 
> from some different range. If any of the relinquished blocks 
> had associated maintenance fees, then the new block will be 
> subject to the appropriate fees for that block size. 
> Likewise those without maintenance fees shall remain so. 
> 
> ## END ##



From woody at pch.net  Thu Apr 17 02:20:27 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304161445350.11822-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304162319030.19498-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
    > If we really want to see organizations relinquish space to below /20
    > boandary (this creating new micro-assignments) then we must have new fee
    > schedule that takes care of micro-assignments properly.

These are two completely orthoganal issues.  Policy proposal 2002-5 deals
with addresses, not dollars.  If you wish to suggest a separate policy
related to dollars, you're absolutely welcome to, at any time.  You're not
welcome to try to hang your agenda on the side of this unrelated policy.

                                -Bill




From william at elan.net  Thu Apr 17 09:01:58 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304162319030.19498-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304162208420.11822-100000@sokol.elan.net>

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>     > If we really want to see organizations relinquish space to below /20
>     > boandary (this creating new micro-assignments) then we must have new fee
>     > schedule that takes care of micro-assignments properly.
> 
> These are two completely orthoganal issues.  Policy proposal 2002-5 deals
> with addresses, not dollars.  If you wish to suggest a separate policy
> related to dollars, you're absolutely welcome to, at any time.  You're not
> welcome to try to hang your agenda on the side of this unrelated policy.

You know quite well yourself that under ARIN systems how much to charge 
are not policy matters but have to be proposed by finance comitee (is 
that what it is called?) and approved by BoT based on members feedback.
But its not open policy policy issue.

And this is not quite orthogonal to 2002-5. Without lower fees for blocks 
there are no advantages for somebody to relinquish space to below /20. I 
mean lets say you have /19 that you're paying ARIN $2500/yr for and you 
really just need /22. Would you really agree to give up most of your ips 
(knowing how difficult it can be getting more ips in the future) and in 
the end you either get /22 of your former block (which would not be 
routable if all other blocks in that /8 are /20 or highier) or have to 
renumber (another nightmare) and still in the end you continue to pay ARIN 
same $2500/yr. However if there was an advantage like moving from paying 
$2500/yr to $500/yr - this would be substnatial enough for somebody to use 
this policy and reduce its allocation.

As I said before I do not have problem with amnesty policy idea, but I 
think it'll never be used widely because it does not help those who want to 
go below /20 and these majority of those who could possibly want 
to use this policy. But this does not mean the issues can not be fixed 
after the policy is passed - just have to be aware what needs to be 
done if you want organizations to really take advantage of the policy.

-- 
William Leibzon




From woody at pch.net  Thu Apr 17 13:38:26 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304162208420.11822-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304171035490.25240-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
    > You know quite well yourself that under ARIN systems how much to charge
    > are not policy matters...

I didn't suggest it would work, I just suggested you shouldn't try to
encumber 2002-5 with it.

    > And this is not quite orthogonal to 2002-5. Without lower fees for blocks
    > there are no advantages for somebody to relinquish space to below /20.

You discount the warm glow of righteousness.

    > As I said before I do not have problem with amnesty policy idea, but I
    > think it'll never be used widely

I believe you're absolutely correct.  It's inoffensive, and unlikely to be
widely used.

                                -Bill




From einar.bohlin at mci.com  Thu Apr 17 15:30:56 2003
From: einar.bohlin at mci.com (Einar Bohlin)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <200304162106.RAA06579@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304171439570.18176-100000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>

About this paragraph:

>   The RWhois server must return reassignment information for the IP
>   address queried. The RWhois server may follow the privacy protections
>   for customers as described in the multi-homed policy. The RWhois server
>   must give customer information as described in the multi-homed policy
>   to ARIN staff.

This doesn't make sense as written. There aren't any
privacy protections in the multi-homed policy (at least
as far as 2001-2 goes).  I think the paragraph
is trying to say that RWHOIS should follow suit with what WHOIS
shows.  But you can't simply say RWHOIS and WHOIS output will be
the same, because, for example, WHOIS shows parent blocks.

One 'privacy policy' that comes to mind is this section
from the REASSIGN SIMPLE template instructions:

  If the customer is a private residence, the actual street address is
   not necessary. However, the city, state/province, postal code and
   country code must be supplied. For example, you may provide the
   following:
      Customer Address: PRIVATE RESIDENCE

RWHOIS should be allowed to do this too.  RWHOIS output
should abide by ARIN policies and guidelines.

Finally, I agree with William's paragraph one in his post,
that this should be generic, not limited in scope to RWHOIS.
ARIN currently allows SWIP and RWHOIS.  If it was generic it
would apply to RWHOIS and any future allowable methods
(MD says "LDAP").  It seems to me that RWHOIS is like Kleenex.

Regards,

Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - MCI/UUNET
Phone: 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
email: einar.bohlin at mci.com



On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Member Services wrote:

> The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the 
> following policy proposal to the ARIN Board of 
> Trustees for consideration. 
> 
> This is a last call for comments on this policy 
> proposal prior to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. 
> Comments received during this period will be included 
> with the proposal when it is presented to the Board 
> of Trustees for their consideration. 
> 
> Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last 
> call will expire at 23:59 EDT on April 30, 2003. 
> 
> Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> *** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2003-5 *** 
> 
> 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements 
> 
> Background: 
> 
> RWhois was created in part to allow ISP's locally operate and control 
> their own reassignment information. The purpose of placing this data 
> in a RWhois server was two-fold: 
> 
>   1) Allow RIR staff to examine reassignment utilization 
>   2) Allow access to the general public on reassignment information. 
> 
> Many ISPs have opted to use RWhois servers for their reassignment 
> information over sending SWIPs to ARIN. But some of the ISP's who 
> have selected to use RWhois servers for their reassignment information 
> have not kept the servers operational 24x7, contents of the database up 
> to-date, or are restricting access only to ARIN staff. This lack of a 
> uniform set of operations of RWhois servers has resulted in confusion 
> for end-users and ARIN staff. 
> 
> Policy Proposal: 
> 
> Therefore, it is proposed a set of minimal requirements of operating 
> a RWhois server for those ISPs who decide to use RWhois to 
> manage their IP reassignment information be established and enforced. 
> 
>   The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are: 
> 
>   The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 
>   to both the general public and ARIN staff. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must allow public access to reassignment information. 
>   The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval 
>   from a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring 
>   attempts, and other nefarious acts. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must return reassignment information for the IP 
>   address queried. The RWhois server may follow the privacy protections 
>   for customers as described in the multi-homed policy. The RWhois server 
>   must give customer information as described in the multi-homed policy 
>   to ARIN staff. 
> 
>   The RWhois server may return results for non-IP queries. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must respond to a query with the minimal set of 
>   attributes per object as defined by ARIN staff. 
> 
>   The RWhois server may include optional attributes per object that are 
>   defined by the operator. 
> 
>   The RWhois server must return results that are up-to-date on 
>   reassignment information. 
> 
> Note that this policy only applies to those organizations
> who choose RWhois as their reassignment option.
> 
> ## END ##
> 
> 



From dana at audigirl.com  Fri Apr 18 09:39:44 2003
From: dana at audigirl.com (Dana Argiro)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0304180934090.24864@user1.bind.com>

> 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements
>
>   The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are:
>
>   The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
>   to both the general public and ARIN staff.

I would like to see an amendment added allowing maintenance windows to
account for events that may cause the server to be temporarily offline.

Dana
ARIN AC


From broseman at ix.netcom.com  Fri Apr 18 14:00:49 2003
From: broseman at ix.netcom.com (Barbara Roseman)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:00:49 -1000
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0304180934090.24864@user1.bind.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030418075204.00ab9ff8@popd.ix.netcom.com>

I agree with Dana's added language about maintenance windows, and with what 
some others have proposed to make the language less specific to RWhois and 
more generically to locally maintained dbs used in place of WHOIS. We 
should have all caught this after Leslie's presentation on CRISP and IRIS. 
These may still be some way off, but some version of them will arrive.

Einar raises a good point that the requirements for privacy should match 
those of WHOIS, not create an entirely new set of standards. This also fits 
with the idea that this proposal should cover a more generic set of dbs 
than simply RWhois.

-Barb

At 09:39 AM 4/18/2003 -0400, Dana Argiro wrote:
> > 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements
> >
> >   The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are:
> >
> >   The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
> >   to both the general public and ARIN staff.
>
>I would like to see an amendment added allowing maintenance windows to
>account for events that may cause the server to be temporarily offline.
>
>Dana
>ARIN AC



From william at elan.net  Fri Apr 18 14:03:54 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030418075204.00ab9ff8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304181100240.26419-100000@sokol.elan.net>

How about this version for proposal:

"Minimum requirements for operating reassignment whois server for those 
ISPs that do not use SWIP to provide public access to their reassigments 
are as follows:

Reassignment server must allow public access to reassignment information 
24 hours a day, 7 days a week and must return results that are up-to-date 
for the ip address queried.

Reassignment server may follow privace considerations for public access to 
whois as described in other ARIN policies but must provide exact detail on 
assignments and allocations to ARIN staff.

The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval from 
a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring attempts,
and other nefarious acts and may temporarily disable service for short 
maintanance period not to exceed 12 hours per month.

Reassignment server must respond to query with minimum set of attributes 
per object as defined by ARIN staff. The server may include optional
attributes that are defined by the operator and may return results
for other (non-ip) queries."

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Barbara Roseman wrote:

> I agree with Dana's added language about maintenance windows, and with what 
> some others have proposed to make the language less specific to RWhois and 
> more generically to locally maintained dbs used in place of WHOIS. We 
> should have all caught this after Leslie's presentation on CRISP and IRIS. 
> These may still be some way off, but some version of them will arrive.
> 
> Einar raises a good point that the requirements for privacy should match 
> those of WHOIS, not create an entirely new set of standards. This also fits 
> with the idea that this proposal should cover a more generic set of dbs 
> than simply RWhois.
> 
> -Barb
> 
> At 09:39 AM 4/18/2003 -0400, Dana Argiro wrote:
> > > 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements
> > >
> > >   The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are:
> > >
> > >   The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
> > >   to both the general public and ARIN staff.
> >
> >I would like to see an amendment added allowing maintenance windows to
> >account for events that may cause the server to be temporarily offline.
> >
> >Dana
> >ARIN AC



From markk at verisignlabs.com  Fri Apr 18 16:21:37 2003
From: markk at verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:21:37 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0304180934090.24864@user1.bind.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0304180934090.24864@user1.bind.com>
Message-ID: <20030418202137.GH2795@verisignlabs.com>

Good idea.

Mark

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:39:44AM -0400, Dana Argiro wrote:
> > 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements
> >
> >   The proposed minimal RWhois requirements are:
> >
> >   The RWhois server must be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
> >   to both the general public and ARIN staff.
> 
> I would like to see an amendment added allowing maintenance windows to
> account for events that may cause the server to be temporarily offline.

-- 

Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com       Verisign Applied Research


From markk at verisignlabs.com  Fri Apr 18 16:21:25 2003
From: markk at verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:21:25 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030418075204.00ab9ff8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0304180934090.24864@user1.bind.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030418075204.00ab9ff8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <20030418202125.GG2795@verisignlabs.com>

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:00:49AM -1000, Barbara Roseman wrote:
> I agree with Dana's added language about maintenance windows, and with what 
> some others have proposed to make the language less specific to RWhois and 
> more generically to locally maintained dbs used in place of WHOIS. We 
> should have all caught this after Leslie's presentation on CRISP and IRIS. 
> These may still be some way off, but some version of them will arrive.

I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML based 
service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.

> Einar raises a good point that the requirements for privacy should match 
> those of WHOIS, not create an entirely new set of standards. This also fits 
> with the idea that this proposal should cover a more generic set of dbs 
> than simply RWhois.

I thought it did that...  It is in the multi-homed section of the policy 
doc where I quote below:

" To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, ISPs will provide 
  only the person's name, city, state, zip code, and country. The street 
  address will be replaced by the words "Private Residence," and the 
  upstream's POC will serve as the customer's contact."

So, I think that Einar is saying the same thing as what was described
in the policy.

Mark

-- 

Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com       Verisign Applied Research


From markk at verisignlabs.com  Fri Apr 18 16:34:18 2003
From: markk at verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:34:18 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304181100240.26419-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030418075204.00ab9ff8@popd.ix.netcom.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304181100240.26419-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <20030418203418.GI2795@verisignlabs.com>

Thank you for editing this. I do have some nits I'd like to discuss.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 11:03:54AM -0700, william at elan.net wrote:
> How about this version for proposal:
> 
> "Minimum requirements for operating reassignment whois server for those 
> ISPs that do not use SWIP to provide public access to their reassigments 
> are as follows:

I don't think we want to say whois server here. Either we stick with
RWhois or called it an "ARIN approved distributed information service".

> Reassignment server must allow public access to reassignment information 
> 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and must return results that are up-to-date 
> for the ip address queried.
> 
> Reassignment server may follow privace considerations for public access to 
> whois as described in other ARIN policies but must provide exact detail on 
> assignments and allocations to ARIN staff.

Humm, what do others think of having two views and the wording above
as opposed to what is stated in the multi-homing section of the policy?

> The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval from 
> a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring attempts,
> and other nefarious acts and may temporarily disable service for short 
> maintanance period not to exceed 12 hours per month.

Is 12 hours a good number?  Do we want to put up sla-like numbers that
RWhois providers to have to sustain?

Thanks,
Mark (aka Mr RWhois)


From william at elan.net  Fri Apr 18 15:26:12 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <20030418203418.GI2795@verisignlabs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304181203310.26419-100000@sokol.elan.net>

> Thank you for editing this. I do have some nits I'd like to discuss.
> 
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 11:03:54AM -0700, william at elan.net wrote:
> > How about this version for proposal:
> > 
> > "Minimum requirements for operating reassignment whois server for those 
> > ISPs that do not use SWIP to provide public access to their reassigments 
> > are as follows:
> 
> I don't think we want to say whois server here. Either we stick with
> RWhois or called it an "ARIN approved distributed information service".
How about something like "ARIN approved distributed information service 
(such as rwhois)".

BTW - It was my understanding that CRISP would still be called whois service
protocol. Meaning "whois" is appropriate word for "internet resources
information service" and does not specifically means original whois 
protocol...

> > Reassignment server must allow public access to reassignment information 
> > 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and must return results that are up-to-date 
> > for the ip address queried.
> > 
> > Reassignment server may follow privace considerations for public access to 
> > whois as described in other ARIN policies but must provide exact detail on 
> > assignments and allocations to ARIN staff.
> 
> Humm, what do others think of having two views and the wording above
> as opposed to what is stated in the multi-homing section of the policy?

As me and others have stated, multi-homing policy does not really go into 
privacy protections, but other policies do and one is actually in last-call
and another one has been discussed on the meeting. We must not be specific
to any given privacy policy. 

The original wording I actually took from your version "The RWhois server 
must give customer information as described in the multi-homed policy to 
ARIN staff" which would already imply two views which I agree may not be 
the best - some reassignment servers may support it, some may not.

Possibly we can change the wording into:

"Reassignment server may follow privace considerations for public access to
whois as described in other ARIN policies but organization must provide 
exact details on assignments and allocations to ARIN staff per their request"

This would have implied meaning that they do not need to provide all 
information through public whois but ARIN may receive it either 
autmaiticly though special view or manually if they ask.
Note: "per their request" is probably not necessary either.

> > The ISP may restrict the number of queries allowed per time interval from 
> > a host or subnet to defend against DDOS attacks, remote mirroring attempts,
> > and other nefarious acts and may temporarily disable service for short 
> > maintanance period not to exceed 12 hours per month.
> 
> Is 12 hours a good number?  Do we want to put up sla-like numbers that
> RWhois providers to have to sustain?

I think if we do not put specific number, some companies may just use it 
as excuses to keep their rwhois server down, claiming maintainace period
I think some number have to be specified, if 12 hours it too short, then 
make it 24 hours. One day per month for maintanance period is way more 
then enough in my view


> Thanks,
> Mark (aka Mr RWhois)
> 




From einar.bohlin at mci.com  Fri Apr 18 18:25:16 2003
From: einar.bohlin at mci.com (Einar Bohlin)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <20030418202125.GG2795@verisignlabs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304181757320.3562-100000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>

Hi Mark,

That text you're quoting is in the "IPv4 Policies" doc:
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv4.html

It's in the multihomed section as well as the section above it.
That policy got put in those sections a while ago.  Today it
would be a stand alone policy, pertaining to whois output
and privacy issues.  Earlier I wasn't sure where you got
that from, I mistakenly thought you we're referring to 2001-2.

May I suggest that in 2003-5 that you replace "the multi-homed policy"
with "IPv4 policies"?  And then take of the last three words
of the paragraph too, remove "to ARIN staff".

Regards,

Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - MCI/UUNET
Phone: 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
email: einar.bohlin at mci.com



On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Mark Kosters wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:00:49AM -1000, Barbara Roseman wrote:
> > I agree with Dana's added language about maintenance windows, and with what 
> > some others have proposed to make the language less specific to RWhois and 
> > more generically to locally maintained dbs used in place of WHOIS. We 
> > should have all caught this after Leslie's presentation on CRISP and IRIS. 
> > These may still be some way off, but some version of them will arrive.
> 
> I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
> allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
> RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
> service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML based 
> service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.
> 
> > Einar raises a good point that the requirements for privacy should match 
> > those of WHOIS, not create an entirely new set of standards. This also fits 
> > with the idea that this proposal should cover a more generic set of dbs 
> > than simply RWhois.
> 
> I thought it did that...  It is in the multi-homed section of the policy 
> doc where I quote below:
> 
> " To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, ISPs will provide 
>   only the person's name, city, state, zip code, and country. The street 
>   address will be replaced by the words "Private Residence," and the 
>   upstream's POC will serve as the customer's contact."
> 
> So, I think that Einar is saying the same thing as what was described
> in the policy.
> 
> Mark
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com       Verisign Applied Research
> 



From owen at delong.com  Fri Apr 18 18:35:40 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:35:40 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <20030418202125.GG2795@verisignlabs.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.55.0304180934090.24864@user1.bind.com>
 <5.2.0.9.2.20030418075204.00ab9ff8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
 <20030418202125.GG2795@verisignlabs.com>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1050680140@dhcp157-162.corp.tellme.com>



--On Friday, April 18, 2003 16:21 -0400 Mark Kosters 
<markk at verisignlabs.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 08:00:49AM -1000, Barbara Roseman wrote:
>> I agree with Dana's added language about maintenance windows, and with
>> what  some others have proposed to make the language less specific to
>> RWhois and  more generically to locally maintained dbs used in place of
>> WHOIS. We  should have all caught this after Leslie's presentation on
>> CRISP and IRIS.  These may still be some way off, but some version of
>> them will arrive.
>
> I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
> allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
> RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
> service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML
> based  service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that
> point.
>
I disagree.  I think it should be made generic NOW, in such a way that
all ARIN has to do is update the other policy and this one automatically
tracks it.

As to Einar's comments, what I think he's saying is that it
shouldn't incorporate a specific other policy by reference,
but, should, generically incorporate ALL ARIN reassignment
information privacy policies, as they exist now, and, as
they may be ammended in the future.

Owen



From william at elan.net  Fri Apr 18 18:45:51 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304181757320.3562-100000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304181541020.26419-100000@sokol.elan.net>

> May I suggest that in 2003-5 that you replace "the multi-homed policy"
> with "IPv4 policies"? 

So if I have ipv6 and use rwhois I do not have to follow any privacy rules?
:)

Note: actually this is true - none of the current rwhois software can work 
with ipv6 - but rwhois protocol should support it in theory I think...

William



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Fri Apr 18 20:57:52 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304181541020.26419-100000@sokol.elan.net> from "william@elan.net" at Apr 18, 2003 03:45:51 PM
Message-ID: <200304190057.h3J0vqG30164@karoshi.com>

> 
> > May I suggest that in 2003-5 that you replace "the multi-homed policy"
> > with "IPv4 policies"? 
> 
> So if I have ipv6 and use rwhois I do not have to follow any privacy rules?
> :)
> 
> Note: actually this is true - none of the current rwhois software can work 
> with ipv6 - but rwhois protocol should support it in theory I think...
> 
> William
> 

	Actually, thats not true.  We ported rWhois to support IPv6 in
	1999.  ARIN picked up support of rWhois after then and dropped
	the IPv6 capability.  We still have the older code and run it.

--bill


From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 05:54:22 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:54:22 +0100
Subject: [ppml] AC resignations in the last few months
Message-ID: <OFC7D11EBA.EDD88144-ON80256D10.00354A00-80256D10.00366A8D@radianz.com>

>If any other former members of the AC are on this list 
>they are free to describe their reasons in whatever level of detail they 
>wish, or not at all.

I resigned my position on the AC when I moved to Europe to work for an ISP 
(GTS/Ebone) whose operations where about 99.5% within the RIPE region. It 
didn't seem right to stay on in that situation. At the time I was already 
considering resigning because my work was taking up more of my time that 
it had been when I was voted onto the AC. 

Now I am working for a global network provider which has somewhere between 
40% and 50% of its activity within North America which is why I am once 
again interested in ARIN affairs.

Looking at the AC from the outside, I don't see much external evidence of 
the effort that goes into the job. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but 
it means that we may be incorrectly assuming that the job is easy or the 
workload is light. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some AC members 
have resigned when they discovered what the job really entails. That's 
perfectly normal in an organization like ARIN.




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 06:59:13 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:59:13 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
Message-ID: <OFC89E6D13.B04C20C9-ON80256D10.003B7532-80256D10.003C5A74@radianz.com>

>I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
>allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
>RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
>service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML 
based 
>service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.

I strenuously disagree.

ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case, SWIP 
and Rwhois are irrelevant details.

The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who have 
received IP address space must keep track of where they are used (maintain 
an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of IP address 
usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by submitting 
regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central directory or they can 
publish the directory themselves by maintaining a publicly accessible 
server connected to the Internet 24/7.

That is the core essentials of what we are trying to do here. Any 
additional language should be there to make things clearer and easier to 
understand, not to restrict the policy only to the specifics of the way 
things were. Times change and sometimes we will need to change policies 
because of that, however that is not an excuse for making brittle 
policies.

Also, please remember the audience. The people who will spend the most 
time reading our policies will be people who know very little about ARIN. 
Let's not force them to dig into obscure details like SWIP and rwhois in 
order to understand what the policy is trying to say. This is a mistake 
that was often made in the past but we don't have to repeat it.

--Michael Dillon





From jlewis at lewis.org  Tue Apr 22 07:51:55 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:51:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <OFC89E6D13.B04C20C9-ON80256D10.003B7532-80256D10.003C5A74@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304220742350.1087-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> >I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
> >allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
> >RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
> >service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML 
> based 
> >service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.
> 
> I strenuously disagree.
> 
> ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case, SWIP 
> and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
> 
> The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who have 
> received IP address space must keep track of where they are used (maintain 
> an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of IP address 
> usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by submitting 
> regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central directory or they can 
> publish the directory themselves by maintaining a publicly accessible 
> server connected to the Internet 24/7.

whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have ARIN 
add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the only protocol 
currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  I don't have to 
know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to use a whois 
client.  

If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I access 
it?  How do I find out how to access it?

If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment data in some
obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who wants to look up
an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?

If you want to leave the method of reassignment data publication open, 
then you're going to have to define a minimum set of guidelines that the 
method of publication must meet to qualify.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 ron at aol.net  Tue Apr 22 09:21:57 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:21:57 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304220742350.1087-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
References: <OFC89E6D13.B04C20C9-ON80256D10.003B7532-80256D10.003C5A74@radianz.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304220742350.1087-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <20030422132157.GB10510@aol.net>


I think this has been stated by others, but to add to the chorus:
2003-5 should say to the effect that whatever policy approved
publishing mechanism is used, must be available...blah blah blah
except for maintenance which should only account for 1% of the time
(or whatever).

-ron


From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 10:03:35 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:03:35 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <OF654ED07C.222D3B8A-ON80256D10.004D0E9F-80256D10.004D3B96@radianz.com>

Here's a thread that I picked up from the NANOG list.
Any comments?

Also Sprach Jeff McAdams
>Also Sprach Dan Hollis
>>Would like to hear from anyone who purchased independent address space
>>from ARIN, what issues you had (technical, or otherwise).

>Nothing other than the usually utter inability to apply any sort of
>critical thinking to address space allocations.  Attitudes along the
>lines of, "We're doing what the policy says, even if the policy makes
>absolutely no sense given the facts of past allocations and the current
>allocation request."

>Common sense at ARIN is dead.

Following up to myself.  :/  I should think more before sending...

I guess I should also mention their complete lack of communication about
the allocations and how they apply their policy.

Some of you *might* remember a rant I posted here several years ago
about getting our first allocation from ARIN...many here suggested that
I call ARIN and get clarification on the allocation (ie, they gave me a
/20 when I offered to renumber out of a /20 plus a smattering of other
blocks...mathematically impossible, of course).  So, when I called them
back, they told me that renumbering out of our upstream provided space
wasn't part of getting the allocation, and wasn't considered in the
allocation process.

So, now, when I go for them for the next allocation, stating that I
*wanted* to renumber out of these blocks, what do I get?  Another /20
(now even more mathematically impossible than ever).  So, when I called
emailed them for clarification, pointing out that I was actively looking
to renumber out of upstream provided space and that a /20 wasn't enough
space to do so...they told me that they weren't going to give me the
space because the policy's wouldn't allow it (thus my first post), and
that "You were going to renumber when you got your last allocation
several years ago, and you didn't." (quote isn't exact, but captures the
spirit of what was said).

Needless to say...ARIN needs a big foam cluebat upside the head...alas,
I don't see it happening.

I've see the posts from people suggesting that people get involved in
shaping policy at ARIN through the mailing lists and the like...but I
don't go in much for futile efforts.  :/
--
Jeff McAdams                            Email: jeffm at iglou.com
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456



<< Attachment Removed : C.DTF >>




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 10:05:57 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:05:57 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <OF604560E8.349E5CE8-ON80256D10.004D3D7A-80256D10.004D7303@radianz.com>

Here's another message from that NANOG thread.
Given that these messages are from people who are somewhat clued in to 
Internet things, I wonder how much confusion is to be found among the 
average ARIN members?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Dan Hollis wrote:

> 
> Would like to hear from anyone who purchased independent address space 
> from ARIN, what issues you had (technical, or otherwise).

What do you mean by "purchased" and "independent"?  Do you just mean 
provider independent space, or is this some other use of independent?
I think ARIN would argue that nobody purchases space from them...you 
basically pay (recurring fees) to use the space (more like a lease).

ARIN is certainly a PITA to deal with.  I've gone through the initial
allocation for one company where we renumbered out of multiple provider
assigned blocks, second and third allocations and a transfer from a
smaller ISP we bought at my current employer (Atlantic.Net).  IIRC (it has 

been quite a while) the initial allocation wasn't so bad.  The biggest 
problem is just record keeping...keeping track of your IP assignments in a 

format that lends itself to easily filling out the ARIN IP request form 
(which keeps changing and getting more detailed).

In my dealings with them, policy and RFC adherence have been inconsistent. 
 
When we got close to filling our initial allocation (a /18), it was 
expanded to a /17 even though our own projections said we'd only use a 
fraction of that additional space in the next few months.  A couple years 
later, when we got close to running out of IPs again, I asked for another 
large block and was given a /19 (which I expect we'll burn through pretty 
quickly if we ever start using it...damn 69/8 filters) and told that we 
should only request/receive a few months supply of IPs at a time.  I 
don't know about everyone else, but I've got better things to do than go 
through the IP request process every few months.  We're a stable company 
that's been doing the ISP thing for 8 years.  Why can't ARIN trust us to 
stick around and keep growing our IP utilization?  Why shouldn't we keep 
getting largeish blocks every year or so and keep our number of announced 
routes down rather than a new little block a couple times a year?  I'd 
much rather announce a few /17's or /16's than a whole bunch of /20's and 
/19's.  I suspect people with BGP routers running short on memory feel the 

same way.  Multiply this by a few thousand ARIN members, and it could make 

a real impact on routing table growth. 

Anyone who's bothered to clean up the ARIN records for IP blocks or ASN's 
for networks they've acquired probably knows what a pain that is.  Ours 
took many months and some help from a 3rd party.

Their latest trick, adding the requirement that IP requests come from a
POC on your ORGID (even if your ORGID has no POCs), and then requiring
requests to modify an ORGID come from a POC on the ORGID (even if your
ORGID has no POCs) was a neat one.  Getting that taken care of was made
even more interesting by the fact that we've changed company names since
our first allocation, and ARIN still knows us as our original name
(changing that is another PITA that hasn't been worth tackling/paying
for...we still own the old name, we just don't use it)...so when they
wanted a fax on company letterhead (for a name that hasn't been used for
several years) where do you think the letterhead came from?

ARIN must be predominantly staffed by Vogons.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 10:44:05 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:44:05 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <OFAF3868D4.AFACF618-ON80256D10.0050DEB7-80256D10.0050F0B2@radianz.com>

This NANOG thread is bringing up some stuff that we really do need to deal 
with...

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> 
> Either ARIN's policies are screwed up beyond even what I thought to
> begin with, or their communications with customers/ISPs/whatever is
> absolutely pitiful.  Most likely, both.

>From what I've seen, 1% of the ARIN using population knows how ARIN works 
and how to get what they want, and 99% of the ARIN using population lives 
in either a) fear of dealing with ARIN for things that they technically 
qualify for, and/or b) utter loathing and hatred from past experiences.

Unfortunately, the people who are capable of changing things are the ones
who fall into the 1% category, hence they never see the problem or need. 
The "public policy" forums like ARIN-PPML don't help matters either, as
any form of common sense seems to be drowned out amongst the net kooks and
other wackjobs.

Meanwhile, the 99% category sits around wondering about things like:

* Why does the ARIN email system takes an hour just to generate an
  auto-acknowledgment?

* Why does it take days, and sometimes many days, to process a form and at
  the very least get a simple YAY or NAY on the syntax so you can continue
  submitting without finding out 99 forms later that your first form had a
  typo and invalidated all the rest.

* Why does it seem like no human touches a form until after 4PM Eastern?

* Why does the theoretically automated form processing for things like 
  SWIPs still take over an hour to get a YAY or NAY email through.

* Why does it take a week to process a payment?

* Why have I NEVER been able to submit an ARIN request without receiving
  a response asking for information I included in the original request.

* Why do we have to submit to the equivalent of an IP anal probe, and 
  cough up extremely detailed documentation on network architectures and
  the use of every IP address.

* Why any of this "police state" is necessary given that the shortage of
  IPv4 addresses seems to be artifically created. There are still tons of
  IP addresses that are either unallocated, unreasonably allocated (hey
  Merit, lets see your documentation on 35.0.0.0/8 :P), or long dead and
  never reclaimed. Only 32% of the available IPv4 space is being 
  announced, where is the shortage?

* Why do we have to pay very large sums of money ($2500+ per year at a 
  minimum) for this wonderful IP policing service. Where in the heck does
  all that money go?

* Why are we expected to continue the status quo of paying thousands of
  dollars for addresses in IPv6? Without the threat of an artifical 
  shortage to "manage", what possible reason is there to justify ARIN's
  existance or fees? Why do we all get the feeling IPv6 isn't an end to
  the expenses, but rather a vast new market of registration and renewal
  fees?

* http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html - Where does the $1M
  in "fringe benefits" go? Where does the extra $1.5M in revenue go? Why
  does ARIN need to spend so much in travel, etc?

* Why does ARIN have no problem assigning large blocks of unallocated 
  space (usually 2x or more) around a new "customer" to accomodate for
  future growth, but have policies preventing ISPs from doing the same
  (aka 80% utilization for more space).

* Etc etc etc, not counting the problems that have already been mentioned.

Yes, if you take the time to try and figure out what goes on inside the
minds of ARIN, you'll find that some of the people actually do try to be
useful human beings. But most of us don't have the time or desire to do
that, we just want a system that works. I don't think the current system 
meets anyone's standard for useful, efficient, or cost effective.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)




From ljb at merit.edu  Tue Apr 22 10:49:45 2003
From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:49:45 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:51:55 EDT."
             <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304220742350.1087-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com> 
Message-ID: <20030422144945.B9CDE5DED3@segue.merit.edu>


> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> 
> > >I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
> > >allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
> > >RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
> > >service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML 
> > based 
> > >service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.
> > 
> > I strenuously disagree.
> > 
> > ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case, SWIP 
> > and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
> > 
> > The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who have 
> > received IP address space must keep track of where they are used (maintain 
> > an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of IP address 
> > usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by submitting 
> > regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central directory or they can 
> > publish the directory themselves by maintaining a publicly accessible 
> > server connected to the Internet 24/7.
> 
> whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have ARIN 
> add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the only protocol 
> currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  I don't have to 
> know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to use a whois 
> client.

   C&W and ARIN made a presentation at the Las Vegas ARIN meeting last year
about C&W using their RPSL-based whois server to report address
usage (through RPSL "inetnum" objects).  The presentation can be found at
http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/Reporting_Utilization.pdf
I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) or whether
ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.   While the C&W
server uses the whois "protocol" (a TCP pipe on port 43), the RPSL
format is considerably different than the output format of RWhois.

   I'd be careful about substituting the term "whois" for "RWhois" as
it might imply the usage of RPSL whois servers (in addition to RWhois
servers) is considered acceptable by ARIN.  I think there should be
a more formal decision on whether RPSL whois servers are
acceptable before generalizing the policy to include any "whois"
service (and, by extension, LDAP/XML/etc. services).

> If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I access 
> it?  How do I find out how to access it?
> 
> If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment data in some
> obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who wants to look up
> an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?
> 
> If you want to leave the method of reassignment data publication open, 
> then you're going to have to define a minimum set of guidelines that the 
> method of publication must meet to qualify.
>  

   I concur with this.   Perhaps the policy could refer to some other
document or policy which contains the guidelines for acceptable
publication protocols and formats?


 -Larry Blunk
  Merit



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 10:49:57 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:49:57 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <OF1966A87B.67CC84C9-ON80256D10.00513E96-80256D10.00517A43@radianz.com>

More stuff from the NANOG thread. I know there are a lot of emotional 
statements here and in the other messages, but if we look beyond these we 
see that there is some general agreement on what problems need to be 
addressed.


Also Sprach jlewis at lewis.org
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>> Ignoring, for the moment, that absolute absurdity of that type of
>> procedure...you forget what I've now said twice...that ARIN said as
>> clarification after I got the first block that renumbering wasn't a
>> consideration, full stop.

>I don't see how that's at all absurd.

Wow...ok...there's nothing that I'm going to be able to say for you to
understand.  *shrug*  Have fun continuing to get screwed by ARIN then.

>> Either ARIN's policies are screwed up beyond even what I thought to
>> begin with, or their communications with customers/ISPs/whatever is
>> absolutely pitiful.  Most likely, both.

>ARIN's policies do change over time, which can be surprising and
>annoying (you get used to a policy or think you know their
>policy...time goes by, and then you find what you know is invalid).
>It's a pain, but it's life.

OK...then why hasn't *any* of the relevant documentation (which is
wrong, no matter which policy you're dealing with) changed?

>It's alot of work, but laughable?  Why?  You're talking to someone who
>simultaneously moved an ISP's physical network from one building to
>another (across town), changed backbone providers, multihomed, did BGP
>for the first time, and renumbered from 2 /20's of PA space (we weren't
>using much of the second /20 and with inefficiencies cleaned up, really
>only needed most of a /20) into a /20 of a reserved /19 of PI space in
>about a week (all at the same time including moving customer T1's)
>while the old landlord was threatening lock us out, and the old
>backbone provider threatening to shut us off!

At that point, you're already making changes...the numbering changes
aren't that big of a deal at that point.  Indeed...I find re-numbering
in the process of network redesigns/rebuilds actually makes both parts
of the process *easier*. (yes, I've done similar things)  So, really,
you're argument here falls flat.

>It took alot of planning, a week of very long days, and alot of
>customer hand holding, but it can be done.  But all that said, who said
>you should have to renumber inside of 3 months?

ARIN's policies (at least as stated on their web pages...but we've
already shown those to be fictional) indicate that the renumbering would
have to happen before an additional block would be allocated, and that
they only allocate blocks based on anticipated 3 month growth (which is
also fictional...they actually base it on *past* growth, not anticipated
future growth, based on what I was told after the last allocation,
again...may be the truth, may not be, flip a coin)

>Is there some reason you need to have 1 PI block big enough to handle
>renumbering out of all your PA blocks?  Why can't you renumber some of
>the PA space into PI space, return the no longer used PA space to P,
>and get more PI blocks from ARIN to continue the renumbering?

Suffice it to say, that would not have been practical in our case.
Additionally, based on what I've been told of ARIN's policies, they
wouldn't have granted the next block of PI space when we went back to
them for the next allocation.

>> There is no was for ARIN to get out of this one smelling like
>> roses...they screwed up...probably twice, depending on your opinions
>> about policies...but at least once in the lie about renumbering
>> considerations.

>I like to bash ARIN as much as the next member, but I just don't see it
>here.

They lied to me, full stop.  Additionally, depending on your beliefs of
what's practical for renumbering policies...they screwed me over there
too by not giving me enough space (whether one block or more than one, I
don't give a crap...but this going back after renumbering half the
network is absurd).

>Either I'm not getting some part of your story, or you've got some
>really weird ideas about PI space and renumbering.

Its called common sense, but we've already established that its lacking
at ARIN.

>>FWIW, the first request we made was for a /19, which would have been
>>the smallest single block that could have been allocated to us to
>>allow us to renumber into; and the second request was for an /18, with
>>the same reasoning.  We got /20's both times (with the second /20
>>being the second half of the /19 of the first /20).

>If you're really using a /18 of PA space,

At the time of the second allocation, no, we weren't using a /18, but,
cumulative, we were using more than a /19 efficiently.

And, actually...I mispoke...we didn't request a /18 on the second
request, we, again, requested a /19 (thinking back on it, I realized I
mis-remembered it)...because of not needing to renumber out of the first
allocation...we just, again, wanted to renumber out of the PA (what does
the "A" stand for, there, by the way?) space, with a /20+.  And, no, I'm
not going to renumber half my network then go back to ARIN again.
That's absurd to have to do that.

>and using it efficiently according to ARIN guidelines,

As I've said before, we, in the past, and currently, are using *ALL* of
our allocated blocks (both PA and PI) efficiently (except, of course,
for the recently allocated one which is being used for current
assignments).

We're trying our darndest to "Do the Right Thing" by ARIN, and the
Internet Community as a whole, and be a good neighbor.  We're efficiently
utilizing the space we have, again, all of it, beyond the requirements
of ARIN, we're advertising in BGP the minimum number of routes possible
given the allocations (both PA and PI) that we have, and we're desiring
(for business reasons as well as altruistic) to renumber out of PA space
into fewer, but larger, PI blocks.  ARIN has been a stumbling block to
us accomplishing these things every step of the way.

ARIN has failed to accomplish everything that it was created to do.  Its
whole purpose for existence has basically not been served.

>I'd be really surprised if you filled out the application for space and
>said "here's how we're using a /18 worth of PA space, we'd like to
>renumber from it into PI space, and will do so over X months." and ARIN
>didn't allocate you a /18.  If you've already tried this and failed, it
>may just be a matter of how you're filling out the form.

Well...as someone else mentioned...apparently you can never fill out an
ARIN form without ever being asked for clarification on a different
form.  Why don't they just have you fill out the second form in the
first place?

Dealing with ARIN is a studying in dealing with inconsistency, reading
between the lines, discerning meaning from what's not said, a bit of
mind reading, and walking in shifting sands.

And some people wonder why most of the world dreads dealing with ARIN.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: jeffm at iglou.com
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456


From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 22 11:23:27 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:23:27 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <OF16C495CC.3FB5F2AF-ON80256D10.00547291-80256D10.00548BB5@radianz.com>

I keep thinking that I won't forward any more NANOG messages but the 
thread keeps getting more interesting.

Also Sprach Ron da Silva
>Exactly which unpublished policies do you mean?  Here is a list of the
>published policies.

>http://www.arin.net/policy/index.html

Mostly its an issue of the policy not matching what they do (sorry for
getting a little loose with my language).  Specifically, off the top of
my head, and hit close to home here.

* Agree that the new /20 will be used to renumber out of the current
addresses which will be returned to their upstream
provider(s).

and

* To receive additional address space following the initial
allocation, multi-homed organizations must have returned the
original space (/21) to its provider in its entirety and must
provide justification for a new allocation

Again...this is specific for multi-homing...and perhaps the policies to
non-multi-homing override these (we also qualified for non-multi-homed),
but in that case...that should be spelled out.

Reading ARIN's policies is an exercise in frustration thanks to, at
least seemingly, conflicting information and requirements in different
sections.  What applies?  What overrides?  All learned only from
repeated dealings with them at this point.

With the above policies...I've had two different explanations from
ARIN (as I mentioned, one after the initial allocation, one after the
second allocation)...neither of which matched what I pasted from their
website above.
--
Jeff McAdams                            Email: jeffm at iglou.com
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456



<< Attachment Removed : C.DTF >>




From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Apr 22 11:28:21 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:28:21 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <OF1966A87B.67CC84C9-ON80256D10.00513E96-80256D10.00517A43@radianz.com>
References: <OF1966A87B.67CC84C9-ON80256D10.00513E96-80256D10.00517A43@radia
 nz.com>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1051003701@macleod.hilander.com>

--On Tuesday, April 22, 2003 15:49 +0100 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> More stuff from the NANOG thread. I know there are a lot of emotional
> statements here and in the other messages, but if we look beyond these we
> see that there is some general agreement on what problems need to be
> addressed.

Much of this gets back to education.

Bill Darte has been beating the education drum ever since ARIN started.  He 
received limited minimal input and support from the community.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com


From einar.bohlin at mci.com  Tue Apr 22 12:18:26 2003
From: einar.bohlin at mci.com (Einar Bohlin)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5
In-Reply-To: <20030422144945.B9CDE5DED3@segue.merit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304221213280.20201-100000@windsor.corp.us.uu.net>

RFC 2050 says the registry determines the authorized
reassignment info reporting method.  ARIN documents say
it's SWIP or RWHOIS.  Making the requirements for 
rwhois-like server output generic does not authorize
other methods.  It just makes it so that later if another
method is authorized then we've already got the gereral
way it should work defined.

Regards,

Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - MCI/UUNET
Phone: 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
email: einar.bohlin at mci.com



On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Larry J. Blunk wrote:

> 
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > 
> > > >I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
> > > >allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
> > > >RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
> > > >service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML 
> > > based 
> > > >service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.
> > > 
> > > I strenuously disagree.
> > > 
> > > ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case, SWIP 
> > > and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
> > > 
> > > The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who have 
> > > received IP address space must keep track of where they are used (maintain 
> > > an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of IP address 
> > > usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by submitting 
> > > regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central directory or they can 
> > > publish the directory themselves by maintaining a publicly accessible 
> > > server connected to the Internet 24/7.
> > 
> > whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have ARIN 
> > add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the only protocol 
> > currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  I don't have to 
> > know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to use a whois 
> > client.
> 
>    C&W and ARIN made a presentation at the Las Vegas ARIN meeting last year
> about C&W using their RPSL-based whois server to report address
> usage (through RPSL "inetnum" objects).  The presentation can be found at
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/Reporting_Utilization.pdf
> I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) or whether
> ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.   While the C&W
> server uses the whois "protocol" (a TCP pipe on port 43), the RPSL
> format is considerably different than the output format of RWhois.
> 
>    I'd be careful about substituting the term "whois" for "RWhois" as
> it might imply the usage of RPSL whois servers (in addition to RWhois
> servers) is considered acceptable by ARIN.  I think there should be
> a more formal decision on whether RPSL whois servers are
> acceptable before generalizing the policy to include any "whois"
> service (and, by extension, LDAP/XML/etc. services).
> 
> > If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I access 
> > it?  How do I find out how to access it?
> > 
> > If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment data in some
> > obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who wants to look up
> > an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?
> > 
> > If you want to leave the method of reassignment data publication open, 
> > then you're going to have to define a minimum set of guidelines that the 
> > method of publication must meet to qualify.
> >  
> 
>    I concur with this.   Perhaps the policy could refer to some other
> document or policy which contains the guidelines for acceptable
> publication protocols and formats?
> 
> 
>  -Larry Blunk
>   Merit
> 
> 



From william at elan.net  Tue Apr 22 12:06:43 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5 
In-Reply-To: <20030422144945.B9CDE5DED3@segue.merit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304220852510.30119-100000@sokol.elan.net>

There are several companies publishing data as general whois. Here is an 
example:

NetRange:   207.99.0.0 - 207.99.127.255
CIDR:       207.99.0.0/17
NetName:    NAC-NETBLK01
NetHandle:  NET-207-99-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.NAC.NET
NameServer: NS2.NAC.NET
Comment:    ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
Comment:
Comment:    * Reassignment information for this network is available
Comment:    * at whois.nac.net 43
RegDate:    1996-04-23
Updated:    2001-08-22

So I do not find anything wrong with CW using their rwsl whois server 
(in fact my recursive whois service will automaticly sublookup in CW rpsl 
whois). The point is that protocol used for publishing data should be 
understood by ARIN and by end-users. The wording "ARIN approved" as has 
been introduced by Mark Kosters seems quite good choice to me to say what 
protocol is to be used. 

What is lucking is possibly process of approving new protocol, but here 
I'm not sure it should really be a policy, in my opionion approval of new 
ready protocol should be done on recomendation of AC (or ARIN staff) by 
BoT and  should be matter of adding new protocol to some list to be 
published on arin website. 

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Larry J. Blunk wrote:

> 
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > 
> > > >I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
> > > >allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
> > > >RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
> > > >service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or XML 
> > > based 
> > > >service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that point.
> > > 
> > > I strenuously disagree.
> > > 
> > > ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case, SWIP 
> > > and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
> > > 
> > > The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who have 
> > > received IP address space must keep track of where they are used (maintain 
> > > an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of IP address 
> > > usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by submitting 
> > > regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central directory or they can 
> > > publish the directory themselves by maintaining a publicly accessible 
> > > server connected to the Internet 24/7.
> > 
> > whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have ARIN 
> > add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the only protocol 
> > currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  I don't have to 
> > know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to use a whois 
> > client.
> 
>    C&W and ARIN made a presentation at the Las Vegas ARIN meeting last year
> about C&W using their RPSL-based whois server to report address
> usage (through RPSL "inetnum" objects).  The presentation can be found at
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/Reporting_Utilization.pdf
> I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) or whether
> ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.   While the C&W
> server uses the whois "protocol" (a TCP pipe on port 43), the RPSL
> format is considerably different than the output format of RWhois.
> 
>    I'd be careful about substituting the term "whois" for "RWhois" as
> it might imply the usage of RPSL whois servers (in addition to RWhois
> servers) is considered acceptable by ARIN.  I think there should be
> a more formal decision on whether RPSL whois servers are
> acceptable before generalizing the policy to include any "whois"
> service (and, by extension, LDAP/XML/etc. services).
> 
> > If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I access 
> > it?  How do I find out how to access it?
> > 
> > If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment data in some
> > obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who wants to look up
> > an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?
> > 
> > If you want to leave the method of reassignment data publication open, 
> > then you're going to have to define a minimum set of guidelines that the 
> > method of publication must meet to qualify.
> >  
> 
>    I concur with this.   Perhaps the policy could refer to some other
> document or policy which contains the guidelines for acceptable
> publication protocols and formats?
> 
> 
>  -Larry Blunk
>   Merit



From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Tue Apr 22 15:10:34 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:10:34 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8550@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>

First off I totally disagree with the percentages; they are made up numbers
by the author to make his case. Second, the percentage that understand ARIN
policies do so because it is thier job to do so and so they take the time to
read, learn and understand. It is much easier to say.....ARIN doesn't know
what it is doing and that is why I cannot get my request approved.....then
it is to take the time to understand the requirements and meet them. This is
my personal opinion only.



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:44 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN


This NANOG thread is bringing up some stuff that we really do need to deal 
with...

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> 
> Either ARIN's policies are screwed up beyond even what I thought to
> begin with, or their communications with customers/ISPs/whatever is
> absolutely pitiful.  Most likely, both.

>From what I've seen, 1% of the ARIN using population knows how ARIN works 
and how to get what they want, and 99% of the ARIN using population lives 
in either a) fear of dealing with ARIN for things that they technically 
qualify for, and/or b) utter loathing and hatred from past experiences.

Unfortunately, the people who are capable of changing things are the ones
who fall into the 1% category, hence they never see the problem or need. 
The "public policy" forums like ARIN-PPML don't help matters either, as
any form of common sense seems to be drowned out amongst the net kooks and
other wackjobs.

Meanwhile, the 99% category sits around wondering about things like:

* Why does the ARIN email system takes an hour just to generate an
  auto-acknowledgment?

* Why does it take days, and sometimes many days, to process a form and at
  the very least get a simple YAY or NAY on the syntax so you can continue
  submitting without finding out 99 forms later that your first form had a
  typo and invalidated all the rest.

* Why does it seem like no human touches a form until after 4PM Eastern?

* Why does the theoretically automated form processing for things like 
  SWIPs still take over an hour to get a YAY or NAY email through.

* Why does it take a week to process a payment?

* Why have I NEVER been able to submit an ARIN request without receiving
  a response asking for information I included in the original request.

* Why do we have to submit to the equivalent of an IP anal probe, and 
  cough up extremely detailed documentation on network architectures and
  the use of every IP address.

* Why any of this "police state" is necessary given that the shortage of
  IPv4 addresses seems to be artifically created. There are still tons of
  IP addresses that are either unallocated, unreasonably allocated (hey
  Merit, lets see your documentation on 35.0.0.0/8 :P), or long dead and
  never reclaimed. Only 32% of the available IPv4 space is being 
  announced, where is the shortage?

* Why do we have to pay very large sums of money ($2500+ per year at a 
  minimum) for this wonderful IP policing service. Where in the heck does
  all that money go?

* Why are we expected to continue the status quo of paying thousands of
  dollars for addresses in IPv6? Without the threat of an artifical 
  shortage to "manage", what possible reason is there to justify ARIN's
  existance or fees? Why do we all get the feeling IPv6 isn't an end to
  the expenses, but rather a vast new market of registration and renewal
  fees?

* http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html - Where does the $1M
  in "fringe benefits" go? Where does the extra $1.5M in revenue go? Why
  does ARIN need to spend so much in travel, etc?

* Why does ARIN have no problem assigning large blocks of unallocated 
  space (usually 2x or more) around a new "customer" to accomodate for
  future growth, but have policies preventing ISPs from doing the same
  (aka 80% utilization for more space).

* Etc etc etc, not counting the problems that have already been mentioned.

Yes, if you take the time to try and figure out what goes on inside the
minds of ARIN, you'll find that some of the people actually do try to be
useful human beings. But most of us don't have the time or desire to do
that, we just want a system that works. I don't think the current system 
meets anyone's standard for useful, efficient, or cost effective.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)



From stephen at sprunk.org  Tue Apr 22 17:00:06 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:00:06 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
References: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8550@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
Message-ID: <00cd01c30912$f4eeae10$93b58742@ssprunk>

Thus spake "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> Second, the percentage that understand ARIN policies do so because
> it is thier job to do so and so they take the time to read, learn and
> understand.

If ARIN's bureaucracy is so hideous that members need to hire extra staff
just to comply, something is very seriously wrong.

> It is much easier to say.....ARIN doesn't know what it is doing and
> that is why I cannot get my request approved.....then it is to take
> the time to understand the requirements and meet them.

Anecdotal evidence shows that ARIN does not follow its published policies
when making allocation decisions.  How, then, do you propose members
"understand the requirements and meet them"?

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From william at elan.net  Tue Apr 22 15:33:27 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8550@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304221136500.13934-100000@sokol.elan.net>

The author was overestimating the numbers to make his point, I agree.
(I'm sure its not 99%, but its probably more then 75% - which is not much 
better in overall picture). Trying to say the problems do not exist is 
just not the way to deal with it. Based on responses on that NANOG thread 
and on previous threads on nanog & other mailing lists and my personal 
experiences and talking to my consulting clients, all that is mentioned 
is a problem with ARIN to various degree and my dealing with ARIN has 
shown it to be extremely resistant to any change or anybody who actually 
tries to propose something to fix one or more of these problems.

Part of this is that people do not see ARIN staff to do what is right, 
do it quickly, do it with resonable amount of documentation, etc. etc. 
When some say "education" is they key, perhaps it is, but the target 
maybe wrong, its not ARIN that needs to educate users but the other way 
around and any attempts to do it have generally failed and led to lower 
then expected participation of ARIN memebers in its activities.

P.S.  Just to add to everything, I'v been trying to transfer (change company
name) for my ip blocks for 3 years now. Tried hardest last year when it 
seemed like ARIN was actually interested in cleaning up its database. Same
old wall of we'll get back to you - and that is after I actually sent 
entire package of documentation by fedex. Oh well, at least I tried...

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Sweeting, John wrote:

> First off I totally disagree with the percentages; they are made up numbers
> by the author to make his case. Second, the percentage that understand ARIN
> policies do so because it is thier job to do so and so they take the time to
> read, learn and understand. It is much easier to say.....ARIN doesn't know
> what it is doing and that is why I cannot get my request approved.....then
> it is to take the time to understand the requirements and meet them. This is
> my personal opinion only.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> This NANOG thread is bringing up some stuff that we really do need to deal 
> with...
> 
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> > 
> > Either ARIN's policies are screwed up beyond even what I thought to
> > begin with, or their communications with customers/ISPs/whatever is
> > absolutely pitiful.  Most likely, both.
> 
> >From what I've seen, 1% of the ARIN using population knows how ARIN works 
> and how to get what they want, and 99% of the ARIN using population lives 
> in either a) fear of dealing with ARIN for things that they technically 
> qualify for, and/or b) utter loathing and hatred from past experiences.
> 
> Unfortunately, the people who are capable of changing things are the ones
> who fall into the 1% category, hence they never see the problem or need. 
> The "public policy" forums like ARIN-PPML don't help matters either, as
> any form of common sense seems to be drowned out amongst the net kooks and
> other wackjobs.
> 
> Meanwhile, the 99% category sits around wondering about things like:
> 
> * Why does the ARIN email system takes an hour just to generate an
>   auto-acknowledgment?
> 
> * Why does it take days, and sometimes many days, to process a form and at
>   the very least get a simple YAY or NAY on the syntax so you can continue
>   submitting without finding out 99 forms later that your first form had a
>   typo and invalidated all the rest.
> 
> * Why does it seem like no human touches a form until after 4PM Eastern?
> 
> * Why does the theoretically automated form processing for things like 
>   SWIPs still take over an hour to get a YAY or NAY email through.
> 
> * Why does it take a week to process a payment?
> 
> * Why have I NEVER been able to submit an ARIN request without receiving
>   a response asking for information I included in the original request.
> 
> * Why do we have to submit to the equivalent of an IP anal probe, and 
>   cough up extremely detailed documentation on network architectures and
>   the use of every IP address.
> 
> * Why any of this "police state" is necessary given that the shortage of
>   IPv4 addresses seems to be artifically created. There are still tons of
>   IP addresses that are either unallocated, unreasonably allocated (hey
>   Merit, lets see your documentation on 35.0.0.0/8 :P), or long dead and
>   never reclaimed. Only 32% of the available IPv4 space is being 
>   announced, where is the shortage?
> 
> * Why do we have to pay very large sums of money ($2500+ per year at a 
>   minimum) for this wonderful IP policing service. Where in the heck does
>   all that money go?
> 
> * Why are we expected to continue the status quo of paying thousands of
>   dollars for addresses in IPv6? Without the threat of an artifical 
>   shortage to "manage", what possible reason is there to justify ARIN's
>   existance or fees? Why do we all get the feeling IPv6 isn't an end to
>   the expenses, but rather a vast new market of registration and renewal
>   fees?
> 
> * http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html - Where does the $1M
>   in "fringe benefits" go? Where does the extra $1.5M in revenue go? Why
>   does ARIN need to spend so much in travel, etc?
> 
> * Why does ARIN have no problem assigning large blocks of unallocated 
>   space (usually 2x or more) around a new "customer" to accomodate for
>   future growth, but have policies preventing ISPs from doing the same
>   (aka 80% utilization for more space).
> 
> * Etc etc etc, not counting the problems that have already been mentioned.
> 
> Yes, if you take the time to try and figure out what goes on inside the
> minds of ARIN, you'll find that some of the people actually do try to be
> useful human beings. But most of us don't have the time or desire to do
> that, we just want a system that works. I don't think the current system 
> meets anyone's standard for useful, efficient, or cost effective.




From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Tue Apr 22 17:15:50 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:15:50 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8566@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>

To each their own opinions....I have been dealing with ARIN since its
inception and can only say that they have been consistent in their request
for information on their templates as well as the evidence that they require
for justification. I have worked for a few of the larger Tier 1 providers
and requesting address space from ARIN was one of the easier tasks of
managing IP address space. If you manage your address space and can show
them how it is used then there is no problem in acquiring additional
addresses when required.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:00 PM
To: Sweeting, John; Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Cc: ARIN Policy
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN


Thus spake "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> Second, the percentage that understand ARIN policies do so because
> it is thier job to do so and so they take the time to read, learn and
> understand.

If ARIN's bureaucracy is so hideous that members need to hire extra staff
just to comply, something is very seriously wrong.

> It is much easier to say.....ARIN doesn't know what it is doing and
> that is why I cannot get my request approved.....then it is to take
> the time to understand the requirements and meet them.

Anecdotal evidence shows that ARIN does not follow its published policies
when making allocation decisions.  How, then, do you propose members
"understand the requirements and meet them"?

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


From owen at delong.com  Tue Apr 22 17:51:41 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:51:41 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5 
In-Reply-To: <20030422144945.B9CDE5DED3@segue.merit.edu>
References: <20030422144945.B9CDE5DED3@segue.merit.edu>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1051023101@dhcp157-180.corp.tellme.com>

OK... Let's try to clarify this once and for all.

There already exists separate policy which covers acceptable PROTOCOLS
for directory services for reassignment information.  This policy
addresses PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS for those services.  This policy
should be generic so that updating the PROTOCOLS policy doesn't accidentally
create a performance requirements loop-hole.

I don't know the policy number for the protocol specification, but, I am
pretty sure that it is a policy that comes from the pre-ARIN days and
is still on the books.

Owen


--On Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:49 -0400 "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb at merit.edu> 
wrote:

>
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>>
>> > > I was given an augument against making it generic since ARIN only
>> > > allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form of a SWIP or
>> > > RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed lookup
>> > > service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral LDAP) or
>> > > XML
>> > based
>> > > service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that
>> > > point.
>> >
>> > I strenuously disagree.
>> >
>> > ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In this case,
>> > SWIP  and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
>> >
>> > The root purpose of this policy is to specify that organizations who
>> > have  received IP address space must keep track of where they are used
>> > (maintain  an IP address directory) and must publish the directory of
>> > IP address  usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by
>> > submitting  regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central
>> > directory or they can  publish the directory themselves by maintaining
>> > a publicly accessible  server connected to the Internet 24/7.
>>
>> whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have ARIN
>> add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the only protocol
>> currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  I don't have
>> to  know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to use a
>> whois  client.
>
>    C&W and ARIN made a presentation at the Las Vegas ARIN meeting last
> year about C&W using their RPSL-based whois server to report address
> usage (through RPSL "inetnum" objects).  The presentation can be found at
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/Reporting_Utilization.pdf
> I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) or whether
> ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.   While the C&W
> server uses the whois "protocol" (a TCP pipe on port 43), the RPSL
> format is considerably different than the output format of RWhois.
>
>    I'd be careful about substituting the term "whois" for "RWhois" as
> it might imply the usage of RPSL whois servers (in addition to RWhois
> servers) is considered acceptable by ARIN.  I think there should be
> a more formal decision on whether RPSL whois servers are
> acceptable before generalizing the policy to include any "whois"
> service (and, by extension, LDAP/XML/etc. services).
>
>> If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I access
>> it?  How do I find out how to access it?
>>
>> If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment data in some
>> obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who wants to look up
>> an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?
>>
>> If you want to leave the method of reassignment data publication open,
>> then you're going to have to define a minimum set of guidelines that the
>> method of publication must meet to qualify.
>>
>
>    I concur with this.   Perhaps the policy could refer to some other
> document or policy which contains the guidelines for acceptable
> publication protocols and formats?
>
>
>  -Larry Blunk
>   Merit
>




From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Apr 22 18:32:08 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8566@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
References: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8566@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
Message-ID: <20030422223208.GB87174@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:15:50PM -0400, Sweeting, John wrote:
> To each their own opinions....I have been dealing with ARIN since its
> inception and can only say that they have been consistent in their request
> for information on their templates as well as the evidence that they require
> for justification. I have worked for a few of the larger Tier 1 providers
> and requesting address space from ARIN was one of the easier tasks of
> managing IP address space. If you manage your address space and can show
> them how it is used then there is no problem in acquiring additional
> addresses when required.

From my own personal talking to people about ARIN problems, I'll
note the two ends do not seem to be the problem.  That is, if you're
really small, going for the minimum block (ie, your first block)
the steps are clear, simple, and implemented well.  If you're really
big (eg have at least a couple of /16's) things are also fairly
simple.  I'm not quite sure why in the latter case, but I assume
there is some amount of "trust" that builds up, and/or perhaps just
an overwhelming amount of work (who's going to check to the /29
level in 5 /16's before giving out another one?).

Most ISP's don't fall into either of these camps.  They have a
couple /small routes.  These days they likely formed by merging
two or more companies IP space.  Contacts are out of date and wrong,
names are out of date and wrong.  Old usage data is bogus.

You can see how this quickly becomes a problem.  ARIN's old records
(contacts, how things were being used) don't match reality any more.
the companies have changed how they do business, and many blocks
have probably been recarved in new and different ways.  They probably
have some space from an upstream making things more difficult.  The
person who has the job of getting more space probably had nothing
to do with any of the original applications.

I won't say that ARIN is wrong in how they deal with these people,
as there are very real problems on both sides of the table with how
to provide information, and how to evaluate it.  However, I will say
that it often turns out being a much larger effort for ARIN and the
provider than it should be, and often the process seems to prevent
the right things from happening.

For instance, it should be easy to go to ARIN and say I have 20
blocks, they add up to 75% of a /18, plus I have growth.  If you
give me a /18 I'll renumber, and give all 20 back.  It's better
for all of us.  In practice though, doing that simple exercise
seems to be a nightmare.  I don't really understand why it is so
hard, but it always seems to me like death of a thousand paper
cuts.  No individual question is inappropriate, no individual
response bad, but put them all together and you have a multi-year
process for many people just to get some IP space sorted out.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030422/f8271f19/attachment.sig>

From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Tue Apr 22 22:30:13 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:30:13 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8569@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>

hmmmmm....that is quite the opposite experience from the oneI had when
transferring a very large sum of addresses from one of the largest Tier 1
providers to the company that bought us. ARIN staff worked with us all the
way to make it a smooth and straight forward transfer. Of course it probably
helped that all our address space was accounted for and our records were
well maintained and documented. I am not saying that ARIN is perfect but
they do one hell of a job given the task at hand. Again just my personal
opinion from my years of experience with ARIN.

-----Original Message-----
From: william at elan.net
To: ppml at arin.net
Sent: 4/22/03 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN

The author was overestimating the numbers to make his point, I agree.
(I'm sure its not 99%, but its probably more then 75% - which is not
much 
better in overall picture). Trying to say the problems do not exist is 
just not the way to deal with it. Based on responses on that NANOG
thread 
and on previous threads on nanog & other mailing lists and my personal 
experiences and talking to my consulting clients, all that is mentioned 
is a problem with ARIN to various degree and my dealing with ARIN has 
shown it to be extremely resistant to any change or anybody who actually

tries to propose something to fix one or more of these problems.

Part of this is that people do not see ARIN staff to do what is right, 
do it quickly, do it with resonable amount of documentation, etc. etc. 
When some say "education" is they key, perhaps it is, but the target 
maybe wrong, its not ARIN that needs to educate users but the other way 
around and any attempts to do it have generally failed and led to lower 
then expected participation of ARIN memebers in its activities.

P.S.  Just to add to everything, I'v been trying to transfer (change
company
name) for my ip blocks for 3 years now. Tried hardest last year when it 
seemed like ARIN was actually interested in cleaning up its database.
Same
old wall of we'll get back to you - and that is after I actually sent 
entire package of documentation by fedex. Oh well, at least I tried...

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Sweeting, John wrote:

> First off I totally disagree with the percentages; they are made up
numbers
> by the author to make his case. Second, the percentage that understand
ARIN
> policies do so because it is thier job to do so and so they take the
time to
> read, learn and understand. It is much easier to say.....ARIN doesn't
know
> what it is doing and that is why I cannot get my request
approved.....then
> it is to take the time to understand the requirements and meet them.
This is
> my personal opinion only.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:44 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> This NANOG thread is bringing up some stuff that we really do need to
deal 
> with...
> 
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> > 
> > Either ARIN's policies are screwed up beyond even what I thought to
> > begin with, or their communications with customers/ISPs/whatever is
> > absolutely pitiful.  Most likely, both.
> 
> >From what I've seen, 1% of the ARIN using population knows how ARIN
works 
> and how to get what they want, and 99% of the ARIN using population
lives 
> in either a) fear of dealing with ARIN for things that they
technically 
> qualify for, and/or b) utter loathing and hatred from past
experiences.
> 
> Unfortunately, the people who are capable of changing things are the
ones
> who fall into the 1% category, hence they never see the problem or
need. 
> The "public policy" forums like ARIN-PPML don't help matters either,
as
> any form of common sense seems to be drowned out amongst the net kooks
and
> other wackjobs.
> 
> Meanwhile, the 99% category sits around wondering about things like:
> 
> * Why does the ARIN email system takes an hour just to generate an
>   auto-acknowledgment?
> 
> * Why does it take days, and sometimes many days, to process a form
and at
>   the very least get a simple YAY or NAY on the syntax so you can
continue
>   submitting without finding out 99 forms later that your first form
had a
>   typo and invalidated all the rest.
> 
> * Why does it seem like no human touches a form until after 4PM
Eastern?
> 
> * Why does the theoretically automated form processing for things like

>   SWIPs still take over an hour to get a YAY or NAY email through.
> 
> * Why does it take a week to process a payment?
> 
> * Why have I NEVER been able to submit an ARIN request without
receiving
>   a response asking for information I included in the original
request.
> 
> * Why do we have to submit to the equivalent of an IP anal probe, and 
>   cough up extremely detailed documentation on network architectures
and
>   the use of every IP address.
> 
> * Why any of this "police state" is necessary given that the shortage
of
>   IPv4 addresses seems to be artifically created. There are still tons
of
>   IP addresses that are either unallocated, unreasonably allocated
(hey
>   Merit, lets see your documentation on 35.0.0.0/8 :P), or long dead
and
>   never reclaimed. Only 32% of the available IPv4 space is being 
>   announced, where is the shortage?
> 
> * Why do we have to pay very large sums of money ($2500+ per year at a

>   minimum) for this wonderful IP policing service. Where in the heck
does
>   all that money go?
> 
> * Why are we expected to continue the status quo of paying thousands
of
>   dollars for addresses in IPv6? Without the threat of an artifical 
>   shortage to "manage", what possible reason is there to justify
ARIN's
>   existance or fees? Why do we all get the feeling IPv6 isn't an end
to
>   the expenses, but rather a vast new market of registration and
renewal
>   fees?
> 
> * http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html - Where does the
$1M
>   in "fringe benefits" go? Where does the extra $1.5M in revenue go?
Why
>   does ARIN need to spend so much in travel, etc?
> 
> * Why does ARIN have no problem assigning large blocks of unallocated 
>   space (usually 2x or more) around a new "customer" to accomodate for
>   future growth, but have policies preventing ISPs from doing the same
>   (aka 80% utilization for more space).
> 
> * Etc etc etc, not counting the problems that have already been
mentioned.
> 
> Yes, if you take the time to try and figure out what goes on inside
the
> minds of ARIN, you'll find that some of the people actually do try to
be
> useful human beings. But most of us don't have the time or desire to
do
> that, we just want a system that works. I don't think the current
system 
> meets anyone's standard for useful, efficient, or cost effective.



From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Tue Apr 22 22:40:39 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:40:39 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC856A@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>

I can sympathize with everything you said below as I have been in the same
position on a few occasions so I rolled up the sleeves, worked with ARIN (or
RIPE or APNIC) to identify our shortcomings, corrected them and got on with
life and having my requests honored because we could prove what we were
doing with our allocated/assigned address space. I am sorry but all the
problems you listed below are not ARIN's problems, they are the company that
let their records get so corrupted and out of date. I know for a fact that
ARIN goes out of its way to help its customers solve their issues, I have
witnessed it on several occasions. I can also tell you that there is no
slack cut just because you are one of the larger providers.....ARIN will and
does check the /29 assignments just the same.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Bicknell
To: ARIN Policy
Sent: 4/22/03 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN

In a message written on Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:15:50PM -0400, Sweeting,
John wrote:
> To each their own opinions....I have been dealing with ARIN since its
> inception and can only say that they have been consistent in their
request
> for information on their templates as well as the evidence that they
require
> for justification. I have worked for a few of the larger Tier 1
providers
> and requesting address space from ARIN was one of the easier tasks of
> managing IP address space. If you manage your address space and can
show
> them how it is used then there is no problem in acquiring additional
> addresses when required.

>From my own personal talking to people about ARIN problems, I'll
note the two ends do not seem to be the problem.  That is, if you're
really small, going for the minimum block (ie, your first block)
the steps are clear, simple, and implemented well.  If you're really
big (eg have at least a couple of /16's) things are also fairly
simple.  I'm not quite sure why in the latter case, but I assume
there is some amount of "trust" that builds up, and/or perhaps just
an overwhelming amount of work (who's going to check to the /29
level in 5 /16's before giving out another one?).

Most ISP's don't fall into either of these camps.  They have a
couple /small routes.  These days they likely formed by merging
two or more companies IP space.  Contacts are out of date and wrong,
names are out of date and wrong.  Old usage data is bogus.

You can see how this quickly becomes a problem.  ARIN's old records
(contacts, how things were being used) don't match reality any more.
the companies have changed how they do business, and many blocks
have probably been recarved in new and different ways.  They probably
have some space from an upstream making things more difficult.  The
person who has the job of getting more space probably had nothing
to do with any of the original applications.

I won't say that ARIN is wrong in how they deal with these people,
as there are very real problems on both sides of the table with how
to provide information, and how to evaluate it.  However, I will say
that it often turns out being a much larger effort for ARIN and the
provider than it should be, and often the process seems to prevent
the right things from happening.

For instance, it should be easy to go to ARIN and say I have 20
blocks, they add up to 75% of a /18, plus I have growth.  If you
give me a /18 I'll renumber, and give all 20 back.  It's better
for all of us.  In practice though, doing that simple exercise
seems to be a nightmare.  I don't really understand why it is so
hard, but it always seems to me like death of a thousand paper
cuts.  No individual question is inappropriate, no individual
response bad, but put them all together and you have a multi-year
process for many people just to get some IP space sorted out.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From ras at e-gerbil.net  Wed Apr 23 03:03:13 2003
From: ras at e-gerbil.net (Richard A Steenbergen)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 03:03:13 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8550@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
References: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC8550@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
Message-ID: <20030423070313.GE41027@overlord.e-gerbil.net>

On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:10:34PM -0400, Sweeting, John wrote:
> First off I totally disagree with the percentages; they are made up
> numbers by the author to make his case. Second, the percentage that
> understand ARIN policies do so because it is thier job to do so and so
> they take the time to read, learn and understand. It is much easier to
> say.....ARIN doesn't know what it is doing and that is why I cannot get
> my request approved.....then it is to take the time to understand the
> requirements and meet them. This is my personal opinion only.

You're right, the 99% vs 1% percentages are made up numbers to make a
point. But I'd hope that everyone understood that, or else we have bigger
problems...

You're also right in that the people who understand ARIN well do so
because it is their job. This is precisely my point, very few people can
justify getting paid full time to deal with ARIN. The vast majority of the
IP using public does not understand how to make the rules work to their 
advantage. Also, many of the points mentioned are areas where ARIN makes 
the process needlessly painful for the majority of it's users.

Now if only all my arguments were this easy. :)

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)


From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Wed Apr 23 05:22:26 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:22:26 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <OF403AB593.2DB18BDF-ON80256D11.003276BE-80256D11.00337E43@radianz.com>

>> More stuff from the NANOG thread. I know there are a lot of emotional
>> statements here and in the other messages, but if we look beyond these 
we
>> see that there is some general agreement on what problems need to be
>> addressed.

>Much of this gets back to education.

>Bill Darte has been beating the education drum ever since ARIN started. 
He 
>received limited minimal input and support from the community.

Education programs are most emphatically *NOT* a substitute for good 
communication in the form of clear, well-written policies and clearly 
documented processes. We have taken a simple thing and surrounded it with 
complex policies and processes. As Bill Darte's experience shows, there is 
not much support for a program to educate people in the complex policies 
and processes. IMHO the way forward is to strip away the complexity, to 
remove the obfuscation, to simplify and to focus on communication.

To that end, we should be shortening our policies, reducing the amount of 
information that is published in the whois directories, and simplifying 
the process of applying for IP addresses. And it wouldn't hurt to do some 
planning for the future of ARIN in an age of IPv6 when 99% of companies 
will only ever get a single address allocation.





From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Wed Apr 23 08:58:22 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:58:22 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC856B@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>

 I thought this was an exchange or opinions or ideas, since I am not into
arguing I close by pointing out 2 things....ARIN policy is defined by the
public it serves (probably would be much more efficient if we left it up to
ARIN to create and enforce its own policies) and as stated previously, the
people working for me that deal with ARIN spend less than 1% of their time
with ARIN business unless, of course, you count managing and documenting the
use of your addresses as ARIN business.
I am simply stating a different experience than the one you have encountered
and feel that it is only fair to do that.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard A Steenbergen
To: Sweeting, John
Cc: 'Michael.Dillon at radianz.com'; ppml at arin.net
Sent: 4/23/03 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN

On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 03:10:34PM -0400, Sweeting, John wrote:
> First off I totally disagree with the percentages; they are made up
> numbers by the author to make his case. Second, the percentage that
> understand ARIN policies do so because it is thier job to do so and so
> they take the time to read, learn and understand. It is much easier to
> say.....ARIN doesn't know what it is doing and that is why I cannot
get
> my request approved.....then it is to take the time to understand the
> requirements and meet them. This is my personal opinion only.

You're right, the 99% vs 1% percentages are made up numbers to make a
point. But I'd hope that everyone understood that, or else we have
bigger
problems...

You're also right in that the people who understand ARIN well do so
because it is their job. This is precisely my point, very few people can
justify getting paid full time to deal with ARIN. The vast majority of
the
IP using public does not understand how to make the rules work to their 
advantage. Also, many of the points mentioned are areas where ARIN makes

the process needlessly painful for the majority of it's users.

Now if only all my arguments were this easy. :)

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1
2CBC)


From woody at pch.net  Wed Apr 23 13:10:05 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <OF403AB593.2DB18BDF-ON80256D11.003276BE-80256D11.00337E43@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304231009100.21380-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
    > Education programs are most emphatically *NOT* a substitute for good
    > communication in the form of clear, well-written policies...

I agree completely, but you know where the blame for muddy policy falls,
right Michael?  You want clear policy, write it, and I'll support it.

                                -Bill




From jeffm at iglou.com  Wed Apr 23 17:48:48 2003
From: jeffm at iglou.com (Jeff McAdams)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:48:48 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304231009100.21380-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
References: <OF403AB593.2DB18BDF-ON80256D11.003276BE-80256D11.00337E43@radianz.com> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304231009100.21380-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <20030423214845.GA449@iglou.com>

Also Sprach Bill Woodcock
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>> Education programs are most emphatically *NOT* a substitute for good
>> communication in the form of clear, well-written policies...

>I agree completely, but you know where the blame for muddy policy
>falls, right Michael?  You want clear policy, write it, and I'll
>support it.

I'd be happy if the policies that ARIN actually abides by were actually
posted on their website, rather than the fiction that's up there now.
-- 
Jeff McAdams
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- anonymous
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030423/9f1f34c5/attachment.sig>

From richardj at arin.net  Wed Apr 23 18:15:16 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:15:16 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030423214845.GA449@iglou.com>
Message-ID: <003601c309e5$d2146aa0$338888c0@arin.net>

To All:

ARIN staff is required to review requests for 
Internet numbering resources in accordance with
the policies set forth by the ARIN user community.
These policies are documented on the ARIN website,
as well is the process by which changes to policy
may be made.  

If you ever believe that your request for IP
address space to ARIN is not being reviewed in 
accordance with written policy, please notify a 
member of ARIN management and a full review of
your case will be conducted in order to ensure 
that proper procedures are being followed.

When communicating with ARIN registration staff
via email, you may request your case be reviewed 
by a supervisor or management at any time.  You
may also ask to speak to a supervisor or manager
by calling the ARIN Registration Services Help-Desk:

  +1-703-227-0660

For matters related to registration services you
may contact the Registration Services Director,
Leslie Nobile, directly by sending email to
leslien at arin.net. 

I may be contacted by sending email to
richardj at arin.net.

Best Regards,

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jeff McAdams
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:49 PM
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> Also Sprach Bill Woodcock
> >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >> Education programs are most emphatically *NOT* a 
> substitute for good 
> >> communication in the form of clear, well-written policies...
> 
> >I agree completely, but you know where the blame for muddy policy 
> >falls, right Michael?  You want clear policy, write it, and I'll 
> >support it.
> 
> I'd be happy if the policies that ARIN actually abides by 
> were actually posted on their website, rather than the 
> fiction that's up there now.
> -- 
> Jeff McAdams
> "He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- anonymous
> 



From stephen at sprunk.org  Wed Apr 23 20:28:01 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:28:01 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
References: <003601c309e5$d2146aa0$338888c0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <000001c309f8$a85618e0$93b58742@ssprunk>

Thus spake "Richard Jimmerson" <richardj at arin.net>
> If you ever believe that your request for IP
> address space to ARIN is not being reviewed in
> accordance with written policy, please notify a
> member of ARIN management and a full review of
> your case will be conducted in order to ensure
> that proper procedures are being followed.

Correct answer.  Thank you for publicly committing to this.

How should we handle general stupidity which doesn't violate policy, such as
requests for information that was already provided, unreasonable delays,
etc?

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Apr 23 21:28:17 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:28:17 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <000001c309f8$a85618e0$93b58742@ssprunk>
References: <003601c309e5$d2146aa0$338888c0@arin.net>
 <000001c309f8$a85618e0$93b58742@ssprunk>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1051126097@d57.wireless.hilander.com>

--On Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:28 PM -0500 Stephen Sprunk 
<stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:

>
> Correct answer.  Thank you for publicly committing to this.
>
> How should we handle general stupidity which doesn't violate policy, such
> as requests for information that was already provided, unreasonable
> delays, etc?

Can I please make a request that people stop trying to label all ARIN 
registration staff people as 'stupid'?  Antagonizing them certainly will 
not help your cause.  And beyond that, it just isn't polite.

Let's try to act professional people.  In my experience ARIN staff have 
been consummate professionals regardless of what type of abuse they are 
subjected to.  This is to their credit, but that doesn't mean they should 
have to take it.  Let's try to deal with these issues in a professional 
manner.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com


From stephen at sprunk.org  Wed Apr 23 22:05:04 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:05:04 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
References: <003601c309e5$d2146aa0$338888c0@arin.net> <000001c309f8$a85618e0$93b58742@ssprunk> <2147483647.1051126097@d57.wireless.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <006e01c30a05$f1ce4fd0$93b58742@ssprunk>

Thus spake "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
> --On Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:28 PM -0500 Stephen Sprunk
> <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
> > How should we handle general stupidity which doesn't violate policy,
such
> > as requests for information that was already provided, unreasonable
> > delays, etc?
>
> Can I please make a request that people stop trying to label all ARIN
> registration staff people as 'stupid'?  Antagonizing them certainly will
> not help your cause.  And beyond that, it just isn't polite.

I apologize if that's what it appeared I was doing; I only meant to insult
the ones who do something to deserve it.

I'm sure many or even most of ARIN's staff are competent, professional, and
follow policy.  The nature of the beast is that we only hear about the bad
experiences, since folks with good experiences have little motivation to
participate in the change process.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From william at elan.net  Thu Apr 24 04:20:27 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1051126097@d57.wireless.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304231808410.13934-100000@sokol.elan.net>

Lets try to summarize this thread....

The way I see is that many think there are various operational issues with
ARIN (note - OPERATIONAL - something that may not be policy fixable).
Some particular issues are listed in: 
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1521.html
There is also perception of large portion of ARIN community that ARIN does 
not help/address issues, does not properly use money collected, does not
listen, etc, etc - bad public image.

So what we want is to:
  Identify how serious these problems are (and on the way identify actual 
issues...). This probably requires doing survey of people who have dealt 
with ARIN recently and paying particular attention to those who have 
not found it to be satisfactory. Also would require an easy way for 
somebody to complain about problems (again probably survey-like web form).
  It would be necessary to clearly identify issues, group them by general 
areas and also identify issues that are most important and have to be 
solved first.
  For each issues way to approach and solve it have to be gathered from 
suggestions from those who had problems, what ARIN staff sees how it can
work on the issues and what other organizations have done, etc
  This all have to be discussed at mailing list and some meeting. Things 
like this can not be solved quickly and would require time to do some 
kind of research on the issues which is more then just yelling from people 
on ARIN and mentioing of problems on mailing lists and afterwards it would 
time to actually decide how to fix things, but quicker we start, quicker the 
problems can be fixed.
  And also ARIN needs to work on its image (public relations?) along the 
way letting people know it is listening and how.

Although I'm not big fan of the AC (don't think they have right ideas 
on what they should do within ARIN and had been more of a problem), I do 
not see any other larger constant group that can actually work on ARIN 
operational problems (other then ARIN staff which many see as a problem). 
So the way I see it is that AC should volunteer to look into ARIN operational
issues and first of all work with ARIN to identify for certain what the 
problems issues are (taking the thread from NANOG as a starting point).

So if AC is here and listening I think you should consider spending a lot 
more time on the operational issues and problems and not bother going 
after policy making (you're not parliment here) - leave that to people 
actually making proposals. This is in fact what I see as proper role for 
AC - identify ARIN operational problems and assist arin in solving them 
(with new policy making being left to general community).

----
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net



From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com  Thu Apr 24 10:07:33 2003
From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:07:33 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC857F@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>

I have 3 questions for William:

If this is not a policy issue, why are you posting to the Public Policy
Mailing List? and not directing it to either the CEO of ARIN, one of his
Directors, or the BoT?
Do you have unresolved requests with ARIN that you have followed through on
IAW with Richard Jimmerson's guidance?
Do you have first hand knowledge of anyone following written policy and
meeting published quidelines being rejected by ARIN?

If so it would be nice to see since all I have seen posted are vague
references to unidentified issues.

I am not sure who you represent with your "we" but it is certainly not me or
anyone else that I have spoken to at past meetings. If you have facts, then
represent them....if not, then stop wasting everyone's time. I also
challenge you to run for the AC in the next election, that way your support
can be measured and you can work from inside on fixing all these issues for
everyone. 

-----Original Message-----
From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:20 AM
To: ARIN Policy
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN


Lets try to summarize this thread....

The way I see is that many think there are various operational issues with
ARIN (note - OPERATIONAL - something that may not be policy fixable).
Some particular issues are listed in: 
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1521.html
There is also perception of large portion of ARIN community that ARIN does 
not help/address issues, does not properly use money collected, does not
listen, etc, etc - bad public image.

So what we want is to:
  Identify how serious these problems are (and on the way identify actual 
issues...). This probably requires doing survey of people who have dealt 
with ARIN recently and paying particular attention to those who have 
not found it to be satisfactory. Also would require an easy way for 
somebody to complain about problems (again probably survey-like web form).
  It would be necessary to clearly identify issues, group them by general 
areas and also identify issues that are most important and have to be 
solved first.
  For each issues way to approach and solve it have to be gathered from 
suggestions from those who had problems, what ARIN staff sees how it can
work on the issues and what other organizations have done, etc
  This all have to be discussed at mailing list and some meeting. Things 
like this can not be solved quickly and would require time to do some 
kind of research on the issues which is more then just yelling from people 
on ARIN and mentioing of problems on mailing lists and afterwards it would 
time to actually decide how to fix things, but quicker we start, quicker the

problems can be fixed.
  And also ARIN needs to work on its image (public relations?) along the 
way letting people know it is listening and how.

Although I'm not big fan of the AC (don't think they have right ideas 
on what they should do within ARIN and had been more of a problem), I do 
not see any other larger constant group that can actually work on ARIN 
operational problems (other then ARIN staff which many see as a problem). 
So the way I see it is that AC should volunteer to look into ARIN
operational
issues and first of all work with ARIN to identify for certain what the 
problems issues are (taking the thread from NANOG as a starting point).

So if AC is here and listening I think you should consider spending a lot 
more time on the operational issues and problems and not bother going 
after policy making (you're not parliment here) - leave that to people 
actually making proposals. This is in fact what I see as proper role for 
AC - identify ARIN operational problems and assist arin in solving them 
(with new policy making being left to general community).

----
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net


From ahp at hilander.com  Thu Apr 24 11:20:57 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:20:57 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304231808410.13934-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304231808410.13934-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1051176057@macleod.hilander.com>

Hello William,

--On Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:20 -0700 william at elan.net wrote:

>
> So if AC is here and listening I think you should consider spending a lot
> more time on the operational issues and problems and not bother going
> after policy making (you're not parliment here) - leave that to people
> actually making proposals. This is in fact what I see as proper role for
> AC - identify ARIN operational problems and assist arin in solving them
> (with new policy making being left to general community).

(Putting on my ARIN AC Chair hat)

First and foremost, I can assure you the AC is here and definitely 
listening (and not just the people who are posting).

The AC's role is explicitly defined in the ARIN bylaws.  Article VIII, 
section 3:

Function. It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to act in an 
advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the Board of 
Trustees may, from time to time, request involving IP allocation policies 
and related matters. Between meetings of the Advisory Council, the 
President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the Advisory 
Council and the Board of Trustees.

At this time, the BoT has a standing request for the AC to provide advice 
on IP allocation policy matters.  In addition, the BoT asked the AC for a 
recommendation on the key signing key management draft at our meeting min 
Memphis.  It is not the AC's place to provide unsolicited advice to the BoT.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com


From plzak at arin.net  Thu Apr 24 11:32:48 2003
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:32:48 -0400
Subject: [ppml] To William
Message-ID: <004a01c30a76$c47cfc90$548888c0@arin.net>

William,

You are putting the ARIN staff in a quandary.  The non-disclosure rules
that the ARIN staff operates under precludes us from discussing publicly
anything regarding any transaction between anyone and ARIN.  In regards
to your stated issues with ARIN we have conducted an audit of all of
your transaction activities with ARIN for the past several years and are
prepared to discuss them with you in the appropriate private venue.  We
feel to do otherwise is a violation of the trust that is placed with
ARIN by the members of the ARIN community.

Raymond A. Plzak
President & CEO



From william at elan.net  Thu Apr 24 10:41:07 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <1797AB680DD0D21189870090271780320EAC857F@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304240637590.13934-100000@sokol.elan.net>

> I have 3 questions for William:
> 
> If this is not a policy issue, why are you posting to the Public Policy
> Mailing List? and not directing it to either the CEO of ARIN, one of his
> Directors, or the BoT?
I'm not certain that there is any other public mailing list at ARIN that 
this can be discussed on and its not 100% certain to me that operational
issues can or can not be solved by policies.  

I rarely send private emails on issues related to public organizations.
I'v been told on multiple occasions before to send emails privately to 
members of AC if I have problems or suggestions, etc. I appreciate 
willingness to hear from public from those particular persons that showed 
such interest but that is not how I in particular work on things. I only 
send private emails to clarify something but anything of serious sort, 
any new ideas, etc. I'd bring up on ppml (on rare occasions I would "cc", 
but usually not even that). In part this is how I view that this sort of 
internet democracy is  supposed to work - things are issues are not 
supposed to be stay hidden, nor are they supposed to be entirely work of 
one or two persons - we have mailing lists to work on issues; and if 
this mailing list is not used - what good is it?

> Do you have unresolved requests with ARIN that you have followed through on
> IAW with Richard Jimmerson's guidance?
I have one. To me it was not of high priority, so I have not followed 
though on it as much as I might have if it was ip request, but the last 
word the issue has been heard from arin and as I said it was "we'll get 
back to you". I'll try to find that old email and check on this again.

> Do you have first hand knowledge of anyone following written policy and
> meeting published quidelines being rejected by ARIN?
I'd like to know here what are "published guidelines" and why you 
separated them from "written policy"?

But to answer question, I'v knowledge of organizations that got NAYs for 
what I do not see as something that is not inline with written policies. 
I'v assisted them futher getting through to ARIN and succeed. Somebody 
might not have if they did not read all the policies. The last case I was 
involved in was year ago.

> If so it would be nice to see since all I have seen posted are vague
> references to unidentified issues.
They are not vague references. I'v encountered problems with how ARIN puts 
walls on handling requests each time, I have heard it from many others. 
These problems have been brought up on mailing lists other then ARIN (and 
never actually by me) with people seeking suggestions and help on what to 
do as far as handling ARIN requests and how to get through to them, etc.

And to be precise my email did not have any "references" to issues, 
my email only had suggestions to do futher research on how people like 
dealing with arin and if they encounter any issues and what kind and then 
bring the results of this research up for discussion on how it can be solved. 
I even directly said in my post that what we see on mailing list as references
to problems are not enough to clearly establish what these are.

> I am not sure who you represent with your "we" but it is certainly not me or
> anyone else that I have spoken to at past meetings. 
Exactly!
The public meeting is no indication of ARIN membership or general public 
in american region that ARIN is saying its representing. This is main 
problem you and probably mosts others who are on AC or BoT have - you 
assume meeting its representative while in reality it is not.

I can tell you that organizations and persons who have problems with ARIN 
will not attend meeting like that, no do they even participate at ppml 
(though ppml is easier and so they can be pursuided to hang on here for a 
while, especially if they see their issue as being discussed) but some 
will tell about their problems if you let them, for example asking to do 
survey of how the their ARIN request went through (though many will ignore 
this as well, especially that there is general negative perception of 
ARIN, but if asked nice and make clear these ARIN is trying to deal with 
these issues, then many may answer the one-page questinaire who would 
otherwise not have been heard).

But since we're talking about meeting, for Las Vegas, while I'v been there 
I'v gone through list of participants and tried to find size & type
organizations they represent to get statistical idea of public meeting 
participations by groups. I'm not certain I'v kept that modified 
participants list (it was on old laptop) but if I find it I'll post 
reference to it here and I might try to do this again for last meeting. 
But the numbers I got were amazingly one-sided to me - showing no 
serious representation on the meeting from small & mid-sized isps that 
make greater majority of ARIN (about 3.5% for small isps and another 3% 
for mid-size if I remember) and these are the companies that encounter 
the most problems (somebody else posted that on this thread). 

And this fact has been totally ignored as far as I can tell when I pointed
it out, though on that meeting (shortly after it in private) I was specifially
told that BoT will not consider meeting to be representative and would instead 
consider mailing list to be representative. But afterwards in public I'v 
heard completely opposite view from other members of AC or BoT.

> represent them....if not, then stop wasting everyone's time. I also
> challenge you to run for the AC in the next election, that way your support
> can be measured and you can work from inside on fixing all these issues for
> everyone. 
I have considered and I could try to email companies I'v helped that are 
now members of ARIN and others I know to get their support and I might 
even be elected (probably not, but I'n not aftraid to try) but based on 
how AC works, I strongly suspect I would end up resigning after first 
meeting or at least I would not find that its possible to make any 
progress through AC either, so I see no serious reasons to be there.
And I also do not entirely agree with AC role, I do not believe it should 
be policy making body, but rather more of advisory of issues that ARIN 
staff can rely on when they need outside opinion or when outside opinions 
on operational issues need to be brough into ARIN.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:20 AM
> To: ARIN Policy
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> Lets try to summarize this thread....
> 
> The way I see is that many think there are various operational issues with
> ARIN (note - OPERATIONAL - something that may not be policy fixable).
> Some particular issues are listed in: 
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1521.html
> There is also perception of large portion of ARIN community that ARIN does 
> not help/address issues, does not properly use money collected, does not
> listen, etc, etc - bad public image.
> 
> So what we want is to:
>   Identify how serious these problems are (and on the way identify actual 
> issues...). This probably requires doing survey of people who have dealt 
> with ARIN recently and paying particular attention to those who have 
> not found it to be satisfactory. Also would require an easy way for 
> somebody to complain about problems (again probably survey-like web form).
>   It would be necessary to clearly identify issues, group them by general 
> areas and also identify issues that are most important and have to be 
> solved first.
>   For each issues way to approach and solve it have to be gathered from 
> suggestions from those who had problems, what ARIN staff sees how it can
> work on the issues and what other organizations have done, etc
>   This all have to be discussed at mailing list and some meeting. Things 
> like this can not be solved quickly and would require time to do some 
> kind of research on the issues which is more then just yelling from people 
> on ARIN and mentioing of problems on mailing lists and afterwards it would 
> time to actually decide how to fix things, but quicker we start, quicker the
> 
> problems can be fixed.
>   And also ARIN needs to work on its image (public relations?) along the 
> way letting people know it is listening and how.
> 
> Although I'm not big fan of the AC (don't think they have right ideas 
> on what they should do within ARIN and had been more of a problem), I do 
> not see any other larger constant group that can actually work on ARIN 
> operational problems (other then ARIN staff which many see as a problem). 
> So the way I see it is that AC should volunteer to look into ARIN
> operational
> issues and first of all work with ARIN to identify for certain what the 
> problems issues are (taking the thread from NANOG as a starting point).
> 
> So if AC is here and listening I think you should consider spending a lot 
> more time on the operational issues and problems and not bother going 
> after policy making (you're not parliment here) - leave that to people 
> actually making proposals. This is in fact what I see as proper role for 
> AC - identify ARIN operational problems and assist arin in solving them 
> (with new policy making being left to general community).
> 
> ----
> William Leibzon
> Elan Communications Inc. 
> william at elan.net



From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 24 13:50:57 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:50:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1051126097@d57.wireless.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241228510.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Alec,

I couldn't agree with you more.  However, I do have something to add.  I
have been trying to be an active participant on this list for maybe three
years now.

I have watched just as much abuse get thrown at the "outsiders" by staunch
ARIN insiders/supporters.

I, for one, think ARIN does a pretty good job.  So this is in no way any
attack on ARIN, nor does it come from that view point.  But there are
those on this list that are extremely hard on people that are trying to
express a concern.

In my opinion this list has become in large part a place for those with
similiar opinions AND agenda to systematically turn those away with
different view points.  In addition, it tends to be done in such a way
that those people won't ever bother coming back again.

Most of the time I think some of the things are proposed or suggested
aren't very good ideas, but I don't think it warrants the type of
responses that they receive.

I would love to see the stats for this mailling list over the last 3
years.  I really wish I would have kept copies so I could do it myself.

How many people contributed?
What percentage of messages were sent by the same 7 people?
What percentage of messages were sent by the same 15 people?
What percentage of messages were sent by the same 50 people?
What percentage of people who send a message ever contribute again (after
a 60 day period)?

I have no clue how many people are lurking out there, but this list
appears to not have a wide base of participation.  Perhaps that has
something to do with the reception most regular Joes receive (with no
offense meant to the women out there).

Sure everyone should be able to handle some email list abuse.  But if you
thought it was important enough to defend ARIN, I'm asking that you
consider defending some of those that are trying to contribute.

Thanks.

Mury
GoldenGate Internet Services

> Can I please make a request that people stop trying to label all ARIN
> registration staff people as 'stupid'?  Antagonizing them certainly will
> not help your cause.  And beyond that, it just isn't polite.
>
> Let's try to act professional people.  In my experience ARIN staff have
> been consummate professionals regardless of what type of abuse they are
> subjected to.  This is to their credit, but that doesn't mean they should
> have to take it.  Let's try to deal with these issues in a professional
> manner.
>
> Alec
>
> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
>



From john at chagres.net  Thu Apr 24 14:10:46 2003
From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:10:46 -0600
Subject: AC Role   RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1051176057@macleod.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c30a8c$d40b10a0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>

I disagree, the AC should be able to provide  unsolicited
advise to the BoT.

But then the AC needs newer and better leadership, which is
one of the reasons I resigned from the AC, its lack of leadership.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> Hello William,
> 
> --On Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:20 -0700 william at elan.net wrote:
> 
> >
> > So if AC is here and listening I think you should consider 
> spending a 
> > lot more time on the operational issues and problems and not bother 
> > going after policy making (you're not parliment here) - 
> leave that to 
> > people actually making proposals. This is in fact what I 
> see as proper 
> > role for AC - identify ARIN operational problems and assist arin in 
> > solving them (with new policy making being left to general 
> community).
> 
> (Putting on my ARIN AC Chair hat)
> 
> First and foremost, I can assure you the AC is here and definitely 
> listening (and not just the people who are posting).
> 
> The AC's role is explicitly defined in the ARIN bylaws.  
> Article VIII, 
> section 3:
> 
> Function. It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to 
> act in an 
> advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the Board of 
> Trustees may, from time to time, request involving IP 
> allocation policies 
> and related matters. Between meetings of the Advisory Council, the 
> President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the Advisory 
> Council and the Board of Trustees.
> 
> At this time, the BoT has a standing request for the AC to 
> provide advice 
> on IP allocation policy matters.  In addition, the BoT asked 
> the AC for a 
> recommendation on the key signing key management draft at our 
> meeting min 
> Memphis.  It is not the AC's place to provide unsolicited 
> advice to the BoT.
> 
> Alec
> 
> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
> 



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Thu Apr 24 14:37:22 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AC Role   RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <000b01c30a8c$d40b10a0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy> from "John M. Brown" at Apr 24, 2003 12:10:46 PM
Message-ID: <200304241837.h3OIbM014287@karoshi.com>

> 
> I disagree, the AC should be able to provide  unsolicited
> advise to the BoT.
> 

	It is possible for the members to instigate a change in the
	ARIN bylaws.  If this is what you would like to see happen,
	you should use your power as an ARIN member to initiate
	changes that reflect the will of the membership.

--bill


From ahp at hilander.com  Thu Apr 24 14:36:04 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:36:04 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241228510.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241228510.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1051187764@macleod.hilander.com>

--On Thursday, April 24, 2003 12:50 -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> wrote:

>
> Sure everyone should be able to handle some email list abuse.  But if you
> thought it was important enough to defend ARIN, I'm asking that you
> consider defending some of those that are trying to contribute.

Mury, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

While I agree 100% that the mailing list can sometimes be hostile to some 
people who try to jump into the fray, I think you have missed an important 
point.  Joe Public Policy Subscriber is completely free to defend himself 
and say whatever he wants.  ARIN staff, on the other hand, are required to 
remain completely neutral and as such cannot get involved in PPML 
discussions.

Nevertheless, I agree completely that it would be a good thing to have more 
than a handful of people participate on the list.  I will do what I can to 
encourage as much diverse participation as possible.

Alec

--
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Apr 24 14:59:51 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:59:51 -0500
Subject: AC Role   RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF04553C@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

John,

Of course it is you privilege to disagree on what the AC 'should' be able to
do, but the AC has a specific role to play as Alec has outlined and the
bylaws express.  It is also you priviledge to work to change that charter as
you see fit and to express yourself to the Board in any manner that you feel
appropriate.  In that, you as a clueful member of the community, have a
broader mandate than do we on the AC.  I encourage you and others to take
advantage of this list to do so, or to pursue other venues (future
meetings), etc.

As for leadership of the AC.  I will stand in support of Alec.  No leader is
infallible and the charge of organizations change.  Alec has provided
continuous, engaged and successful leadership across the changing landscape
of AC work.  He has stepped up to the, again, changing focus of the AC since
the last meeting in Memphis and has proven himself to be reliable and
capable in that role. 

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:11 PM
> To: 'Alec H. Peterson'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: AC Role RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> I disagree, the AC should be able to provide  unsolicited
> advise to the BoT.
> 
> But then the AC needs newer and better leadership, which is
> one of the reasons I resigned from the AC, its lack of leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> > Behalf Of Alec H. Peterson
> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 9:21 AM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> > 
> > 
> > Hello William,
> > 
> > --On Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:20 -0700 william at elan.net wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > So if AC is here and listening I think you should consider 
> > spending a 
> > > lot more time on the operational issues and problems and 
> not bother 
> > > going after policy making (you're not parliment here) - 
> > leave that to 
> > > people actually making proposals. This is in fact what I 
> > see as proper 
> > > role for AC - identify ARIN operational problems and 
> assist arin in 
> > > solving them (with new policy making being left to general 
> > community).
> > 
> > (Putting on my ARIN AC Chair hat)
> > 
> > First and foremost, I can assure you the AC is here and definitely 
> > listening (and not just the people who are posting).
> > 
> > The AC's role is explicitly defined in the ARIN bylaws.  
> > Article VIII, 
> > section 3:
> > 
> > Function. It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to 
> > act in an 
> > advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as 
> the Board of 
> > Trustees may, from time to time, request involving IP 
> > allocation policies 
> > and related matters. Between meetings of the Advisory Council, the 
> > President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the 
> Advisory 
> > Council and the Board of Trustees.
> > 
> > At this time, the BoT has a standing request for the AC to 
> > provide advice 
> > on IP allocation policy matters.  In addition, the BoT asked 
> > the AC for a 
> > recommendation on the key signing key management draft at our 
> > meeting min 
> > Memphis.  It is not the AC's place to provide unsolicited 
> > advice to the BoT.
> > 
> > Alec
> > 
> > --
> > Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> > Chief Technology Officer
> > Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
> > 
> 


From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 24 14:58:02 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:58:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1051187764@macleod.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241355440.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> Mury, thank you for the thoughtful reply.
>
> While I agree 100% that the mailing list can sometimes be hostile to some
> people who try to jump into the fray, I think you have missed an important
> point.  Joe Public Policy Subscriber is completely free to defend himself
> and say whatever he wants.  ARIN staff, on the other hand, are required to
> remain completely neutral and as such cannot get involved in PPML
> discussions.

Yes, that is an important distinction.  While I realize that, it wasn't
part of what I was trying to bring across.  However, it certainly
clarifies the reason for you making your initial comment.

> Nevertheless, I agree completely that it would be a good thing to have more
> than a handful of people participate on the list.  I will do what I can to
> encourage as much diverse participation as possible.

Thanks Alec.

Mury



From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 24 15:55:41 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:55:41 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241228510.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <2147483647.1051126097@d57.wireless.hilander.com> <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241228510.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <20030424195541.GA44641@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:50:57PM -0500, Mury wrote:
> I would love to see the stats for this mailling list over the last 3
> years.  I really wish I would have kept copies so I could do it myself.
> 
> How many people contributed?
> What percentage of messages were sent by the same 7 people?
> What percentage of messages were sent by the same 15 people?
> What percentage of messages were sent by the same 50 people?
> What percentage of people who send a message ever contribute again (after
> a 60 day period)?

I joined recently, so I don't have a good archive, but:

76 total users in 296 posts since  Mon Mar  3 21:56:34 2003.

Top 10 users:

1  9.4% (28/296) From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
2  8.7% (26/296) From: william at elan.net
3  6.4% (19/295) From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
4  6.0% (18/296) From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
5  5.0% (15/296) From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
6  4.0% (12/296) From: "John M. Brown" <john at chagres.net>
7  3.3% (10/296) From: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
8  3.3% (10/296) From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett at msmgmt.com>
9  3.0% (9/296)  From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
10 2.7% (8/296)  From: David Conrad <david.conrad at nominum.com>
---------------
  52.3% (155/296)

I can run them for a longer period of time if someone has the
archives.  It would be interesting to compare against the number
of people with IP space (which, I'd have to bet even direct from
ARIN is many thousands), and against the number of people on ppml
in total.

Of course, like any "government", most poeple don't participate,
which is neither bad nor good, just a fact of life.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030424/2cfc01b4/attachment.sig>

From william at elan.net  Thu Apr 24 16:00:49 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424195541.GA44641@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304241237460.30226-100000@sokol.elan.net>

Wow! I did not think I was most active here, nor is it list where I'm most 
active at all. Its not big surprise to me - I either participate in discussion
or I do not and if I participate, you can expect several emails per day 
and I usually answer immediatly (almost always in public and not private). 
And part of the problem is that I type at >400 symbols/minute, its faster 
and often easier for me to type then to say (though on public meetings 
I'mprobably just as active) and I'm not sure I can really stop myself 
even if I know it maybe seen as a problem. But I'll try to keep it down a 
little, leaving space for everybody else (except next week when I'll post 
about whois) - this is especially important because newcomers will not 
participate if the list is dominated by same people.

BTW: Does top-25 account for over 80% of all emails?

> 1  9.4% (28/296) From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
> 2  8.7% (26/296) From: william at elan.net
> 3  6.4% (19/295) From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> 4  6.0% (18/296) From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> 5  5.0% (15/296) From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> 6  4.0% (12/296) From: "John M. Brown" <john at chagres.net>
> 7  3.3% (10/296) From: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> 8  3.3% (10/296) From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett at msmgmt.com>
> 9  3.0% (9/296)  From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
> 10 2.7% (8/296)  From: David Conrad <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> ---------------
>   52.3% (155/296)
> 
> I can run them for a longer period of time if someone has the
> archives.  It would be interesting to compare against the number
> of people with IP space (which, I'd have to bet even direct from
> ARIN is many thousands), and against the number of people on ppml
> in total.
> 
> Of course, like any "government", most poeple don't participate,
> which is neither bad nor good, just a fact of life.
> 



From lee.howard at mci.com  Thu Apr 24 18:07:48 2003
From: lee.howard at mci.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424195541.GA44641@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304241748040.17263-101000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>

http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_XI/PDF/Wednesday/5_MSD_Hamlin.pdf

Registration Services gives the number of members at every members'
meeting.  Looks like 1893 members, but it's still worth wondering how
many of them have duplicate contacts.


http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/index.html
That's archives of PPML, for your grepping pleasure.

Lee

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:55:41 -0400
> From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
> To: ARIN Policy <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:50:57PM -0500, Mury wrote:
> > I would love to see the stats for this mailling list over the last 3
> > years.  I really wish I would have kept copies so I could do it myself.
> > 
> > How many people contributed?
> > What percentage of messages were sent by the same 7 people?
> > What percentage of messages were sent by the same 15 people?
> > What percentage of messages were sent by the same 50 people?
> > What percentage of people who send a message ever contribute again (after
> > a 60 day period)?
> 
> I joined recently, so I don't have a good archive, but:
> 
> 76 total users in 296 posts since  Mon Mar  3 21:56:34 2003.
> 
> Top 10 users:
> 
> 1  9.4% (28/296) From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
> 2  8.7% (26/296) From: william at elan.net
> 3  6.4% (19/295) From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> 4  6.0% (18/296) From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> 5  5.0% (15/296) From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> 6  4.0% (12/296) From: "John M. Brown" <john at chagres.net>
> 7  3.3% (10/296) From: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> 8  3.3% (10/296) From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett at msmgmt.com>
> 9  3.0% (9/296)  From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
> 10 2.7% (8/296)  From: David Conrad <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> ---------------
>   52.3% (155/296)
> 
> I can run them for a longer period of time if someone has the
> archives.  It would be interesting to compare against the number
> of people with IP space (which, I'd have to bet even direct from
> ARIN is many thousands), and against the number of people on ppml
> in total.
> 
> Of course, like any "government", most poeple don't participate,
> which is neither bad nor good, just a fact of life.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: 
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030424/4e8d1168/attachment.sig>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 24 18:12:19 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:12:19 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304241748040.17263-101000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>
References: <20030424195541.GA44641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304241748040.17263-101000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <20030424221219.GA47749@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:07:48PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_XI/PDF/Wednesday/5_MSD_Hamlin.pdf
> 
> Registration Services gives the number of members at every members'
> meeting.  Looks like 1893 members, but it's still worth wondering how
> many of them have duplicate contacts.

That seems low to me.  AS number allocation is closing in on 30,000.
Per the CIDR report,
http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html#General_Status
there are 14888 AS's in the global routing table.

ARIN is one of three major registries, I'll assume for the moment
they are equal, so ARIN must have assigned about 10,000 AS's of
which 5,000 are in use (is there a report that can verify those
numbers?).

So, if there are 1893 members, then the average member has 2.6
ASN's.  That doesn't seem quite right to me.  Sure, there are more
than a few people with 3-5 (or more) ASN's, but there are a ton of
people with just one as well.  If we use the 10,000 number we're over
5 ASN's per member.

What am I missing?  

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030424/cfa71741/attachment.sig>

From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 24 18:57:20 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:57:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304241237460.30226-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241754350.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


William,

I don't think it's the case that some people are contributing too much.
You only sent 26 messages in a month and a half.  It's that not many
people are contributing.  There are many factors as to why.

But I feel one of them is the way infrequent/new posters are received and
responded to.

Peace,

Mury

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 william at elan.net wrote:

> Wow! I did not think I was most active here, nor is it list where I'm most
> active at all. Its not big surprise to me - I either participate in discussion
> or I do not and if I participate, you can expect several emails per day
> and I usually answer immediatly (almost always in public and not private).
> And part of the problem is that I type at >400 symbols/minute, its faster
> and often easier for me to type then to say (though on public meetings
> I'mprobably just as active) and I'm not sure I can really stop myself
> even if I know it maybe seen as a problem. But I'll try to keep it down a
> little, leaving space for everybody else (except next week when I'll post
> about whois) - this is especially important because newcomers will not
> participate if the list is dominated by same people.
>
> BTW: Does top-25 account for over 80% of all emails?
>
> > 1  9.4% (28/296) From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
> > 2  8.7% (26/296) From: william at elan.net
> > 3  6.4% (19/295) From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> > 4  6.0% (18/296) From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> > 5  5.0% (15/296) From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> > 6  4.0% (12/296) From: "John M. Brown" <john at chagres.net>
> > 7  3.3% (10/296) From: "Sweeting, John" <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com>
> > 8  3.3% (10/296) From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett at msmgmt.com>
> > 9  3.0% (9/296)  From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
> > 10 2.7% (8/296)  From: David Conrad <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> > ---------------
> >   52.3% (155/296)
> >
> > I can run them for a longer period of time if someone has the
> > archives.  It would be interesting to compare against the number
> > of people with IP space (which, I'd have to bet even direct from
> > ARIN is many thousands), and against the number of people on ppml
> > in total.
> >
> > Of course, like any "government", most poeple don't participate,
> > which is neither bad nor good, just a fact of life.
> >
>



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Thu Apr 24 19:06:59 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424221219.GA47749@ussenterprise.ufp.org> from "Leo Bicknell" at Apr 24, 2003 06:12:19 PM
Message-ID: <200304242306.h3ON6xZ15640@karoshi.com>

> ARIN is one of three major registries, I'll assume for the moment
> they are equal, so ARIN must have assigned about 10,000 AS's of
> which 5,000 are in use (is there a report that can verify those
> numbers?).
> 
> So, if there are 1893 members, then the average member has 2.6
> ASN's.  That doesn't seem quite right to me.  Sure, there are more
> than a few people with 3-5 (or more) ASN's, but there are a ton of
> people with just one as well.  If we use the 10,000 number we're over
> 5 ASN's per member.
> 
> What am I missing? =20
> 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440


	Not all ASN holders are RIR members?

--bill


From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 24 18:43:50 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:43:50 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304241748040.17263-101000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>
References: <20030424195541.GA44641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0304241748040.17263-101000@instserve0.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <20030424224350.GA48507@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:07:48PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/index.html
> That's archives of PPML, for your grepping pleasure.

Per http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/author.html, 169 people
have mailed the list since Jun 08 2000.  Per
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/date.html, there have been
1551 posts since that time.  Of the 1893 members, 8% posted on the
list, if all 169 people are members.

Top 20 of all time:

8.9% (139/1551) Member Services
5.4% (85/1551) John M. Brown
5.2% (81/1551) Mury
4.5% (71/1551) Alec H. Peterson
3.9% (62/1551) Jim Fleming
3.4% (53/1551) McBurnett, Jim
2.9% (46/1551) Sweeting, John
2.8% (44/1551) Richard Jimmerson
2.7% (43/1551) Bill Darte
2.5% (40/1551) Dr. Jeffrey Race
2.3% (36/1551) Randy Bush
2.1% (33/1551) Owen DeLong
1.8% (29/1551) Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
1.8% (28/1551) Taylor, Stacy
1.8% (28/1551) David R Huberman
1.6% (25/1551) Ron da Silva
1.4% (23/1551) Lee Howard
1.4% (23/1551) David Conrad
1.4% (22/1551) jlewis at lewis.org
1.4% (22/1551) Trevor Paquette

62%  (961/1551) Total

Per http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html, more people asked
for IP space in Feburary alone (192) than have posted to the ppml
list in the last 3 years (169).

I also find it quite interesting that some of the most active
posters appear as most active posters on a number of other lists.
I'd say there is clearly a vocal minority, and a silent majority.
What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent
because they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak
up, or silent because they simply don't know this list and/or the
meetings exist?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030424/2673ca04/attachment.sig>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 24 18:48:35 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:48:35 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <200304242306.h3ON6xZ15640@karoshi.com>
References: <20030424221219.GA47749@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <200304242306.h3ON6xZ15640@karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <20030424224835.GB48507@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:06:59PM -0700, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> 	Not all ASN holders are RIR members?

A true statement to be sure, but is there really that big of a
difference?  An ASN is kinda useless without some IP space to
announce, and I'm sure not everyone gets their IP space from ARIN
directly, but the gap is a bit wider than I thought.

Or, it could be there are more "end users" (who don't get automatic
membership) than I thought...I don't see any statistics that break
down the number of allocations to "ISP's" vrs "end users".

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030424/697afa3d/attachment.sig>

From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Apr 24 19:32:45 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:32:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424224350.GA48507@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241828430.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Wow,

Those are some incredible statistics.  It's interesting to note who those
top 20 people represent as well.  While I don't know everyone on the list
and who they represent I know most of them.

I know this list has definately played a positive role at times, and maybe
that is enough to justify its existence, but it does make you step back
and wonder a little.

Mury

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:07:48PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/index.html
> > That's archives of PPML, for your grepping pleasure.
>
> Per http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/author.html, 169 people
> have mailed the list since Jun 08 2000.  Per
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/date.html, there have been
> 1551 posts since that time.  Of the 1893 members, 8% posted on the
> list, if all 169 people are members.
>
> Top 20 of all time:
>
> 8.9% (139/1551) Member Services
> 5.4% (85/1551) John M. Brown
> 5.2% (81/1551) Mury
> 4.5% (71/1551) Alec H. Peterson
> 3.9% (62/1551) Jim Fleming
> 3.4% (53/1551) McBurnett, Jim
> 2.9% (46/1551) Sweeting, John
> 2.8% (44/1551) Richard Jimmerson
> 2.7% (43/1551) Bill Darte
> 2.5% (40/1551) Dr. Jeffrey Race
> 2.3% (36/1551) Randy Bush
> 2.1% (33/1551) Owen DeLong
> 1.8% (29/1551) Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> 1.8% (28/1551) Taylor, Stacy
> 1.8% (28/1551) David R Huberman
> 1.6% (25/1551) Ron da Silva
> 1.4% (23/1551) Lee Howard
> 1.4% (23/1551) David Conrad
> 1.4% (22/1551) jlewis at lewis.org
> 1.4% (22/1551) Trevor Paquette
>
> 62%  (961/1551) Total
>
> Per http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html, more people asked
> for IP space in Feburary alone (192) than have posted to the ppml
> list in the last 3 years (169).
>
> I also find it quite interesting that some of the most active
> posters appear as most active posters on a number of other lists.
> I'd say there is clearly a vocal minority, and a silent majority.
> What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent
> because they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak
> up, or silent because they simply don't know this list and/or the
> meetings exist?
>
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Thu Apr 24 19:40:40 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424224835.GB48507@ussenterprise.ufp.org> from "Leo Bicknell" at Apr 24, 2003 06:48:35 PM
Message-ID: <200304242340.h3ONee115950@karoshi.com>


	I'm not sure where ARIN started direct delegations, but
	prior to 1q1998, ASNs (in the ARIN region) were not tied
	to an RIR.  At the time, we were in the high thousands, e.g.
	7800ish.   And ASNs were used for other things besides BGP
	policy boundaries before jhawk and yakov redfined their use.



> In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:06:59PM -0700, bmanning at kar=
> oshi.com wrote:
> > 	Not all ASN holders are RIR members?
> 
> A true statement to be sure, but is there really that big of a
> difference?  An ASN is kinda useless without some IP space to
> announce, and I'm sure not everyone gets their IP space from ARIN
> directly, but the gap is a bit wider than I thought.
> 
> Or, it could be there are more "end users" (who don't get automatic
> membership) than I thought...I don't see any statistics that break
> down the number of allocations to "ISP's" vrs "end users".
> 
> --=20
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
> 
> --4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
> 
> iD8DBQE+qGnDNh6mMG5yMTYRAuXWAJwMTJTBQgv+Vd9xZWFA1kUKpjZjHwCeI7YB
> kj1DFv3EAMICsYAW+nnaEAA=
> =8y54
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H--
> 



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Thu Apr 24 19:57:29 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241828430.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net> from "Mury" at Apr 24, 2003 06:32:45 PM
Message-ID: <200304242357.h3ONvTV16034@karoshi.com>

> Wow,
> 
> Mury
> 
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 
> >  on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:07:48PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> > > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/index.html
> > > That's archives of PPML, for your grepping pleasure.
> >
> > Per http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/author.html, 169 people
> > have mailed the list since Jun 08 2000.  Per
> > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/date.html, there have been
> > 1551 posts since that time.  Of the 1893 members, 8% posted on the
> > list, if all 169 people are members.

	that might be a big IF

> > What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent
> > because they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak
> > up, or silent because they simply don't know this list and/or the
> > meetings exist?
> >
> >        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440

	Or...  they weigh the percentage of public debate with this
	crowd against washing their hair/shaving the dog/getting a
	root canal...

	Public lists are good for many things, including raising 
	issues.  Constructive debate on how to resolve those issues
	is often better done in smaller groups. 

--bill


From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 24 19:35:08 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:35:08 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <200304242357.h3ONvTV16034@karoshi.com>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304241828430.22354-100000@dew.goldengate.net> <200304242357.h3ONvTV16034@karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <20030424233508.GA50143@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:57:29PM -0700, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> > > 1551 posts since that time.  Of the 1893 members, 8% posted on the
> > > list, if all 169 people are members.
> 
> 	that might be a big IF

Rather than use the term "members", if you use the phrase "posting
on their employeers behalf" I suspect less than half would qualify.

> > > What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent
> > > because they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak
> > > up, or silent because they simply don't know this list and/or the
> > > meetings exist?
> 
> 	Or...  they weigh the percentage of public debate with this
> 	crowd against washing their hair/shaving the dog/getting a
> 	root canal...

True enough.  That should be somewhat easy to tell though, how many
addresses are subscribed to ppml?  If the answer is 169, then they
just don't know. :)  If the answer is 1800 or more, then they are
probably happy (I don't think afraid is likely here, but you never
know).  Someone from ARIN will have to disclose how many people are
on the list though, if they want to make that public.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com  Thu Apr 24 20:00:59 2003
From: Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com (Taylor, Stacy)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:00:59 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DADFFC@denexg21.icgcomm.com>

I have 15 customers in my DB with ASNs and IP space they receive from my
allocation, and ICG is not that big of an ISP....

Stacy

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 3:49 PM
To: ARIN Policy
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN


In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:06:59PM -0700,
bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> 	Not all ASN holders are RIR members?

A true statement to be sure, but is there really that big of a
difference?  An ASN is kinda useless without some IP space to
announce, and I'm sure not everyone gets their IP space from ARIN
directly, but the gap is a bit wider than I thought.

Or, it could be there are more "end users" (who don't get automatic
membership) than I thought...I don't see any statistics that break
down the number of allocations to "ISP's" vrs "end users".

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From jlewis at lewis.org  Thu Apr 24 23:10:36 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424224835.GB48507@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304242309040.1087-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> A true statement to be sure, but is there really that big of a
> difference?  An ASN is kinda useless without some IP space to
> announce, and I'm sure not everyone gets their IP space from ARIN
> directly, but the gap is a bit wider than I thought.

Lots of small multihomers get an ASN and use it to announce PA space, 
never requesting/getting PI space and membership.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 scott at scottmarcus.com  Thu Apr 24 23:18:42 2003
From: scott at scottmarcus.com (J. Scott Marcus)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:18:42 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: AC Role   (WAS: Independent space from ARIN)
In-Reply-To: <000b01c30a8c$d40b10a0$f9ecdfd8@laptoy>
References: <2147483647.1051176057@macleod.hilander.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030424230427.00a39ec0@mail.scottmarcus.com>

Alec said:

> > The AC's role is explicitly defined in the ARIN bylaws.
> > Article VIII, section 3:
> >
> > Function. It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to
> > act in an
> > advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the Board of
> > Trustees may, from time to time, request involving IP
> > allocation policies
> > and related matters. Between meetings of the Advisory Council, the
> > President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the Advisory
> > Council and the Board of Trustees.
> >
> > ... It is not the AC's place to provide unsolicited
> > advice to the BoT.


With all due respect, I don't think that this verbiage precludes the AC 
from offering the BoT advice on issues where the BoT did not solicit 
it.  It states what the "function", or job, of the AC is.  As long as the 
AC is fulfilling its function, I don't think that this verbiage prevents an 
activist AC from volunteering an opinion on matters where the BoT did not 
specifically request it...

At the same time, I do not think that the BoT is under any obligation to DO 
anything with gratuitous advice from the AC.



From james.cutler at eds.com  Fri Apr 25 05:33:25 2003
From: james.cutler at eds.com (Cutler, James R)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:33:25 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <4E6A7BDC24CDD311B11400508BDF0A380F598EEF@usahm009.exmi01.exch.eds.com>

I am a member of the ppml and NANOG lists, among many others.  Over the
years I have found two things:

1.  If I wait to respond, there are at least two others who will essentially
respond with my thoughts, often in better words than I can.  (The ppml list
top twenty contains at least four such participants.)

2.  Responding to the more outrageous and egregious messages usually results
in ad hominum attacks, so I try to refrain from responding to those
messages.

The net result is to be in "Listen Mode" for the most part.  Sometimes, I
have found a new list, tried it, and found the noise level to be too high to
spend any time there.  For NANOG and ARIN lists, I just tolerate the noise
bursts.

-
James R. Cutler,  EDS
800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098
1 248 265 7514
james.cutler at eds.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] 
Sent: 2003-04-24, Thursday 6:44 PM
To: ARIN Policy
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN

<snip>
What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent because
they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak up, or silent
because they simply don't know this list and/or the meetings exist?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Fri Apr 25 06:36:43 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:36:43 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: AC Role   (WAS: Independent space from ARIN)
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045542@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>


Alec said:

> > The AC's role is explicitly defined in the ARIN bylaws.
> > Article VIII, section 3:
> >
> > Function. It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to
> > act in an
> > advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the Board
of
> > Trustees may, from time to time, request involving IP
> > allocation policies
> > and related matters. Between meetings of the Advisory Council, the
> > President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the Advisory
> > Council and the Board of Trustees.
> >
> > ... It is not the AC's place to provide unsolicited
> > advice to the BoT.

<Scott said>
With all due respect, I don't think that this verbiage precludes the AC 
from offering the BoT advice on issues where the BoT did not solicit 
it.  It states what the "function", or job, of the AC is.  As long as
the 
AC is fulfilling its function, I don't think that this verbiage prevents
an 
activist AC from volunteering an opinion on matters where the BoT did
not 
specifically request it...

At the same time, I do not think that the BoT is under any obligation to
DO 
anything with gratuitous advice from the AC
< >

I do think you are correct.  An activist AC could push an agenda beyond its
mandate or respond to requests for opinion outside that mandate.  I believe
the issue of ARIN being a key signer for DNSSec keys is an example.  This on
its face is an operational issue having very little to do with IP allocation
except that it might interfere.  The BoT specifically asked the AC for an
analysis and a recommendation on ARIN's involvement.

The AC is happy to oblige, and probably can provide some appropriate
feedback.  I do believe that the scope of the issue is beyond the normal
role of the AC and perhaps even its expertise.  Therein is the problem with
this sort of tangential involvement.  

The AC is selected by election to serve a pretty well defined role and
presumably their experience leads them to be recognized as appropriate
representatives.  When the AC is becomes activist or is diverted from that
role, especially widely, they may be acting outside their ability to
effectively serve the community they are supposed to represent.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC



From richardj at arin.net  Fri Apr 25 08:45:51 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:45:51 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <20030424233508.GA50143@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <008e01c30b28$9e338600$668888c0@arin.net>

Hello Leo,

> True enough.  That should be somewhat easy to tell though, 
> how many addresses are subscribed to ppml?

If you exclude RIR staff members (@apnic, @arin, @lacnic, @ripe) there
are 405 addresses subscribed to the PPML.

Best Regards,

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 7:35 PM
> To: ARIN Policy
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> In a message written on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:57:29PM 
> -0700, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> > > > 1551 posts since that time.  Of the 1893 members, 8% 
> posted on the 
> > > > list, if all 169 people are members.
> > 
> > 	that might be a big IF
> 
> Rather than use the term "members", if you use the phrase 
> "posting on their employeers behalf" I suspect less than half 
> would qualify.
> 
> > > > What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority 
> > > > silent because they are happy, silent because they are 
> afraid to 
> > > > speak up, or silent because they simply don't know this list 
> > > > and/or the meetings exist?
> > 
> > 	Or...  they weigh the percentage of public debate with this
> > 	crowd against washing their hair/shaving the dog/getting a
> > 	root canal...
> 
> True enough.  That should be somewhat easy to tell though, 
> how many addresses are subscribed to ppml?  If the answer is 
> 169, then they just don't know. :)  If the answer is 1800 or 
> more, then they are probably happy (I don't think afraid is 
> likely here, but you never know).  Someone from ARIN will 
> have to disclose how many people are on the list though, if 
> they want to make that public.
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
> 



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Fri Apr 25 09:29:45 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:29:45 +0100
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com>

On another topic....

What do people think about providing support to WIANA in order to properly 
register the 1/8 address space that they are using? This would seem to fit 
in with paragraph 7(6) of the ARIN charter.

For more info, see the WIANA FAQ at http://www.wiana.org/faq.php

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
Network Product Engineering, Prescot St., London, UK
Mobile: +44 7900 823 672    Internet: michael.dillon at radianz.com
Phone: +44 20 7650 9493    Fax: +44 20 7650 9030



From ron at aol.net  Fri Apr 25 09:28:27 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:28:27 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <008e01c30b28$9e338600$668888c0@arin.net>
References: <20030424233508.GA50143@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <008e01c30b28$9e338600$668888c0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20030425132827.GA12365@aol.net>

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:45:51AM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
> Hello Leo,
> 
> > True enough.  That should be somewhat easy to tell though, 
> > how many addresses are subscribed to ppml?
> 
> If you exclude RIR staff members (@apnic, @arin, @lacnic, @ripe) there
> are 405 addresses subscribed to the PPML.

So, repost your stats Leo without RIR staff members.
169 out of 405 isn't bad IMO.

-ron


From scott at scottmarcus.com  Fri Apr 25 10:22:59 2003
From: scott at scottmarcus.com (J. Scott Marcus)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:22:59 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: AC Role   (WAS: Independent space from ARIN)
Message-ID: <200304251422.ACV63618@ms7.verisignmail.com>



Thanks, Bill.  This is well said.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:36:43 -0500
>From: Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu>  
>Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: AC Role ??(WAS: Independent space from ARIN)  
>To: "'J. Scott Marcus '" <scott at scottmarcus.com>, "'ppml at arin.net '" 
<ppml at arin.net>
>
>
>Alec said:
>
>> > The AC's role is explicitly defined in the ARIN bylaws.
>> > Article VIII, section 3:
>> >
>> > Function. It shall be the function of the Advisory Council to
>> > act in an
>> > advisory capacity to the Board of Trustees on matters as the Board
>of
>> > Trustees may, from time to time, request involving IP
>> > allocation policies
>> > and related matters. Between meetings of the Advisory Council, the
>> > President of ARIN shall be the point of contact between the Advisory
>> > Council and the Board of Trustees.
>> >
>> > ... It is not the AC's place to provide unsolicited
>> > advice to the BoT.
>
><Scott said>
>With all due respect, I don't think that this verbiage precludes the AC 
>from offering the BoT advice on issues where the BoT did not solicit 
>it.  It states what the "function", or job, of the AC is.  As long as
>the 
>AC is fulfilling its function, I don't think that this verbiage prevents
>an 
>activist AC from volunteering an opinion on matters where the BoT did
>not 
>specifically request it...
>
>At the same time, I do not think that the BoT is under any obligation to
>DO 
>anything with gratuitous advice from the AC
>< >
>
>I do think you are correct.  An activist AC could push an agenda beyond its
>mandate or respond to requests for opinion outside that mandate.  I believe
>the issue of ARIN being a key signer for DNSSec keys is an example.  This on
>its face is an operational issue having very little to do with IP allocation
>except that it might interfere.  The BoT specifically asked the AC for an
>analysis and a recommendation on ARIN's involvement.
>
>The AC is happy to oblige, and probably can provide some appropriate
>feedback.  I do believe that the scope of the issue is beyond the normal
>role of the AC and perhaps even its expertise.  Therein is the problem with
>this sort of tangential involvement.  
>
>The AC is selected by election to serve a pretty well defined role and
>presumably their experience leads them to be recognized as appropriate
>representatives.  When the AC is becomes activist or is diverted from that
>role, especially widely, they may be acting outside their ability to
>effectively serve the community they are supposed to represent.
>
>Bill Darte
>ARIN AC
>


From ron at aol.net  Fri Apr 25 10:25:36 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:25:36 -0400
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com>
References: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <20030425142536.GF12365@aol.net>

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:29:45PM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> On another topic....
> 
> What do people think about providing support to WIANA in order to properly 
> register the 1/8 address space that they are using? This would seem to fit 
> in with paragraph 7(6) of the ARIN charter.
> 
> For more info, see the WIANA FAQ at http://www.wiana.org/faq.php

Hmm...shouldn't WIANA simply ask an RIR for space (after justification)
or directly petition IANA like any other well behaving internet
activity/experiment?

-ron


From bicknell at ufp.org  Fri Apr 25 10:33:20 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:33:20 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <008e01c30b28$9e338600$668888c0@arin.net>
References: <20030424233508.GA50143@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <008e01c30b28$9e338600$668888c0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20030425143320.GA67339@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 08:45:51AM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
> If you exclude RIR staff members (@apnic, @arin, @lacnic, @ripe) there
> are 405 addresses subscribed to the PPML.

Well, I'd say the posting rate (169/405) is way above average, and
that the overall subscription rate (405/1893) is a little below
average.  Figuring most orgs can/do/should have more than one person
watching policy issues, and that not everyone subscribed represents a
member.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030425/7c901e07/attachment.sig>

From stephen at sprunk.org  Fri Apr 25 11:56:01 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:56:01 -0500
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
References: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com> <20030425142536.GF12365@aol.net>
Message-ID: <008301c30b43$56cd5f00$93b58742@ssprunk>

> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:29:45PM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
wrote:
> > What do people think about providing support to WIANA in order
> > to properly register the 1/8 address space that they are using?

Given the premise for their existence is RIRs/RFC2050 are not applicable to
their users, I don't think ARIN support makes much sense.

Thus spake "Ron da Silva" <ron at aol.net>
> Hmm...shouldn't WIANA simply ask an RIR for space (after
> justification) or directly petition IANA like any other well behaving
> internet activity/experiment?

WIANA's web site states their 1/8 addresses aren't reachable from the public
Internet, therefore they have no functional reason to pay RIR allocation
fees.  I am very doubtful they could get an allocation from IANA directly
without IETF/ISOC support for their experiment.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Fri Apr 25 12:19:18 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <008301c30b43$56cd5f00$93b58742@ssprunk> from "Stephen Sprunk" at Apr 25, 2003 10:56:01 AM
Message-ID: <200304251619.h3PGJIF21053@karoshi.com>

> 
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:29:45PM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> wrote:
> > > What do people think about providing support to WIANA in order
> > > to properly register the 1/8 address space that they are using?
> 
> Given the premise for their existence is RIRs/RFC2050 are not applicable to
> their users, I don't think ARIN support makes much sense.
> 
> Thus spake "Ron da Silva" <ron at aol.net>
> > Hmm...shouldn't WIANA simply ask an RIR for space (after
> > justification) or directly petition IANA like any other well behaving
> > internet activity/experiment?
> 
> WIANA's web site states their 1/8 addresses aren't reachable from the public
> Internet, therefore they have no functional reason to pay RIR allocation
> fees.  I am very doubtful they could get an allocation from IANA directly
> without IETF/ISOC support for their experiment.
> 
> S

	Hum...  read the web site(s) and I don't recall there being
	any statement on the WIANA site about this being an experiment.
	
	I am concerned that they have apparently appropriated 1.0.0.0/8
	without even the flimsiest of justifications or notification
	to any of the recognized address mgmt parties.   

--bill


From Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG  Fri Apr 25 14:12:25 2003
From: Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG (Jeff Urmann)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:12:25 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
Message-ID: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9CA8@ONTARIO>

I don`t usually post ditto messages, but it somehow seems appropriate here.
I can`t type nearly as fast as William (<40 symbols/minute) so someone
usually responds long before me.  I am also mostly in "Listen Mode".  I fall
into both categories for limited postings, but I will add a third reason:

3.  I do not always write my thoughts in a clear and concise fashion,
therefore, I fear the grammar police.  I can say though that the grammar
police have been very constructive here on ppml.  Some very good spin
doctors here as well.  But I also do not want to waste other`s time.

I am not an RIR member.  I subscribed to ppml as I have an interest in how
the global internet is shaped.  And certainly anything ARIN does can have
significant impact on the global internet.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, James R [mailto:james.cutler at eds.com]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:33 AM
To: ARIN Policy
Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN


I am a member of the ppml and NANOG lists, among many others.  Over the
years I have found two things:

1.  If I wait to respond, there are at least two others who will essentially
respond with my thoughts, often in better words than I can.  (The ppml list
top twenty contains at least four such participants.)

2.  Responding to the more outrageous and egregious messages usually results
in ad hominum attacks, so I try to refrain from responding to those
messages.

The net result is to be in "Listen Mode" for the most part.  Sometimes, I
have found a new list, tried it, and found the noise level to be too high to
spend any time there.  For NANOG and ARIN lists, I just tolerate the noise
bursts.

-
James R. Cutler,  EDS
800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098
1 248 265 7514
james.cutler at eds.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] 
Sent: 2003-04-24, Thursday 6:44 PM
To: ARIN Policy
Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN

<snip>
What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent because
they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak up, or silent
because they simply don't know this list and/or the meetings exist?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030425/1b8baf11/attachment.htm>

From william at elan.net  Fri Apr 25 13:13:37 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <58D80D5AF0E1D411AC0500B0D04977251A9CA8@ONTARIO>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304251009460.1475-100000@sokol.elan.net>

 I believe for ppml list its actually usefull to post ditto messages. I 
know for many other lists it is considered inappropriate to post message 
if somebody else already posted the same, but here we have policy issues 
and people in charge of ARIN determine support or otherwise for particular 
issue in part by looking at comments on this mail list. If you feel 
somebody posted something similar to your thoughts on this issue and you 
think this is important issue for you or for internet in general, you 
should probably say that you either agree or post something similar in 
your own words. I think people here will tolerate ditto messages 
especially when they are coming out of people who are not otherwise 
present on public meetings.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jeff Urmann wrote:

> I don`t usually post ditto messages, but it somehow seems appropriate here.
> I can`t type nearly as fast as William (<40 symbols/minute) so someone
> usually responds long before me.  I am also mostly in "Listen Mode".  I fall
> into both categories for limited postings, but I will add a third reason:
> 
> 3.  I do not always write my thoughts in a clear and concise fashion,
> therefore, I fear the grammar police.  I can say though that the grammar
> police have been very constructive here on ppml.  Some very good spin
> doctors here as well.  But I also do not want to waste other`s time.
> 
> I am not an RIR member.  I subscribed to ppml as I have an interest in how
> the global internet is shaped.  And certainly anything ARIN does can have
> significant impact on the global internet.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, James R [mailto:james.cutler at eds.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:33 AM
> To: ARIN Policy
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> 
> I am a member of the ppml and NANOG lists, among many others.  Over the
> years I have found two things:
> 
> 1.  If I wait to respond, there are at least two others who will essentially
> respond with my thoughts, often in better words than I can.  (The ppml list
> top twenty contains at least four such participants.)
> 
> 2.  Responding to the more outrageous and egregious messages usually results
> in ad hominum attacks, so I try to refrain from responding to those
> messages.
> 
> The net result is to be in "Listen Mode" for the most part.  Sometimes, I
> have found a new list, tried it, and found the noise level to be too high to
> spend any time there.  For NANOG and ARIN lists, I just tolerate the noise
> bursts.
> 
> -
> James R. Cutler,  EDS
> 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098
> 1 248 265 7514
> james.cutler at eds.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] 
> Sent: 2003-04-24, Thursday 6:44 PM
> To: ARIN Policy
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> 
> <snip>
> What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent because
> they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak up, or silent
> because they simply don't know this list and/or the meetings exist?
> 



From mury at goldengate.net  Fri Apr 25 17:11:08 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:11:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304251009460.1475-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304251610520.16706-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Ditto.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 william at elan.net wrote:

>  I believe for ppml list its actually usefull to post ditto messages. I
> know for many other lists it is considered inappropriate to post message
> if somebody else already posted the same, but here we have policy issues
> and people in charge of ARIN determine support or otherwise for particular
> issue in part by looking at comments on this mail list. If you feel
> somebody posted something similar to your thoughts on this issue and you
> think this is important issue for you or for internet in general, you
> should probably say that you either agree or post something similar in
> your own words. I think people here will tolerate ditto messages
> especially when they are coming out of people who are not otherwise
> present on public meetings.
>
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jeff Urmann wrote:
>
> > I don`t usually post ditto messages, but it somehow seems appropriate here.
> > I can`t type nearly as fast as William (<40 symbols/minute) so someone
> > usually responds long before me.  I am also mostly in "Listen Mode".  I fall
> > into both categories for limited postings, but I will add a third reason:
> >
> > 3.  I do not always write my thoughts in a clear and concise fashion,
> > therefore, I fear the grammar police.  I can say though that the grammar
> > police have been very constructive here on ppml.  Some very good spin
> > doctors here as well.  But I also do not want to waste other`s time.
> >
> > I am not an RIR member.  I subscribed to ppml as I have an interest in how
> > the global internet is shaped.  And certainly anything ARIN does can have
> > significant impact on the global internet.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, James R [mailto:james.cutler at eds.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:33 AM
> > To: ARIN Policy
> > Subject: RE: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> >
> >
> > I am a member of the ppml and NANOG lists, among many others.  Over the
> > years I have found two things:
> >
> > 1.  If I wait to respond, there are at least two others who will essentially
> > respond with my thoughts, often in better words than I can.  (The ppml list
> > top twenty contains at least four such participants.)
> >
> > 2.  Responding to the more outrageous and egregious messages usually results
> > in ad hominum attacks, so I try to refrain from responding to those
> > messages.
> >
> > The net result is to be in "Listen Mode" for the most part.  Sometimes, I
> > have found a new list, tried it, and found the noise level to be too high to
> > spend any time there.  For NANOG and ARIN lists, I just tolerate the noise
> > bursts.
> >
> > -
> > James R. Cutler,  EDS
> > 800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098
> > 1 248 265 7514
> > james.cutler at eds.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
> > Sent: 2003-04-24, Thursday 6:44 PM
> > To: ARIN Policy
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
> >
> > <snip>
> > What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent because
> > they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak up, or silent
> > because they simply don't know this list and/or the meetings exist?
> >
>



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Fri Apr 25 17:30:15 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:30:15 -0700
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <1AA43045-7765-11D7-B78D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

What an astoundingly bad idea.

They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone such action?

Rgds,
-drc
Speaking for myself.

On Friday, April 25, 2003, at 06:29  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
wrote:

> On another topic....
>
> What do people think about providing support to WIANA in order to 
> properly
> register the 1/8 address space that they are using? This would seem to 
> fit
> in with paragraph 7(6) of the ARIN charter.
>
> For more info, see the WIANA FAQ at http://www.wiana.org/faq.php
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Dillon
> Network Product Engineering, Prescot St., London, UK
> Mobile: +44 7900 823 672    Internet: michael.dillon at radianz.com
> Phone: +44 20 7650 9493    Fax: +44 20 7650 9030
>



From ppml at rsuc.gweep.net  Fri Apr 25 19:16:59 2003
From: ppml at rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:16:59 -0400
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <1AA43045-7765-11D7-B78D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
References: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com> <1AA43045-7765-11D7-B78D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <20030425231659.GA46339@gweep.net>

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:30:15PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> What an astoundingly bad idea.

(Amen)^n

Disorganized squatters, and organized suqatting resellers are shunned
and/or shut down. I see n othing different here.

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE


From jamoore2 at vt.edu  Fri Apr 25 20:55:36 2003
From: jamoore2 at vt.edu (James T. Moore)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:55:36 -0400
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
References: <OF16D38CC0.03EC40EB-ON80256D13.0049F511-80256D13.004A225C@radianz.com> <1AA43045-7765-11D7-B78D-000393DB42B2@nominum.com> <20030425231659.GA46339@gweep.net>
Message-ID: <004801c30b8e$8cf2f4a0$0264a8c0@vmnet1.mogul.dyndns.org>

> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:30:15PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> > What an astoundingly bad idea.

I agree. I'd like to see some strong justification 
from WIANA why they can't get blocks on a justified
case by case basis like any other ISP before 
supporting this.

Also, what protocols would interfer with their use of the 
10/8 net with NAT access points to the internet?




From andrew.dul at quark.net  Sat Apr 26 13:06:09 2003
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 10:06:09 -0700
Subject: [ppml] participating on PPML (was: Independent space from
  ARIN)
In-Reply-To: <4E6A7BDC24CDD311B11400508BDF0A380F598EEF@usahm009.exmi01.e
 xch.eds.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20030426100609.00969b50@pop3.quark.net>

In general, I also function in listen mode on this list, mostly because by
the time I get around to responding someone has already posted the same
basic thought.  

I'd also like to point out that some organizations use internal
list-exploders to redistribute the PPML list.  A company which I used to
work for used an exploder to distribute PPML to staff that are involved in
address allocations.  So the 4xx number could actually be even larger than
that.

I also know of other people and organizations who do not participate in
this mailing list due to the restrictions that their employer places on
them regarding posting in a public forum.  While I know there are legal
reasons why these corporate policies get enacted, its really hard to
encourage participation when some people have legal restrictions.  

Reading through the PPML threads takes a lot of time to really try and
understand exactly what is going on.  I personally am not a fan of ditto
messages, but if you feel really strongly about something I would always
encourage someone to post a follow up.

One of the hardest things to do in the mailing-list community is to take
the banter that goes on and try and distill that down to concrete ideas.
There is often a lot of talk about ARIN does this wrong or this is
conflicting...  As a member of the AC I am looking to find concrete items
to focus on rather than hearsay.  

Andrew Dul
ARIN AC

At 05:33 AM 4/25/03 -0400, Cutler, James R wrote:
>I am a member of the ppml and NANOG lists, among many others.  Over the
>years I have found two things:
>
>1.  If I wait to respond, there are at least two others who will essentially
>respond with my thoughts, often in better words than I can.  (The ppml list
>top twenty contains at least four such participants.)
>
>2.  Responding to the more outrageous and egregious messages usually results
>in ad hominum attacks, so I try to refrain from responding to those
>messages.
>
>The net result is to be in "Listen Mode" for the most part.  Sometimes, I
>have found a new list, tried it, and found the noise level to be too high to
>spend any time there.  For NANOG and ARIN lists, I just tolerate the noise
>bursts.
>
>-
>James R. Cutler,  EDS
>800 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48098
>1 248 265 7514
>james.cutler at eds.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] 
>Sent: 2003-04-24, Thursday 6:44 PM
>To: ARIN Policy
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Re: Independent space from ARIN
>
><snip>
>What would be interesting to know is is that silent majority silent because
>they are happy, silent because they are afraid to speak up, or silent
>because they simply don't know this list and/or the meetings exist?
>
>-- 
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>
>


From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Mon Apr 28 04:35:39 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:35:39 +0100
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <OF3C42F855.7B954443-ON80256D16.002DF021-80256D16.002F35AB@radianz.com>

> > For more info, see the WIANA FAQ at http://www.wiana.org/faq.php

> Hmm...shouldn't WIANA simply ask an RIR for space (after justification)
> or directly petition IANA like any other well behaving internet
> activity/experiment?

What makes you think this is an experiment? I thought it was intended to 
be a permanent and growing wireless internet. 

Also, it seems that WIANA has asked one or more RIRs for space but they 
were turned down. Chances are that the WIANA people don't really 
understand the RIR system which leads to ARIN's mandate for education. And 
I doubt that people familiar with the RIR system will really understand 
what WIANA is doing without a serious effort to let go of preconcieved 
notions.

Fact is, IPv4 addresses were never used exclusively in the one single 
public internet that we call "the Internet". There have always been other 
IPv4 internets around. It just so happens that the WIANA wireless internet 
is one that is likely to grow significantly in the next few years and to 
touch just about every AS in the public Internet.

ARIN folk probably haven't come across this before because the people 
building it in the early stages have been Europeans. But now that there is 
a standard opensource meshbox design being sold in both hardware and 
software form by multiple companies, this could grow fairly quickly.

Remember, I believe that ARIN has no future as a plain old IP address 
registry because when IPv6 kicks in, the activity will die down 
significantly. However I think ARIN has a future as a central 
(continentally speaking) registry of network protocol numbers and various 
bits of technical information associated to them. The WIANA registry was 
started because these people see the need for such a central registry. We 
have the choice to ignore them or to welcome them. If we ignore them, they 
will do their thing independently. But if we welcome them then ARIN can 
begin to reshape itself into a viable organization for the long term. 

When IPv6 is everywhere, ARIN needs to have a workable business model in 
order to be viable as an organization. I believe that the business model 
will be difficult if ARIN sticks to just being an IP address and AS number 
registry.

--Michael Dillon



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Mon Apr 28 04:41:12 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:41:12 +0100
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <OFD070A12C.0A9DDD0A-ON80256D16.002F4AFC-80256D16.002FB7D6@radianz.com>

>What an astoundingly bad idea.

>They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone such action?

They are trying to use it, not steal it.

I condone the action because they are providing a useful service which 
needs globally unique IPv addressing. And since there is now plenty of 
IPv4 address space to burn, we may as well use it up for useful things. If 
we start to run out of IPv4 space, we have an almost infinite amount of 
IPv6 addressing to use so there is no danger in running out.

The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space. Rather, they need 
to manage the space towards a controlled exhaustion point. As long as the 
consumption rate doesn't lead to exhaustion before about 2008 then 
everything is fine. And I fully expect that the IPv4 space will never be 
exhausted because sometime around 2008 people will start returning IPv4 
space because their needs will be met fully with IPv6.

--Michael Dillon




From ron at aol.net  Mon Apr 28 09:30:27 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:30:27 -0400
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OFD070A12C.0A9DDD0A-ON80256D16.002F4AFC-80256D16.002FB7D6@radianz.com> <OF3C42F855.7B954443-ON80256D16.002DF021-80256D16.002F35AB@radianz.com>
References: <OFD070A12C.0A9DDD0A-ON80256D16.002F4AFC-80256D16.002FB7D6@radianz.com> <OF3C42F855.7B954443-ON80256D16.002DF021-80256D16.002F35AB@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <20030428133027.GA13643@aol.net>

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 09:35:39AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > Hmm...shouldn't WIANA simply ask an RIR for space (after justification)
> > or directly petition IANA like any other well behaving internet
> > activity/experiment?
> 
> What makes you think this is an experiment? I thought it was intended to 
> be a permanent and growing wireless internet. 

Call it an activity if you prefer...

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 09:41:12AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> I condone the action because they are providing a useful service which 
> needs globally unique IPv addressing. And since there is now plenty of 
> IPv4 address space to burn, we may as well use it up for useful things. If 
> we start to run out of IPv4 space, we have an almost infinite amount of 
> IPv6 addressing to use so there is no danger in running out.

If WIANA is unable to obtain addressing from the RIRs, then they may
consider petitioning IANA directly.  But, asserting address space
independently is not a very well behaving activity...it is no different
than for me to start using 195.16.185.32/27.

-ron


From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Mon Apr 28 10:53:58 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:53:58 -0700
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50457AA@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

> Michael Dillon wrote:
> because sometime around 2008 people will start returning
> IPv4 space because their needs will be met fully with IPv6.

This is science-fiction, especially in the ARIN region.

                       _   ____  __      __  ____   _    _   _    _
                      | | |  _ \ \ \    / / / ___| | \  / | | |  | |
Michel Py             | | | |_| | \ \  / / | |__   |  \/  | | |__| |
Sr. Network Engineer  | | |  __/   \ \/ /  |  _ \  | \  / | |  __  |
CCIE #6673            | | | |       \  /   | |_| | | |\/| | | |  | |
mpy at ieee.org          |_| |_|        \/     \___/  |_|  |_| |_|  |_|
                                IPv6 Multihoming Solutions
                        http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh
                     http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/public/ipv6mh/



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Mon Apr 28 11:35:43 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:35:43 -0500
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045557@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>



> 
> > Michael Dillon wrote:
> > because sometime around 2008 people will start returning
> > IPv4 space because their needs will be met fully with IPv6.
> 
> This is science-fiction, especially in the ARIN region.
Just out of curiosity....
What is ficitional..... the 2008 date? Protocols won't be ready? People
won't ready? Do you have a better estimate?
You don't believe that v6 will mature at all?
People won't trade in v4s?

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> 
>                        _   ____  __      __  ____   _    _   _    _
>                       | | |  _ \ \ \    / / / ___| | \  / | | |  | |
> Michel Py             | | | |_| | \ \  / / | |__   |  \/  | | |__| |
> Sr. Network Engineer  | | |  __/   \ \/ /  |  _ \  | \  / | |  __  |
> CCIE #6673            | | | |       \  /   | |_| | | |\/| | | |  | |
> mpy at ieee.org          |_| |_|        \/     \___/  |_|  |_| |_|  |_|
>                                 IPv6 Multihoming Solutions
>                         http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh
>                      http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/public/ipv6mh/
> 


From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Mon Apr 28 12:34:10 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:34:10 -0700
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F50457AD@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

Bill,
 

>>> Michael Dillon wrote:
>>> because sometime around 2008 people will start returning
>>> IPv4 space because their needs will be met fully with IPv6.

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> This is science-fiction, especially in the ARIN region.

> Bill Darte wrote:
> Just out of curiosity....What is ficitional.....
> the 2008 date?

Yes. Backbone deployment is not seriously started; no IPv6 DFZ; no apps
yet. In this economy, five years to reclaim is sci-fi if there is no
customer demand and there is none in the ARIN region as obtaining v4
addresses is not difficult. Simple economics:

- I'm Joe Surfer. What does IPv6 bring me? Nothing. No prOn, no bootleg
mp3s, no warez, no search engine? Do I need IPv6? No.
(this is actually exaggerated. If I'm Joe surfer, the real deal is
"IPv6? never heard of it").

- I'm Joe ISP. Why should I spend millions upgrading my infrastructure
when my customer Joe Surfer does not ask for it?

- I'm Joe Telco. Why should I spend billions building a backbone when my
customer Joe ISP does not ask for it?


> Protocols won't be ready?

Protocol is not ready. No multihoming solution, no large scale
deployment.


> You don't believe that v6 will mature at all?

Yes it will, but the time frame is 10 to 15 years IMHO (5 years for the
protocol be mature; 5 more to deploy, 5 more to persuade people that
they can let v4 go).


> People won't trade in v4s?

Never. People will not ever trade their v4s for v6s. Although there are
some transition mechanisms the name of the game is dual-stack, and for
the foreseeable future there will be both v4 and v6. Only when
organizations are sure that they will not lose a single customer by
pulling the plug on IPv4 will they. And the same applies for Joe Surfer
too: until _everything_ that Joe Surfer needs including but not limited
to yahoo.com google.com ebay.com cnn.com whitehouse.com^H^H^Hgov
napster/kazaa/winmx Joe Surfer will keep v4.

The demand for v4 will not decrease until we have 98%+ deployment of
native IPv6. Yes this is problem and an egg-and-chicken one. It will
take off at some point, but in North America today, IPv6 is like ISDN: I
Still Don't Need.

Michel.



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Mon Apr 28 12:52:43 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:52:43 -0700
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OFD070A12C.0A9DDD0A-ON80256D16.002F4AFC-80256D16.002FB7D6@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <D480F3C7-7999-11D7-A953-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Michael,

On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
wrote:
>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone such action?
> They are trying to use it, not steal it.

Which is what a car jacker might say.

They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according 
to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been reserved since 
1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to remove that 
address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without following 
existing, published address allocation policies.

This is theft.

> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.

This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are 
using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because 
most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of 
this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system 
including the IANA as a meeting point to define global addressability.  
The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for, 
as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different 
information?

Rgds,
-drc




From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca  Mon Apr 28 12:59:06 2003
From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:59:06 -0600
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OFD070A12C.0A9DDD0A-ON80256D16.002F4AFC-80256D16.002FB7D6@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <007601c30da7$7b964110$2a45fea9@teraint.net>

I do NOT condone this action; nor should ANY ARIN member or representative.

WIANA needs to go through all the proper processes, just like everyone else. If they do not get what they want based on their existing justification, then they need resubmit either asking for less, or change their justification. Period. End of Story.

If they do not, then what is to stop or prevent 'anyone' else from doing the same.
MAJOR Anarchy! This needs to be stoppped now; before there is no turning back and a precedent is set.

(I'd love to just grab an entire Class A to myself..)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:41 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] The WIANA registry
> 
> 
> >What an astoundingly bad idea.
> 
> >They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone such action?
> 
> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
> 
> I condone the action because they are providing a useful 
> service which 
> needs globally unique IPv addressing. And since there is now 
> plenty of 
> IPv4 address space to burn, we may as well use it up for 
> useful things. If 
> we start to run out of IPv4 space, we have an almost infinite 
> amount of 
> IPv6 addressing to use so there is no danger in running out.
> 
> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space. 
> Rather, they need 
> to manage the space towards a controlled exhaustion point. As 
> long as the 
> consumption rate doesn't lead to exhaustion before about 2008 then 
> everything is fine. And I fully expect that the IPv4 space 
> will never be 
> exhausted because sometime around 2008 people will start 
> returning IPv4 
> space because their needs will be met fully with IPv6.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 



From jlewis at lewis.org  Mon Apr 28 13:32:41 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <D480F3C7-7999-11D7-A953-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304281325450.1087-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, David Conrad wrote:

> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according 
> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been reserved since 
> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to remove that 
> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without following 
> existing, published address allocation policies.

Their site says they are not part of the internet, and that you can't get
to the internet from their network without NAT.  The only problem I see is
that when (not if) IANA allocates 1/8 to someone, WIANA will be screwed,
as even with NAT, their 1/8 users will likely have issues reaching the
real internet 1/8 users.  It's the same problem I've seen with lots of
networks where some consultant or admin a few clues short randomly picked
IPv4 addresses for company network.  It works fine until you get internet
connectivity and realize some internet site you want to access is
unreachable because it's part of your "private" network.

If IANA wants to put WIANA in their place, they should just allocate 1/8 
to one of the RIRs now.  I'd be happy to trade in some 69/8 space for 
1.0.0.0/19. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 billd at cait.wustl.edu  Mon Apr 28 14:01:20 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:01:20 -0500
Subject: [ppml] IP address theft?
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF04555D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

David,

I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard WIANA
below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.

It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is a
significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the infrastructure
reliable and predictable.
Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it theft
in the eyes of the law?
If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation or
the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive dominion
on these 'things'?

Do you use the term literally or figuratively?

Bill Darte
ARIN AC
 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 
> wrote:
> >> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone 
> such action?
> > They are trying to use it, not steal it.
> 
> Which is what a car jacker might say.
> 
> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according 
> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been 
> reserved since 
> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to 
> remove that 
> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without 
> following 
> existing, published address allocation policies.
> 
> This is theft.
> 
> > The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
> 
> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are 
> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because 
> most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of 
> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system 
> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global 
> addressability.  
> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for, 
> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different 
> information?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> 


From baptista at dot-god.com  Mon Apr 28 14:52:22 2003
From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] IP address theft?
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF04555D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0304281448570.2122-100000@dot-god.com>


On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Bill Darte wrote:

> David,
>
> I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard WIANA
> below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
>
> It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is a
> significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the infrastructure
> reliable and predictable.
> Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it theft
> in the eyes of the law?
> If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation or
> the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive dominion
> on these 'things'?
>
> Do you use the term literally or figuratively?

The only rights you have here is by agreements made.  We have no agreement
with ARIN therefore you have no rights over our arpa - and yes we consider
them virtual property.

I've been very nervous with IANA recently and all this MLM RIR $2,500 USD
marketing hype for a service which bascially costs $6.00 per domain at
other registries.  All you do at ARIN is assignments and reverse arpa -
that does not translate into a $2,500 USD per year fee.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

"Don't believe anything! We will chase the rascals back to London!"
 ... Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf former Iraqi Information Minister

>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> > wrote:
> > >> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
> > such action?
> > > They are trying to use it, not steal it.
> >
> > Which is what a car jacker might say.
> >
> > They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according
> > to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
> > reserved since
> > 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
> > remove that
> > address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
> > following
> > existing, published address allocation policies.
> >
> > This is theft.
> >
> > > The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
> >
> > This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are
> > using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because
> > most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of
> > this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
> > including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
> > addressability.
> > The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for,
> > as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
> > information?
> >
> > Rgds,
> > -drc
> >
> >
>



From david.conrad at nominum.com  Mon Apr 28 17:20:04 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:20:04 -0700
Subject: [ppml] IP address theft?
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF04555D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <2D8EBBD0-79BF-11D7-A953-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Bill,

I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is "theft" in 
the legal sense.

The global uniqueness of address space that makes the Internet work is 
merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both ISPs and end 
users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has been via the 
structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those 
conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to 
take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and 
multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same address space they 
claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have 
become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...

Not a place I want to go.

Rgds,
-drc

On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:

> David,
>
> I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard 
> WIANA
> below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
>
> It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is 
> a
> significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the 
> infrastructure
> reliable and predictable.
> Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it 
> theft
> in the eyes of the law?
> If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation 
> or
> the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive 
> dominion
> on these 'things'?
>
> Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
>> wrote:
>>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
>> such action?
>>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
>>
>> Which is what a car jacker might say.
>>
>> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according
>> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
>> reserved since
>> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
>> remove that
>> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
>> following
>> existing, published address allocation policies.
>>
>> This is theft.
>>
>>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
>>
>> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are
>> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because
>> most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of
>> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
>> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
>> addressability.
>> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for,
>> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
>> information?
>>
>> Rgds,
>> -drc
>>
>>
>



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Mon Apr 28 18:35:09 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:35:09 -0500
Subject: [ppml] IP address theft?
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045560@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

David,

I understand and agree. In fact the 'legality' is irrelevant.  It is an
operational imperative that the convention exists and is abided.

Still if there are those who choose or through ignorance do not cooperate in
this imperative then there must be some corrective actions in order to
elicit the proper behavior. 

When no force of law exists (and thankfully military action can be ruled
out), then the industry which is dependant upon the proper behavior itself
must enforce compliance.  But, can it?... and if not what then?

Bill

<David wrote>
Bill,

I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is "theft" in 
the legal sense.

The global uniqueness of address space that makes the Internet work is 
merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both ISPs and end 
users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has been via the 
structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those 
conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to 
take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and 
multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same address space they 
claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have 
become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...

Not a place I want to go.

Rgds,
-drc

On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:

> David,
>
> I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard 
> WIANA
> below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
>
> It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is

> a
> significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the 
> infrastructure
> reliable and predictable.
> Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it 
> theft
> in the eyes of the law?
> If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation

> or
> the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive 
> dominion
> on these 'things'?
>
> Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
>
> Bill Darte
> ARIN AC
>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
>> wrote:
>>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
>> such action?
>>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
>>
>> Which is what a car jacker might say.
>>
>> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according
>> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
>> reserved since
>> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
>> remove that
>> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
>> following
>> existing, published address allocation policies.
>>
>> This is theft.
>>
>>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
>>
>> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are
>> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because
>> most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of
>> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
>> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
>> addressability.
>> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for,
>> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
>> information?
>>
>> Rgds,
>> -drc
>>
>>
>


From david.conrad at nominum.com  Mon Apr 28 18:51:40 2003
From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:51:40 -0700
Subject: [ppml] IP address theft?
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045560@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <F9A92ECA-79CB-11D7-BCDA-000393DB42B2@nominum.com>

Bill,

As with pretty much everything related to addressing, the power resides 
with the ISPs.  If they choose to make 1.0.0.0/8 routable across the 
Internet, then WIANA will have succeeded in their 'theft'.  The only 
thing the IANA and RIRs can do is refuse to modify their databases to 
reflect a change in registration.

Rgds,
-drc

On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 03:35  PM, Bill Darte wrote:

> David,
>
> I understand and agree. In fact the 'legality' is irrelevant.  It is an
> operational imperative that the convention exists and is abided.
>
> Still if there are those who choose or through ignorance do not 
> cooperate in
> this imperative then there must be some corrective actions in order to
> elicit the proper behavior.
>
> When no force of law exists (and thankfully military action can be 
> ruled
> out), then the industry which is dependant upon the proper behavior 
> itself
> must enforce compliance.  But, can it?... and if not what then?
>
> Bill
>
> <David wrote>
> Bill,
>
> I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is "theft" in
> the legal sense.
>
> The global uniqueness of address space that makes the Internet work is
> merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both ISPs and end
> users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has been via the
> structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those
> conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to
> take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and
> multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same address space they
> claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have
> become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...
>
> Not a place I want to go.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard
>> WIANA
>> below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
>>
>> It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is
>
>> a
>> significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the
>> infrastructure
>> reliable and predictable.
>> Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it
>> theft
>> in the eyes of the law?
>> If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation
>
>> or
>> the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive
>> dominion
>> on these 'things'?
>>
>> Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
>>
>> Bill Darte
>> ARIN AC
>>
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
>>> such action?
>>>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
>>>
>>> Which is what a car jacker might say.
>>>
>>> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according
>>> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
>>> reserved since
>>> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
>>> remove that
>>> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
>>> following
>>> existing, published address allocation policies.
>>>
>>> This is theft.
>>>
>>>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
>>>
>>> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are
>>> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because
>>> most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of
>>> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
>>> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
>>> addressability.
>>> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for,
>>> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
>>> information?
>>>
>>> Rgds,
>>> -drc
>>>
>>>
>>
>



From jamoore2 at vt.edu  Mon Apr 28 20:19:36 2003
From: jamoore2 at vt.edu (James T. Moore)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:19:36 -0400
Subject: [ppml] IP address theft?
References: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045560@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <00e001c30de5$04d49b60$04a5a8c0@vmnet1.mogul.dyndns.org>

IMHO, i fail to see where this is a serious problem.
If the internet communitee/industry refuses to recognize
WIANA's claim to 1/8 then the only harm is to WIANA
and its "customers". As long as WIANA's internet peers do
not accept traffic from and/or advertise WIANA's route(s)
to 1/8 then attempts for WIANA to connect to the internet
from 1/8 will fail. IANA and the RIR's do have the ability to
enforce peers not to accept WIANA's  traffic and advertise
its routes by  revoking an offending peer's addresses.
This is no different than if I tried to use 1/8 or any other network
that is not allocated/assigned to me.


J.T.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Darte" <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
To: "'David Conrad '" <david.conrad at nominum.com>
Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: [ppml] IP address theft?


> David,
>
> I understand and agree. In fact the 'legality' is irrelevant.  It is an
> operational imperative that the convention exists and is abided.
>
> Still if there are those who choose or through ignorance do not cooperate
in
> this imperative then there must be some corrective actions in order to
> elicit the proper behavior.
>
> When no force of law exists (and thankfully military action can be ruled
> out), then the industry which is dependant upon the proper behavior itself
> must enforce compliance.  But, can it?... and if not what then?
>
> Bill
>
> <David wrote>
> Bill,
>
> I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is "theft" in
> the legal sense.
>
> The global uniqueness of address space that makes the Internet work is
> merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both ISPs and end
> users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has been via the
> structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those
> conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to
> take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and
> multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same address space they
> claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have
> become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...
>
> Not a place I want to go.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard
> > WIANA
> > below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
> >
> > It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, but there is
>
> > a
> > significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the
> > infrastructure
> > reliable and predictable.
> > Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in use, but is it
> > theft
> > in the eyes of the law?
> > If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's incorporation
>
> > or
> > the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive
> > dominion
> > on these 'things'?
> >
> > Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
> >
> > Bill Darte
> > ARIN AC
> >
> >>
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> >> wrote:
> >>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
> >> such action?
> >>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
> >>
> >> Which is what a car jacker might say.
> >>
> >> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according
> >> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
> >> reserved since
> >> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
> >> remove that
> >> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
> >> following
> >> existing, published address allocation policies.
> >>
> >> This is theft.
> >>
> >>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
> >>
> >> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are
> >> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because
> >> most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of
> >> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
> >> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
> >> addressability.
> >> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for,
> >> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
> >> information?
> >>
> >> Rgds,
> >> -drc
> >>
> >>
> >



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 29 06:04:14 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:04:14 +0100
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <OF0D26094E.2C7BF00E-ON80256D17.00360B3D-80256D17.003751CF@radianz.com>

>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.

>Which is what a car jacker might say.

>They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, which according 
>to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been reserved since 
>1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to remove that 
>address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without following 
>existing, published address allocation policies.

>This is theft.

I was under the impression that theft was the taking of valuable property 
belonging to someone else. This seems a lot more like homesteading to me.

In fact, in the UK where I live, it is legal in many places to move into 
an unoccupied and unsecured building and take up residence. It's called 
squatting and although many people don't like it it is not considered 
theft.

>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.

>This isn't about conserving address space or whether or not they are 
>using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet works because 
>most people see it is in their self-interest to cooperate.  Part of 
>this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system 
>including the IANA as a meeting point to define global addressability. 
>The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this cooperative system for, 
>as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different 
>information?

I'm an insider like you so I know that the WIANA people could have gone 
through IANA and gotten this done legitimately. But very few people are 
insiders. Most people haven't got a clue how the IANA and RIR system works 
because it is run by insiders for insiders. The whole system does not 
explain itself and does not welcome scrutiny.

Is it any wonder that these people went off on their own when their 
requests were met with bureaucratic brushoffs?

This may be news to you and the other insiders on this list, but the fact 
is that there is an awful lot of media coverage of the so-called rogue 
registries like Alternic out on the web. When someone attempts to find out 
how the system works, they are quite likely to run across knowledgeable 
authorities advising them to hijack the addresses they need. The whole 
registry system sits there and waits passively for customers to show up 
and when they go elsehere we complain loudly that they should be shopping 
in our stores because we have the one true monopoly...

Maybe we should be a little more proactive, especially on the education 
front. Then these things wouldn't happen.

But, fact is, this has happened. So now the question is how to react. My 
suggestion is that we move in to help these people get a legitimate 1/8 
allocation from IANA. The potential numbers of connections in a wireless 
mesh do justify a /8 and even if IANA wouldn't hand over the whole thing 
right off the bat, I'm sure that some conditions could be worked out under 
which a subset is handed over now and the rest reserved.

There is lots of address space out there; we don't need to be stingy with 
it.

--Michael Dillon







From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 29 06:11:10 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:11:10 +0100
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <OF7DAA3CEC.56C68E67-ON80256D17.00376371-80256D17.0037F459@radianz.com>

>I do NOT condone this action; nor should ANY ARIN member or 
representative.

Last I looked this was not a condition of ARIN membership. Are you 
suggesting a policy that all ARIN members must share the same opinions?

>WIANA needs to go through all the proper processes, just like everyone 
else. If they do not get what they want >based on their existing 
justification, then they need resubmit either asking for less, or change 
their >justification. Period. End of Story.

>If they do not, then what is to stop or prevent 'anyone' else from doing 
the same.

Nothing. There is nothing to stop them from doing what they have done.

>MAJOR Anarchy! This needs to be stoppped now; before there is no turning 
back and a precedent is set.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, there really is nothing that ARIN or anyone else can do to stop 
them.

>(I'd love to just grab an entire Class A to myself..)

Go ahead. There is nothing to stop you from doing this as long as you 
don't plan to use it on the global Internet. I know of a company that uses 
1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8, 7/8 and 8/8 without registering them.

We need to be realistic here. ARIN is not the Internet police.

--Michael Dillon



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Apr 29 10:24:08 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:24:08 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045563@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

James wrote....
> 
> IMHO, i fail to see where this is a serious problem.
> If the internet communitee/industry refuses to recognize
> WIANA's claim to 1/8 then the only harm is to WIANA
> and its "customers". As long as WIANA's internet peers do
> not accept traffic from and/or advertise WIANA's route(s)
> to 1/8 then attempts for WIANA to connect to the internet
> from 1/8 will fail. IANA and the RIR's do have the ability to
> enforce peers not to accept WIANA's  traffic and advertise
> its routes by  revoking an offending peer's addresses.
> This is no different than if I tried to use 1/8 or any other network
> that is not allocated/assigned to me.

I maintain that this is unrealistic..... IANA and RIRs have NO power.  It is
really my point.  The power to recind an allocation is a theatric.  If the
routing community continues to announce an existing block then it is NOT
recinded.  If the ISPs announce 1/8 then it is allocated.  It is the
recognition that together (the routing and address mgt community) is what
creates order and stability in the Internet.... an natural mutualistic
symbiosis....

I believe that it is interesting to contemplate an MOU between the RIRs and
the the 'routing community' which formalizes a means to evaluate an agree to
actions that further coordinate this natural collaboration and strengthens
the industries ability to police itself and enforce 'good' behavior.  Of
course this framework for cooperation could extend to other issues like
filtering and address allocation boundaries, etc.

Is there an world-wide ISP industry organization that scales to the level of
representation needed to enter into agreements with RIRs or would this idea
fail under the sheer weight of trying to work out individual agreements with
hundreds of ISPs?

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council 

> 
> 
> J.T.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill Darte" <billd at cait.wustl.edu>
> To: "'David Conrad '" <david.conrad at nominum.com>
> Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:35 PM
> Subject: RE: [ppml] IP address theft?
> 
> 
> > David,
> >
> > I understand and agree. In fact the 'legality' is 
> irrelevant.  It is an
> > operational imperative that the convention exists and is abided.
> >
> > Still if there are those who choose or through ignorance do 
> not cooperate
> in
> > this imperative then there must be some corrective actions 
> in order to
> > elicit the proper behavior.
> >
> > When no force of law exists (and thankfully military action 
> can be ruled
> > out), then the industry which is dependant upon the proper 
> behavior itself
> > must enforce compliance.  But, can it?... and if not what then?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > <David wrote>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I am not a lawyer so I won't pretend to know whether it is 
> "theft" in
> > the legal sense.
> >
> > The global uniqueness of address space that makes the 
> Internet work is
> > merely an indirect convention mutually agreed upon by both 
> ISPs and end
> > users.  The implementation of this global uniqueness has 
> been via the
> > structures represented by the IANA and the RIRs.  Take away those
> > conventions as WIANA is attempting to do and something will have to
> > take their place.  If you were in charge of a large scale ISP and
> > multiple sets of folks all came to you with the same 
> address space they
> > claimed to be theirs, which would you choose?  My guess, as I have
> > become a bit cynical, would be the one that pays the most...
> >
> > Not a place I want to go.
> >
> > Rgds,
> > -drc
> >
> > On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 11:01  AM, Bill Darte wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > I agree with the spirit of the term 'theft' in your message regard
> > > WIANA
> > > below, but I am not sure about the literal definition.
> > >
> > > It is not property in a tangible sense.  It is not owned, 
> but there is
> >
> > > a
> > > significant infrastructure of 'stewardship' which makes the
> > > infrastructure
> > > reliable and predictable.
> > > Its unsanctioned use is a violation of the protocol in 
> use, but is it
> > > theft
> > > in the eyes of the law?
> > > If addresses allocated to ARIN are squatted, does ARIN's 
> incorporation
> >
> > > or
> > > the allocation process give it 'rights' under the law to exclusive
> > > dominion
> > > on these 'things'?
> > >
> > > Do you use the term literally or figuratively?
> > >
> > > Bill Darte
> > > ARIN AC
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Michael,
> > >>
> > >> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 01:41  AM, 
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> They are trying to steal 1/8.  Why should anyone condone
> > >> such action?
> > >>> They are trying to use it, not steal it.
> > >>
> > >> Which is what a car jacker might say.
> > >>
> > >> They have unilaterally asserted the use of 1.0.0.0/8, 
> which according
> > >> to the _only_ authority used to date (the IANA) has been
> > >> reserved since
> > >> 1981.  By this unilateral assertion, they are attempting to
> > >> remove that
> > >> address space from the pool of unallocated addresses without
> > >> following
> > >> existing, published address allocation policies.
> > >>
> > >> This is theft.
> > >>
> > >>> The RIRs no longer need to conserve IPv4 address space.
> > >>
> > >> This isn't about conserving address space or whether or 
> not they are
> > >> using address space for a valid reason.  The Internet 
> works because
> > >> most people see it is in their self-interest to 
> cooperate.  Part of
> > >> this cooperation is to agree to use the Internet registry system
> > >> including the IANA as a meeting point to define global
> > >> addressability.
> > >> The folks at WIANA have chosen to ignore this 
> cooperative system for,
> > >> as far as I can tell, no good reason.  Perhaps you have different
> > >> information?
> > >>
> > >> Rgds,
> > >> -drc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> 


From randy at psg.com  Tue Apr 29 10:26:36 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:26:36 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
References: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045563@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <E19AW45-0004sm-ST@roam.psg.com>

> I maintain that this is unrealistic..... IANA and RIRs have NO power.  It is
> really my point.  The power to recind an allocation is a theatric.  If the
> routing community continues to announce an existing block then it is NOT
> recinded.

s/announce/announce and accept/

sounds to me it's time to adjust filtering



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Apr 29 12:03:35 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:03:35 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
Message-ID: <OF3DDAEC94.F0D2C5EB-ON80256D17.005676DF-80256D17.00583850@radianz.com>

-------------------------------------------------------


>I maintain that this is unrealistic..... IANA and RIRs have NO power.

IANA and the RIRs do have power. They don't have police power but they do 
have power and if they were serious in exercising that power then some 
things could be accomplished.

>Is there an world-wide ISP industry organization that scales to the level 
of
>representation needed to enter into agreements with RIRs or would this 
idea
>fail under the sheer weight of trying to work out individual agreements 
with
>hundreds of ISPs?

There is no such organization and the regulatory nightmare of trying to 
create one is too horrible to think about.

I suggest that ARIN should focus on wielding the power that it does have 
rather than trying to create yet another ICANN-like organization. The RIRs 
have the power to publish an authoritative directory identifying all of 
the IPv4 address space that they have allocated and which organizations 
have received the allocation. This power is strengthened when the data is 
kept accurate, is complete and is made easily and widely available. The 
power is weakened when the data is inaccurate, incomplete and not easy for 
non-insiders to get access to.

In the current state of affairs, ARIN has a whois database filled with 
inaccurate, incomplete and just plain useless data. In addition, there is 
no easy way for anyone to get access to this data other than for casual 
manual queries. I do not consider the whois system or the web gateway to 
be "easy access" because they are hard to plug into an application such as 
a firewall management system. The two main flaws are that the protocols 
used are obscure, i.e. not mainstream, and that the data must be parsed by 
the recipient application and is not in an inherently parseable format. 
LDAP would fix both of these "easy access" flaws which is why I promote 
its use. However the first problem of dirty data requires much more than a 
technical solution. It requires some leadership inside ARIN's AC and BoT.

Why go to the effort of cleaning the data and publishing it in a directory 
using mainstream protocols? Because then people will begin to *USE* the 
data and will begin to consider ARIN as an authoritative source to 
identify who is responsible for any given block of IP address space. 
Stewardship is not just something that ARIN does. It is also something 
that ARIN delegates; and we, the public, have the right to know which 
organizations have stewardship responsibility over which blocks of IP 
space. When the database is dirty, inaccurate and incomplete then our 
trust in the data is eroded and ARIN has failed in its stewardship 
responsibility.

--Michael Dillon




From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Tue Apr 29 12:06:09 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:06:09 -0700
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F7B0@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

David,


> David Conrad wrote:
> This is theft.

I would call that hijacking or squatting. The way I understand theft is
that the resource is not available anymore to the original owner and
becomes "property" of the thief. This is not what we have here;
1.0.0.0/8 is still available and can be delegated to a RIR. Actually, if
I was IANA and I was pissed, that's what I would do.

Anyway, without pointing fingers, there has been a failure in the system
to push these guys to create WIANA. I don't condone it (if we let this
happen everyone is going to hijack prefixes) but this should remind
everyone that terrorism often happens form people that have been turned
down by the established authority.

Note that if hijacking becomes allowed, I hereby declare 2345::/16 mine
:-)
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt

Michel.



From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca  Tue Apr 29 12:45:16 2003
From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:45:16 -0600
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OF7DAA3CEC.56C68E67-ON80256D17.00376371-80256D17.0037F459@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c30e6e$b702eec0$2a45fea9@teraint.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:11 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] The WIANA registry
> 
> 
> >I do NOT condone this action; nor should ANY ARIN member or 
> representative.
> 
> Last I looked this was not a condition of ARIN membership. Are you 
> suggesting a policy that all ARIN members must share the same 
> opinions?

No, but we should all abide by the agreed upon processes and policies.
...

> 
> Sorry, there really is nothing that ARIN or anyone else can 
> do to stop 
> them.

Actually there is..
All ISPs just need to agree not to accept any advertisments for 1/8.




From mury at goldengate.net  Tue Apr 29 12:45:05 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:45:05 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
In-Reply-To: <E19AW45-0004sm-ST@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304291129360.24181-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Here's one from deep in the right field bleachers:

ARIN (RIRs) could "insist" or just "encourage" members to filter out
certain blocks of IPs for various reasons.

It would only take a percentage of members actually doing it, especially
if the big dogs were on board, to make it work.

While it seems to me that someone needs to work with WIANA to make their
block legitimate, what would stop the next group from doing the same
thing?

If this "homesteading" is allowed to continue we will have a mess of
massive proportions.  And it will only take one WIANA type situation one
to be accepted to start a precedence.

What I can't seem to figure out is why a wireless device needs an IP that
is not part of a network where it is owned and operated by end users.
Wouldn't that wireless device either be on the network of the wireless
operator, the ISP they are connecting to, or a private network between a
certain group of people?

Anyway, it's lunch time.

Someone from IANA needs to get on the phone with WIANA immediately, before
a very bad precedence is set.  Any feedback on a potential policy
that would encourage members to filter out IPs in situations where RIRs
are circumvented (In no way would it be used to combat SPAM or other
network abuses outside the scope of a RIR).

Mury


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> > I maintain that this is unrealistic..... IANA and RIRs have NO power.  It is
> > really my point.  The power to recind an allocation is a theatric.  If the
> > routing community continues to announce an existing block then it is NOT
> > recinded.
>
> s/announce/announce and accept/
>
> sounds to me it's time to adjust filtering
>




From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca  Tue Apr 29 13:00:48 2003
From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:00:48 -0600
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <OF7DAA3CEC.56C68E67-ON80256D17.00376371-80256D17.0037F459@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c30e70$e26ff560$2a45fea9@teraint.net>

The way I see this whole issue is the following:

1) WIANA has unilaterally decided that they will be using the 1/8 IP supernet
2) WIANA has stated that this network is 'a different physical medium to the classic Internet'
3) WIANA has stated that their network 'does not map directly into Internet address space, external connections are translated and will perhaps eventually slot into an ipv6 subnet'

Given (1), (2) and (3) above.. This is like running a private network. No problem so far.

However, (here is the kicker)..

How long do you think it will be before they 'require' direct Internet connectivity due to the problems imposed by Network Address Translation?? I'm talking end-user demand that they be able to connect via VPN to corporate networks, email, IM, etc.. Most users don't care nor do they want to learn about the nuances of NAT.. they just want their application to work. Point, click, connect.

Given the above, I expect WIANA to say at some point in the future "Look, we are already using this space and no-one else is; so just let us use it." All without going through the mutually agreed upon processes, procedures and justifications that everyone else must go through.

This, I believe, is the real problem with this 'Registry'..



From baptista at dot-god.com  Tue Apr 29 13:16:41 2003
From: baptista at dot-god.com (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F7B0@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0304291313240.2122-100000@dot-god.com>


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Michel Py wrote:

> David,
>
>
> > David Conrad wrote:
> > This is theft.
>
> I would call that hijacking or squatting. The way I understand theft is
> that the resource is not available anymore to the original owner and
> becomes "property" of the thief. This is not what we have here;
> 1.0.0.0/8 is still available and can be delegated to a RIR. Actually, if
> I was IANA and I was pissed, that's what I would do.
>
> Anyway, without pointing fingers, there has been a failure in the system
> to push these guys to create WIANA. I don't condone it (if we let this
> happen everyone is going to hijack prefixes) but this should remind
> everyone that terrorism often happens form people that have been turned
> down by the established authority.

who gave IANA that authority?  God?  Man?  On the internet authority is a
matter of trust and those who lose the commuities trust lose that
authority.  and since the issuance of numbers seems more like a game of
MLM - lets make a buck - i'm not surprised to see the WIANA's of the world
rise up.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

"Don't believe anything! We will chase the rascals back to London!"
 ... Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf former Iraqi Information Minister




From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Tue Apr 29 14:47:08 2003
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:47:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F7B0@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304291433450.25853-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


Michael:
  Perhaps more correctly it could be considered "identity theft", as in an
attempt to knowingly deceive by assuming the identity of another party
without their permission. In this case, since 1.0.0.0/8 is reserved by
IANA, there may or may not be an identity that is being assumed. The
situation would become much more clear, I would think, if IANA were to
want to do something with that address space.
  Another twist that comes to mind is that using that netblock without
proper rwhois data could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the identity
of the user. Since the hierarchical registry structure is the defacto
reference for these assignments, a private and alternate method of
identity may not be sufficient. 

Chuck Scott



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Apr 29 15:01:02 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:01:02 -0500
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF04556D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>


Trevor said...
> 
> 
> The way I see this whole issue is the following:
> 
> 1) WIANA has unilaterally decided that they will be using the 
> 1/8 IP supernet
> 2) WIANA has stated that this network is 'a different 
> physical medium to the classic Internet'
> 3) WIANA has stated that their network 'does not map directly 
> into Internet address space, external connections are 
> translated and will perhaps eventually slot into an ipv6 subnet'
> 
> Given (1), (2) and (3) above.. This is like running a private 
> network. No problem so far.
> 
> However, (here is the kicker)..
> 
> How long do you think it will be before they 'require' direct 
> Internet connectivity due to the problems imposed by Network 
> Address Translation?? I'm talking end-user demand that they 
> be able to connect via VPN to corporate networks, email, IM, 
> etc.. Most users don't care nor do they want to learn about 
> the nuances of NAT.. they just want their application to 
> work. Point, click, connect.
> 
> Given the above, I expect WIANA to say at some point in the 
> future "Look, we are already using this space and no-one else 
> is; so just let us use it." All without going through the 
> mutually agreed upon processes, procedures and justifications 
> that everyone else must go through.
> 
> This, I believe, is the real problem with this 'Registry'..

This seems like a perfectly sensible strategy to me and that is why there
needs to be a REAL mechanism to stop such squatting and tactic.  This takes
the implicit (though explicit would be more satisfying) cooperation of the
Registries and the ISP community.

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council 


From william at elan.net  Tue Apr 29 12:32:51 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Whois AUP Proposal - updated/new version
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304290855190.840-100000@sokol.elan.net>

http://www.elan.net/~william/arin_proposal_whois_aup-v2.htm

The above link and listed below in full is proposal for whois aup & bulk 
whois access. Its primarily my original bulk whois proposal with updates 
based on suggestions on meeting in Memphis (i.e. making clear what 
policies/aups are to be changed and how in particular bulk whois is to be 
changed, making clear standard whois should only include reference to AUP
and not entire AUP, etc).

For Richard - this is going as new proposal to be published on ARIN 
webiste as such (unless ARIN AC changes its mind after my appeal which 
you'll see posted on the maillist tomorrow or thursday). I'm aware that 
proposals are usually sent around month before the meeting, but I see 
nothing that prevents me from doing it at any other time like right now.

As usual, if you see problems or have particular suggestions on issues or
just with wording, please fee free to reply to this message and discuss 
this on ppml. I'll make proper changes to proposal based on your suggestions.

Below is actual proposal:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal for ARIN Whois Acceptable Use Policy and Bulk Whois Access

This proposal obsoletes current bulk whois policy 2002-4 and changes
current Bulk Whois Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) to become general Whois
Acceptable Use policy that would apply to all whois queries. In
particular: 

1. An acceptable use policy called "Whois Acceptable Use Policy" is to be 
published on ARIN website as follows: 

"ARIN Whois Data is for Internet operations and technical research purposes
pertaining to Internet Operations only. It may not be used for advertising,
direct marketing, marketing research or similar purposes. Use of ARIN 
whois data for these activities is exicitly forbidden. ARIN requests to 
be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof.

Redistributing ARIN Whois Data is explicitly forbidden. It is permissible 
to publish data on an individual query or small number of queries at a 
time basis as long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent automated
querying by database harvesters ARIN reserves the right to restrict access 
to the whois database in its sole discretion to ensure operational stability.

ARIN may may restrict or terminate your access to the whois database for 
failure to abide by these terms of use"

2. Automated internet-based access to whois data with individual queries 
(such as by using whois protocol) must  include one-line statement that 
data is provided and can only be used according to 'ARIN Whois Acceptable 
Use Policy' with a link to where the policy is published on ARIN website, 
all other access to whois data must include entire ARIN Whois AUP

3. A policy for bulk whois access is to be published on ARIN website as 
follows:

"Special access to entire whois database or large portion of it can be 
obtained by any organization or rndividual provided that they agree in 
writing to ARIN Whois Acceptable Use Policy. This data should not include 
any information that is marked as private.

Access to whois data can be by individual whois queries, an ftp or other
type of download of entire desired dataset or by hard media distribution 
(such as cdrom). Access that is provided by means of public internet 
should require authentication and ARIN can request authentication 
settings to be changed on regular basis for those desiring access multiple 
times. Requests for cdrom or similar media should be filled and signed 
each time this is requested and ARIN may charge appropriate fee to cover 
costs of the media"



From william at elan.net  Tue Apr 29 13:27:36 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF04556D@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304291009300.840-100000@sokol.elan.net>

> > Given the above, I expect WIANA to say at some point in the 
> > future "Look, we are already using this space and no-one else 
> > is; so just let us use it." All without going through the 
> > mutually agreed upon processes, procedures and justifications 
> > that everyone else must go through.
> > 
> > This, I believe, is the real problem with this 'Registry'..
> 
> This seems like a perfectly sensible strategy to me and that is why there
> needs to be a REAL mechanism to stop such squatting and tactic.  This takes
> the implicit (though explicit would be more satisfying) cooperation of the
> Registries and the ISP community.
And how do you see that? What can you possibly do?

They have made it clear they are not using ips for internet connectivity.  
They would not do as RFC suggested and use one of other ranges (10/8), so 
whatever problems their users run into (like not being able to access real
1/8 ips if they were assigned) is what they get for doing something that 
is not standard.

As far as anything else - ARIN tries to maintain good balance between 
assigning ips and actually getting involved in routing and network connectivity
- in my opinion it would be completely inappropriate for ARIN to tell 
their members you MUST not route to particular ip block, etc. ARIN can 
tell them this block should not be routable through whois and best is to 
maintain that database better and to provide better means of accessing it.

As far as WIANA - I think best we can do is NOT get involved in this situation
(dont not help by having everybody talk about it and giving them such free 
publicity - and do note that if ARIN is against them it may very well work 
in their favor as far as public opinion goes). If WIANA is successfull 
in getting users to use their system, they may realize best they can do 
is to apply for actual ip block range from APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, etc or use 
procedures for experimental allocation (but not expect they would get 1/8 
likely something much smaller), but I would expect they would not be 
successfull - their system of having to route individual ips across the 
net would lead to very large routing table and this is just not technically
workable when it gets large enough. Better way would be to use static ips 
within ipv6 for devices on user end (out of /64) and have good way 
of doing Dynamic DNS with ipv6 A6 and DNAME records that works immediatly 
as soon as they connect, and this is something for IETF to work on.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc. 
william at elan.net



From mury at goldengate.net  Tue Apr 29 16:42:51 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:42:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] The WIANA registry
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304291009300.840-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304291538360.28863-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Here's a thought.  On their site they complain about not being able to use
10.0.0.0.  Now I don't know all the ins and outs of what they are trying
to accomplish to know if that is a real technical problem.

But if we assume that it is a legitimate technical problem, does it make
sense for IANA to designate another large block for private use?  It could
even be tagged for private wireless usage.

Mury

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 william at elan.net wrote:

> > > Given the above, I expect WIANA to say at some point in the
> > > future "Look, we are already using this space and no-one else
> > > is; so just let us use it." All without going through the
> > > mutually agreed upon processes, procedures and justifications
> > > that everyone else must go through.
> > >
> > > This, I believe, is the real problem with this 'Registry'..
> >
> > This seems like a perfectly sensible strategy to me and that is why there
> > needs to be a REAL mechanism to stop such squatting and tactic.  This takes
> > the implicit (though explicit would be more satisfying) cooperation of the
> > Registries and the ISP community.
> And how do you see that? What can you possibly do?
>
> They have made it clear they are not using ips for internet connectivity.
> They would not do as RFC suggested and use one of other ranges (10/8), so
> whatever problems their users run into (like not being able to access real
> 1/8 ips if they were assigned) is what they get for doing something that
> is not standard.
>
> As far as anything else - ARIN tries to maintain good balance between
> assigning ips and actually getting involved in routing and network connectivity
> - in my opinion it would be completely inappropriate for ARIN to tell
> their members you MUST not route to particular ip block, etc. ARIN can
> tell them this block should not be routable through whois and best is to
> maintain that database better and to provide better means of accessing it.
>
> As far as WIANA - I think best we can do is NOT get involved in this situation
> (dont not help by having everybody talk about it and giving them such free
> publicity - and do note that if ARIN is against them it may very well work
> in their favor as far as public opinion goes). If WIANA is successfull
> in getting users to use their system, they may realize best they can do
> is to apply for actual ip block range from APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, etc or use
> procedures for experimental allocation (but not expect they would get 1/8
> likely something much smaller), but I would expect they would not be
> successfull - their system of having to route individual ips across the
> net would lead to very large routing table and this is just not technically
> workable when it gets large enough. Better way would be to use static ips
> within ipv6 for devices on user end (out of /64) and have good way
> of doing Dynamic DNS with ipv6 A6 and DNAME records that works immediatly
> as soon as they connect, and this is something for IETF to work on.
>
> --
> William Leibzon
> Elan Communications Inc.
> william at elan.net
>



From stephen at sprunk.org  Tue Apr 29 17:40:16 2003
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:40:16 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304291129360.24181-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <003d01c30e98$26450060$93b58742@ssprunk>

Thus spake "Mury" <mury at goldengate.net>
> ARIN (RIRs) could "insist" or just "encourage" members to filter out
> certain blocks of IPs for various reasons.
>
> It would only take a percentage of members actually doing it, especially
> if the big dogs were on board, to make it work.

That would do no good, as WIANA claims no intent to announce 1/8.

> While it seems to me that someone needs to work with WIANA to
> make their block legitimate, what would stop the next group from
> doing the same thing?

The only way to stop squatters is to make it easy for them to get land (aka
addresses) legitimately.  Real world precedent clearly favors the squatter
when the owner of record isn't doing anything useful with the land.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



From mury at goldengate.net  Tue Apr 29 17:54:40 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:54:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
In-Reply-To: <003d01c30e98$26450060$93b58742@ssprunk>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0304291653020.28863-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> Thus spake "Mury" <mury at goldengate.net>
> > ARIN (RIRs) could "insist" or just "encourage" members to filter out
> > certain blocks of IPs for various reasons.
> >
> > It would only take a percentage of members actually doing it, especially
> > if the big dogs were on board, to make it work.
>
> That would do no good, as WIANA claims no intent to announce 1/8.

That's not what their website says:

I quote:

Could the addresses become fully routable?
Yes, should the traditional Internet registries allocate the same range to
Wiana, or to subnet Wiana's allocations within an IPv6 range.




From michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us  Wed Apr 30 01:43:23 2003
From: michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:43:23 -0700
Subject: [ppml] prefix hijacking / identity theft
Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F7B6@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>

Chuck,

[changed the subject line in order not to
give unwanted visibility to hijackers]

> Charles Scott wrote:
> Perhaps more correctly it could be considered "identity theft",
> as in an attempt to knowingly deceive by assuming the identity
> of another party without their permission.


Although this is futile arguing about semantics, I do not think so.
Assuming that we drop the religious issue about is WIANA right or wrong,
it does not change the fact that even though some gullible people will
actually see some legitimacy in WIANA this entire thing is full of it
and the only issue I have with it is that it will take some time and
effort to explain people that have a legitimate need and swallowed the
bait that they are stupid which is never easy.

Allow me to make a comparison: I am currently working on assigning IPv6
addresses based on population (see:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt
This is a controversial topic, there are many hurdles to clear, blah
blah. Therefore, obtaining address space is difficult.

The easy thing to do would be for me to declare that I am the V6IANA (V6
Internet Assigned Number Authority) (c) (tm); I even have a web page:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/
(that was free trolling hehehe)

Anyway, now that I have trolled this list with my stuff, why don't I
appoint myself CEO of the V6IANA (and possibly scrounge 5 or 10 bucks to
"sell" a /48 out of the block I would hijack)? Mmmm, let me think about
it for a minute; even if I fork $19.99 to register V6IANA.ORG on tucows
(hint hint it's available) who is going to think that I am legit?

[note to people that would think so: I accept Visa, MasterCard, cash,
gold bullions, deposits on my Switzerland bank account, republic credits
and baked goods]

The Trade Federation currently sells routable IPv6 PI prefixes. Please
send your payment to:

Michel Py
Vice-Roy
Intergalactic Trade Federation
One Trade Federation Plaza
Coruscant



From richardj at arin.net  Wed Apr 30 07:06:31 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:06:31 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5 
In-Reply-To: <20030422144945.B9CDE5DED3@segue.merit.edu>
Message-ID: <001901c30f08$8e66c280$288888c0@arin.net>

Hello Larry,

> I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) 
> or whether ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.

Since the presentation, C&W and ARIN have been working together
to complete this project.  It has been a success and soon C&W
will have all of their reassignment information reported in their
own database, as described at the ARIN IX meeting in Las Vegas.

Once this project is complete we will report on its status to the
community and ARIN Advisory Council so it may be included in a 
wider discussion about reassignment options, in general.

Best Regards,

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Larry J. Blunk
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:50 AM
> To: jlewis at lewis.org
> Cc: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-5 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > 
> > > >I was given an augument against making it generic since 
> ARIN only 
> > > >allows for ip reassignment information to be of the form 
> of a SWIP 
> > > >or RWhois server. If ARIN allows for another form of distributed 
> > > >lookup service such as using a LDAP based service (like referral 
> > > >LDAP) or XML
> > > based
> > > >service (like IRIS), then it should be made more general at that 
> > > >point.
> > > 
> > > I strenuously disagree.
> > > 
> > > ARIN policies should not contain irrelevant details. In 
> this case, 
> > > SWIP
> > > and Rwhois are irrelevant details.
> > > 
> > > The root purpose of this policy is to specify that 
> organizations who 
> > > have
> > > received IP address space must keep track of where they 
> are used (maintain 
> > > an IP address directory) and must publish the directory 
> of IP address 
> > > usage. They can choose to either publish the directory by 
> submitting 
> > > regular updates to ARIN for inclusion in a central 
> directory or they can 
> > > publish the directory themselves by maintaining a 
> publicly accessible 
> > > server connected to the Internet 24/7.
> > 
> > whois is the accepted format...whether you swip your data and have 
> > ARIN
> > add it to their whois server or you run your own, it's the 
> only protocol 
> > currently approved.  whois clients are fairly ubiquitous.  
> I don't have to 
> > know anything about the protocol other than "it's whois" to 
> use a whois 
> > client.
> 
>    C&W and ARIN made a presentation at the Las Vegas ARIN 
> meeting last year about C&W using their RPSL-based whois 
> server to report address usage (through RPSL "inetnum" 
> objects).  The presentation can be found at 
> http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ARIN_IX/Reporting_Utilization.pdf
> I'm not sure of the status of this project (Tanya? Michael?) 
> or whether
> ARIN plans to allow such reporting outside of C&W.   While the C&W
> server uses the whois "protocol" (a TCP pipe on port 43), the 
> RPSL format is considerably different than the output format 
> of RWhois.
> 
>    I'd be careful about substituting the term "whois" for 
> "RWhois" as it might imply the usage of RPSL whois servers 
> (in addition to RWhois
> servers) is considered acceptable by ARIN.  I think there 
> should be a more formal decision on whether RPSL whois 
> servers are acceptable before generalizing the policy to 
> include any "whois" service (and, by extension, LDAP/XML/etc. 
> services).
> 
> > If you publish your reassignment data in an LDAP server, how do I 
> > access
> > it?  How do I find out how to access it?
> > 
> > If someone else chooses to "publish" their reassignment 
> data in some 
> > obscure CGI deep in their web site and forces anyone who 
> wants to look 
> > up an IP to jump through many hoops to get at the data, what then?
> > 
> > If you want to leave the method of reassignment data 
> publication open,
> > then you're going to have to define a minimum set of 
> guidelines that the 
> > method of publication must meet to qualify.
> >  
> 
>    I concur with this.   Perhaps the policy could refer to some other
> document or policy which contains the guidelines for acceptable
> publication protocols and formats?
> 
> 
>  -Larry Blunk
>   Merit
> 



From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Wed Apr 30 10:46:29 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:46:29 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
Message-ID: <ED5D7C48157ED611A76F00A024DEE7AF045576@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>


Subject: Re: [ppml] Industry self regulation (was IP address theft?)
> 
> 
> Thus spake "Mury" <mury at goldengate.net>
> > ARIN (RIRs) could "insist" or just "encourage" members to filter out
> > certain blocks of IPs for various reasons.
> >
> > It would only take a percentage of members actually doing 
> it, especially
> > if the big dogs were on board, to make it work.
> 
> That would do no good, as WIANA claims no intent to announce 1/8.
Stated intentions do not always represent the truth either in current
intention or future change of heart....

> 
> > While it seems to me that someone needs to work with WIANA to
> > make their block legitimate, what would stop the next group from
> > doing the same thing?
> 
> The only way to stop squatters is to make it easy for them to 
> get land (aka
> addresses) legitimately.  Real world precedent clearly favors 
> the squatter
> when the owner of record isn't doing anything useful with the land.

Ownership is still 'ownership' in your land analogy and the interpretation
of 'useful' may be broadly different... the squatter may think that idle
lands should be grazed (useful value) while the owner recognizes the
fragility of the land as being incapable of being grazed without long term
damage, but recognizes the land as a safehaven for a ecosystem (useful
value).  One sees the land as being wasted....squats and truely wastes the
land.

ARIN does not restrict access to address space beyond the 'prudent'
stewardship policies that the membership and collective involved Internet
community has prescribed.

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council 

> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>