From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Sep  2 16:39:05 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:39:05 -0500 
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments forMultihome
	 d Networks
Message-ID: <7D6FB5D2AE48D84983C354E50E83C2560363FF@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>



> From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:jsw at five-elements.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:22 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments
> forMultihome d Networks
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 16:03, Leo Bicknell wrote: 
> > In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:11:38PM 
> -0500, Bill Darte wrote:
> > > There is always a diversity of opinion and very little 
> evidence to support
> > > the contentions.
> > > 
> > > I simply hate making decisions with too little or no 
> facts to rely on.....
> > > especially when experts within the same realm cannot agree.
> > 
> > Unfortunately many of these things come down to predicting the
> > future, and worse predicting the outcome of actions that have never
> > really been tried before.  Sadly, we're mostly stuck in a situation
> > where trial and error is the best option, which is often very hard
> > for an engineer to accept. :)
> 
> I'm sure you've followed the entire thread closely, Bill, and while I
> can understand your concerns that micro-assignment policy may spur new
> route table growth and perhaps even hasten address space exhaustion, I
> believe Leo's excellent suggestion to "rate-limit" micro-assignments
> will limit the global bgp-speaking community's exposure. You 
> didn't seem
> to address this in your follow-up post, but I would like to hear your
> thoughts on the feasability of the "rate-limit" mechanism by the ARIN.

First, let me explain that I have no concerns about the route table
exploding as a result of 2002-3 implementation.  I express the concern
because I have heard it expressed by some that I try to represent.  There is
no evidence to suggest that moving the boundary two bits to /22 would cause
a large problem.  Even if there were, filtering would limit its impact.
Rate-limits mechanisms are a way to comfort those with concerns in this
area.

Rate-limits are implicit in the follow-up mechanism proposed with the 2003-3
policy.  That is, that the route table be analyzed for growth during each of
the first 2 six-month periods following implementation..... implicitly,
action would be taken to limit assignments if there were substantial
difficulties with the policy implementation...... which I doubt would
happen.  Of course, some discussion suggested that a one-year analysis would
too short a period of time to assess the real impact....perhaps it should be
18 months or 24.

Limiting the number of assignments to 200 with a first-come, first-served
'wait-list' is another way of more precisely defining the process.  Whether
this is a reasonable number or one higher or lower is on the table for
discussion.


> 
> I am confident that more route table growth will still be produced by
> irresponsible deaggregation than from any other source. I'm 
> sure you can
> agree that a successful multi-homer micro-assignment policy, with a
> clear growth path into the traditional ARIN addressing policies, can
> reduce the number of advertised routes for non-contigious 
> space, due to
> growth assignments from ISPs with conservative allocation policies.
> 
> I further suggest that if the ARIN chooses to assign these blocks only
> within a documented /10 (or similarly-sized chunk of space 
> which can be
> easily added to prefix-lists) and does not carve /24s out of it, ISPs
> can aggressively filter the micro-assignment space; making 
> certain that
> recipients do not cause undue table growth through poor configuration.

The current proposed language speaks of a reserved block from which such
assignments would come.  This block would of course be identified for
operators to use as they see fit.

> 
> --
> Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at five-elements.com>
> 
> P.S. I sure wish the mailing list set a Reply-To: header.
> 


From william at elan.net  Tue Sep  2 15:37:49 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Idea to have ReferralServer as part of ASN whois to specify routing
 database info
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309021214300.15248-100000@sokol.elan.net>

I have previously posted this idea on dbwg and I want to repost it here to see
what people think as well I'm not sure if it requires policy change or not.

Basicly I want to explore possibility to have "ReferralServer" output of 
whois to apply specifically to ASNs as way to indicate which RADB server 
ISP uses (i.e. it can specify its own, rr.arin.net, whois.radb.net, 
whois.altdb.net, etc). This idea came in part because currently 
ReferralServer is being displayed as part of ASN whois output for those
ISPs that have rwhois server for their netblocks, but this rwhois server 
has no meaning when applied to ASN and provides no usefull info (this is 
in fact a bug came about because ARIN decided to only implement 
ReferralServer as an attribute of ORG). 

What I'm proposing is to add ReferralServer field to both ASN and Network
objects, but for ASN it would have completely different meaning and would
be referral to routing database server (as such "whois" would be allowed 
protocol there) as well as to have ARIN add information for all ASNs that 
use ARIN's routing server (others can add the info on their own and default
value would be special "blank" which would cause output from ORG object's
ReferralServer field to be suppressed so it would no longer display 
rwhois server and fix the bug).

I would like to know what others think of this idea and if your ISPs would 
use and maintain this field if it were available. Also note that several 
other RIRs (APNIC, RIPE) already display routing information as part of 
their whois display so in fact, this would kind of bring us to the same 
level allowing to link regular ASN whois info with routing database info
but at the same time not requiring routing info to be kept all in the same 
place (so kind of like rwhois as opposed to central arin whois & swips).

My original post to with some technical details is here:
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/dbwg/0440.html
(it also explains how this would bring full rwhois display flexibility to
networks allowing for same org to use different rwhois servers for different
networks, which became impossibly when ARIN only added ReferralServer for 
ORG table, despite previous agreement that it would be in both ORG and NET)

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net



From memsvcs at arin.net  Fri Sep 12 16:39:45 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-13: Six Month Supply of IP Addresses 
Message-ID: <200309122039.QAA17412@ops.arin.net>

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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 


Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 



### * ###



Policy Proposal 2003-13: Six Month Supply of IP Addresses

After a subscriber has been a member of ARIN for one year they may
choose to request a 6 month supply of IP addresses.

###################################################

Discussion of the proposal by Michael Dillon:

This is basically intended to reduce some of the administrative burden at
both the subscriber/member and at ARIN. It means that members can choose
to have, on average, two interactions with ARIN per year rather than 4.
There is some benefit to the community in forcing newcomers to interact
every 3 months because of the need to learn and gain experience, but
beyond the first year, we should let people have more flexibility.

This will also allow larger members with more bureaucratic internal
processes to avoid internal address shortage crises. I have mentioned this
on the ppml list before in the following paragraph:

   Here's what I mean. If your goal was to maximize the efficiency
   of address assignment, then you would eventually reach an upper
   limit for every netblock beyond which you can't improve efficiency.
   I'm assuming that is greater than 80% utilization. That means that
   when you reach 80% on your last netblock, you have already used
   up all possible addresses on previous netblocks so that you only
   have the last 20% of the most recent netblock to allocate. In
   fact, you probably have less than 20% because it is not possible
   to assign IPv4 addresses to 100% efficiency. Assuming that the
   allocation is based on 3 months of usage, i.e. 13 weeks, this
   means that you have no more than 2.6 weeks supply of addresses
   left when you submit your ARIN application. The .6 weeks will
   be used up by ARIN's 2-3 business days of turnaround time so
   you will only have 2 weeks to get these new addresses into your
   systems. The people who do this work also do other planned and
   break-fix operational work so they can't be expected to just
   drop everything and handle these new IP addresses every time.

Timetable for implementation

I suggest that this proposal should be implemented within 30 days of a
decision by a members meeting.

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
Capacity Planning, Prescot St., London, UK


From memsvcs at arin.net  Fri Sep 12 16:38:57 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space
Message-ID: <200309122038.QAA17245@ops.arin.net>

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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 


Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 



### * ###



Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space

IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space

This document describes the policies governing the allocation of IPv4
address space from the IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision
of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with these policies.  Such
requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements among the RIRs
and ICANN.

1.  Allocation Principles

*  The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units.

*  The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to the RIRs to
support their registration needs for at least an 18 month period.

*  The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective
chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the
efficiency and efficacy of their work.

2.  Initial Allocations

Each new RIR shall, at the moment of recognition, be allocated a new /8 by
the IANA.  This allocation will be made regardless of the newly formed RIR's
projected utilization figures and shall be independent of the IPv4 address
space that may have been transferred to the new RIR by the already existing
RIRs as part of the formal transition process.

3.  Additional Allocations

A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv4 address space from the IANA when
either of the following conditions are met.

*  The RIR's AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses is less than 50% of
a /8 block.

*  The RIR's AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses is less than its
established NECESSARY SPACE for the following 9 months.

In either case, IANA shall make a single allocation of a whole number of
/8 blocks, sufficient to satisfy the established NECESSARY SPACE of the
RIR for an 18 month period.

3.1  Calculation of AVAILABLE SPACE

The AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses of a RIR shall be determined as follows:

AVAILABLE SPACE = CURRENTLY FREE ADDRESSES + RESERVATIONS EXPIRING DURING
THE FOLLOWING 3 MONTHS - FRAGMENTED SPACE

FRAGMENTED SPACE is determined as the total amount of available blocks
smaller than the RIR's minimum allocation size within the RIR's currently
available stock.

3.2  Calculation of NECESSARY SPACE

If the applying Regional Internet Registry does not establish any special
needs for the period concerned, NECESSARY SPACE shall be determined
as follows:

NECESSARY SPACE = AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADDRESSES ALLOCATED MONTHLY DURING
THE PAST 6 MONTHS * LENGTH OF PERIOD IN MONTHS

If the applying RIR anticipates that due to certain special needs the rate
of allocation for the period concerned will be different from the
previous 6 months, it may determine its NECESSARY SPACE as follows:

A)  Calculate NECESSARY SPACE as its total needs for that period
according to its projection and based on the special facts that justify
these needs.

B)  Submit a clear and detailed justification of the above mentioned
projection (Item A).

If the justification is based on the allocation tendency prepared by the
Regional Internet Registry, data explaining said tendency must be enclosed.

If the justification is based on the application of one or more of the
Regional Internet Registry's new allocation policies, an impact analysis
of the new policy/policies must be enclosed.

If the justification is based on external factors such as new infrastructure,
new services within the region, technological advances or legal issues, the
corresponding analysis must be enclosed together with references to
information sources that will allow verification of the data.

If IANA does not have elements that clearly question the Regional Internet
Registry's projection, the special needs projected for the following
18 months, indicated in Item A above, shall be considered valid.

4.  Announcement of IANA Allocations 

When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a detailed
announcement to the receiving RIR.  The IANA will also make announcements
to all other RIRs, informing them of the recent allocation.  The RIRs will
coordinate announcements to their respective membership lists and any other
lists they deem necessary.

The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V4
Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to its
own appropriate announcement lists.  The IANA announcements will be limited
to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they
have been allocated.


From jlewis at lewis.org  Sat Sep 13 23:26:44 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4
 Address Space
In-Reply-To: <200309122038.QAA17245@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309132324240.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

Am I the only one confused by this proposal?  How is it that ARIN (or the 
ARIN members) can dictate new policies to IANA?

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:

> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
> proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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 
> 
> 
> Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> 
> 
> ### * ###
> 
> 
> 
> Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space
> 
> IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space
> 
> This document describes the policies governing the allocation of IPv4
> address space from the IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs).
> This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision
> of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with these policies.  Such
> requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements among the RIRs
> and ICANN.
> 
> 1.  Allocation Principles
> 
> *  The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units.
> 
> *  The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to the RIRs to
> support their registration needs for at least an 18 month period.
> 
> *  The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective
> chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the
> efficiency and efficacy of their work.
> 
> 2.  Initial Allocations
> 
> Each new RIR shall, at the moment of recognition, be allocated a new /8 by
> the IANA.  This allocation will be made regardless of the newly formed RIR's
> projected utilization figures and shall be independent of the IPv4 address
> space that may have been transferred to the new RIR by the already existing
> RIRs as part of the formal transition process.
> 
> 3.  Additional Allocations
> 
> A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv4 address space from the IANA when
> either of the following conditions are met.
> 
> *  The RIR's AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses is less than 50% of
> a /8 block.
> 
> *  The RIR's AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses is less than its
> established NECESSARY SPACE for the following 9 months.
> 
> In either case, IANA shall make a single allocation of a whole number of
> /8 blocks, sufficient to satisfy the established NECESSARY SPACE of the
> RIR for an 18 month period.
> 
> 3.1  Calculation of AVAILABLE SPACE
> 
> The AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses of a RIR shall be determined as follows:
> 
> AVAILABLE SPACE = CURRENTLY FREE ADDRESSES + RESERVATIONS EXPIRING DURING
> THE FOLLOWING 3 MONTHS - FRAGMENTED SPACE
> 
> FRAGMENTED SPACE is determined as the total amount of available blocks
> smaller than the RIR's minimum allocation size within the RIR's currently
> available stock.
> 
> 3.2  Calculation of NECESSARY SPACE
> 
> If the applying Regional Internet Registry does not establish any special
> needs for the period concerned, NECESSARY SPACE shall be determined
> as follows:
> 
> NECESSARY SPACE = AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADDRESSES ALLOCATED MONTHLY DURING
> THE PAST 6 MONTHS * LENGTH OF PERIOD IN MONTHS
> 
> If the applying RIR anticipates that due to certain special needs the rate
> of allocation for the period concerned will be different from the
> previous 6 months, it may determine its NECESSARY SPACE as follows:
> 
> A)  Calculate NECESSARY SPACE as its total needs for that period
> according to its projection and based on the special facts that justify
> these needs.
> 
> B)  Submit a clear and detailed justification of the above mentioned
> projection (Item A).
> 
> If the justification is based on the allocation tendency prepared by the
> Regional Internet Registry, data explaining said tendency must be enclosed.
> 
> If the justification is based on the application of one or more of the
> Regional Internet Registry's new allocation policies, an impact analysis
> of the new policy/policies must be enclosed.
> 
> If the justification is based on external factors such as new infrastructure,
> new services within the region, technological advances or legal issues, the
> corresponding analysis must be enclosed together with references to
> information sources that will allow verification of the data.
> 
> If IANA does not have elements that clearly question the Regional Internet
> Registry's projection, the special needs projected for the following
> 18 months, indicated in Item A above, shall be considered valid.
> 
> 4.  Announcement of IANA Allocations 
> 
> When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a detailed
> announcement to the receiving RIR.  The IANA will also make announcements
> to all other RIRs, informing them of the recent allocation.  The RIRs will
> coordinate announcements to their respective membership lists and any other
> lists they deem necessary.
> 
> The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V4
> Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to its
> own appropriate announcement lists.  The IANA announcements will be limited
> to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they
> have been allocated.
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 richardj at arin.net  Mon Sep 15 08:08:49 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:08:49 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309132324240.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <00d201c37b82$31045bc0$258888c0@arin.net>

Hello Jon,

This is a global policy proposal to define the policies under which the
IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the Regional Internet
Registries (RIR).

This policy proposal must be discussed in all four of the RIR regions.
It has already appeared on the public policy agendas of the APNIC and
RIPE NCC meetings.  It has been posted to this list for discussion in
the ARIN region and will be included on the Public Policy Meeting agenda
next month in Chicago.  This policy proposal will also be discussed at
the next LACNIC public policy meeting.

Following discussion in all four regions, the proposal and discussion
results will be forwarded to the ICANN ASO Address Council for review
and submittal to the ICANN Board, as it is considered a global policy
proposal.

Please accept our apologies for the confusion.  We will better identify
global policy proposals in the future when posting them for the first
time to the ARIN public policy mailing list.

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 jlewis at lewis.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 11:27 PM
> To: Member Services
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR 
> Allocation of IPv4 Address Space
> 
> 
> Am I the only one confused by this proposal?  How is it that 
> ARIN (or the 
> ARIN members) can dictate new policies to IANA?
> 
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:
> 
> > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy
> > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> > in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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 
> > 
> > 
> > Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ### * ###
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Policy Proposal 2003-12: IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 
> Address Space
> > 
> > IANA to RIR Allocation of IPv4 Address Space
> > 
> > This document describes the policies governing the 
> allocation of IPv4 
> > address space from the IANA to the Regional Internet Registries 
> > (RIRs). This document does not stipulate performance 
> requirements in 
> > the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance 
> with these 
> > policies.  Such requirements should be specified by appropriate 
> > agreements among the RIRs and ICANN.
> > 
> > 1.  Allocation Principles
> > 
> > *  The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in 
> /8 units.
> > 
> > *  The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to 
> the RIRs to 
> > support their registration needs for at least an 18 month period.
> > 
> > *  The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective 
> > chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the 
> > efficiency and efficacy of their work.
> > 
> > 2.  Initial Allocations
> > 
> > Each new RIR shall, at the moment of recognition, be 
> allocated a new 
> > /8 by the IANA.  This allocation will be made regardless of 
> the newly 
> > formed RIR's projected utilization figures and shall be 
> independent of 
> > the IPv4 address space that may have been transferred to 
> the new RIR 
> > by the already existing RIRs as part of the formal 
> transition process.
> > 
> > 3.  Additional Allocations
> > 
> > A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv4 address space from the 
> > IANA when either of the following conditions are met.
> > 
> > *  The RIR's AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses is less than 
> 50% of a 
> > /8 block.
> > 
> > *  The RIR's AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses is less than its 
> > established NECESSARY SPACE for the following 9 months.
> > 
> > In either case, IANA shall make a single allocation of a 
> whole number 
> > of /8 blocks, sufficient to satisfy the established 
> NECESSARY SPACE of 
> > the RIR for an 18 month period.
> > 
> > 3.1  Calculation of AVAILABLE SPACE
> > 
> > The AVAILABLE SPACE of IPv4 addresses of a RIR shall be 
> determined as 
> > follows:
> > 
> > AVAILABLE SPACE = CURRENTLY FREE ADDRESSES + RESERVATIONS EXPIRING 
> > DURING THE FOLLOWING 3 MONTHS - FRAGMENTED SPACE
> > 
> > FRAGMENTED SPACE is determined as the total amount of 
> available blocks 
> > smaller than the RIR's minimum allocation size within the RIR's 
> > currently available stock.
> > 
> > 3.2  Calculation of NECESSARY SPACE
> > 
> > If the applying Regional Internet Registry does not establish any 
> > special needs for the period concerned, NECESSARY SPACE shall be 
> > determined as follows:
> > 
> > NECESSARY SPACE = AVERAGE NUMBER OF ADDRESSES ALLOCATED 
> MONTHLY DURING 
> > THE PAST 6 MONTHS * LENGTH OF PERIOD IN MONTHS
> > 
> > If the applying RIR anticipates that due to certain special 
> needs the 
> > rate of allocation for the period concerned will be 
> different from the 
> > previous 6 months, it may determine its NECESSARY SPACE as follows:
> > 
> > A)  Calculate NECESSARY SPACE as its total needs for that period 
> > according to its projection and based on the special facts that 
> > justify these needs.
> > 
> > B)  Submit a clear and detailed justification of the above 
> mentioned 
> > projection (Item A).
> > 
> > If the justification is based on the allocation tendency 
> prepared by 
> > the Regional Internet Registry, data explaining said 
> tendency must be 
> > enclosed.
> > 
> > If the justification is based on the application of one or 
> more of the 
> > Regional Internet Registry's new allocation policies, an impact 
> > analysis of the new policy/policies must be enclosed.
> > 
> > If the justification is based on external factors such as new 
> > infrastructure, new services within the region, 
> technological advances 
> > or legal issues, the corresponding analysis must be 
> enclosed together 
> > with references to information sources that will allow 
> verification of 
> > the data.
> > 
> > If IANA does not have elements that clearly question the Regional 
> > Internet Registry's projection, the special needs projected for the 
> > following 18 months, indicated in Item A above, shall be considered 
> > valid.
> > 
> > 4.  Announcement of IANA Allocations
> > 
> > When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a 
> > detailed announcement to the receiving RIR.  The IANA will 
> also make 
> > announcements to all other RIRs, informing them of the recent 
> > allocation.  The RIRs will coordinate announcements to their 
> > respective membership lists and any other lists they deem necessary.
> > 
> > The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the 
> "Internet Protocol 
> > V4 Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make 
> announcements 
> > to its own appropriate announcement lists.  The IANA announcements 
> > will be limited to which address ranges, the time of 
> allocation and to 
> > which Registry they have been allocated.
> > 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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 Sep 16 11:01:18 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:01:18 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future IPv4
 Allocations
Message-ID: <OF5C6A307D.2CB7997E-ON80256DA3.0051FAC0-80256DA3.00528449@radianz.com>

>Is it the intent of the proposal author to differentiate
>ARIN-allocated space from ARIN-assigned space?  It looks
>to be that way, but I'd rather make sure.

I think that I am talking only about ARIN-allocated space
because the organizations getting ARIN-assigned space
aren't likely to come back to ARIN regularly for additional
address space.

However, if there are very large blocks of ARIN-assigned 
space out there then this type of ratio should probably
be applied to them as well.

--Michael Dillon




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:17:00 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:17:00 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future IPv4
 Allocations
Message-ID: <OF2840D456.961299BC-ON80256DA3.0052C7FB-80256DA3.0053F45D@radianz.com>

>Is there a good reason to abandon the relatively simple 80% rule in favor 

>of a mathematically more complicated formula that effectively drops the % 

>utilization rules by a noticable amount?

Yes. Most of this is explained in RFC 3194
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3194.html
and in the APNIC paper whose URL was incorrectly
given in the original posting of my justification 
of the policy. 
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/08/

In a nutshell, organizations managing larger hoards of IP addresses
cannot maintain the same level of efficiency due to the overhead
inherent in subnetting a large block into many small fragments. In
order to not penalize them for losing these "crumbs" of IP space, 
the usage ratio should be lower for larger hoards of space. The HD
ratio is a neat and simple calculation that achieves this goal.

>I'd always assumed the 80% applied to all of your IP space.  From the 
>above, it's not clear.  The first bit clearly says it applies to your 
most 
>recent allocation.  The second bit suggests to me that it applies to all 
>prior allocations.  If it doesn't, then what's the definition of 
>"efficiently utilized all previous allocations"?

The assumption is that if you achieve 80% efficiency on a block today,
then it will be that way forever. Since the policy only requires ARIN
to examine the most recent allocation (saving on costs) this opens
a loophole that larger networks can take advantage of. When they get
a new block, they use these addresses first (LIFO inventory queue)
but if they run out before there next ARIN allocation then they still
have spare addresses left in the 20% or so of the previous allocations
plus in the space released through customer churn.

>If that's the reason for suggesting a 0.930 HD requirement on the most 
>recent allocation, why not just come out and say 50% for the most recent 
>allocation?

Because I think that the HD ratio is a better idea and it is simple to
calculate. I also think that it is better to evaluate an ISP's total
hoard of addresses rather than only the last one. I'd like to see the
more flexible HD ratio in use.

--Michael Dillon






From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:26:41 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:26:41 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future IPv4
 Allocations
Message-ID: <OF4FDDD77E.40EE96F7-ON80256DA3.0054244E-80256DA3.0054D72E@radianz.com>

>> Is there a good reason to abandon the relatively simple 80% rule in 
favor 
>> of a mathematically more complicated formula that effectively drops the 
% 
>> utilization rules by a noticable amount?

>  I'd have to agree with you here. I've challenged the applicability of 
HD
>to this situation and did not receive any responses. I would think there
>would have to be good reson to make changes that waste additional space.

Have you read http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/08/ ?
I apologize for not getting that correctly included in the discussion 
points
attached to the original policy proposal. 

> I still think there's confusion between allocations, assignments, and 
>(the dual-purpose word) utilization. Perhaps if that was cleared up, this 

>policy would no longer have any traction.

I agree with you that our terminology is not very precise, mainly because 
we
have never clearly defined the terms within our policies. And now the 
meaning
of these terms is irretrievably lost because they are being used by RIRs 
in 
other regions with differing meanings. At this point I think we would be 
better off scrapping the lot of them and using something obscure like
Section 7 addresses and Section 15 addresses to clear up the confusion.

If we had a document that defined what an allocation is in section 7 and
what an assignment is in section 15 then these sorts of terms would be
clear and unambiguous. That's because the only people who need to talk
about this stuff need to be familiar with ARIN policies in the first 
place.
And if the document went on to define the algorithm for calculating
utilization along with worked examples, then we would all be singing from
the same hymnbook, unlike today.

--Michael Dillon






From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:40:00 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:40:00 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS Directory
Message-ID: <OFE5B2DE70.A2406EF3-ON80256DA3.0055FBFE-80256DA3.00560F74@radianz.com>

>To make the text a little better, I propose that "IP
>allocations or AS numbers" be changed to "Internet numbering
>resources" so that IP assignments are included if this better-
>reflects the intent of the proposal's author.

Good, I agree.

--Michael Dillon




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:45:36 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:45:36 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS Directory
Message-ID: <OFE49657CF.EC2FEBF4-ON80256DA3.00561C04-80256DA3.0056927C@radianz.com>

>Under #3 and #4 I don't understand the 'guarantee' word and concept.
>Perhaps the word guarantee should be replaced with something more
>appropriate.  What exactly happens to the resource holder if they don't
>keep the info up to date?  They merely get their contact info removed 
from
>the directory? 

And any whois inquiries get referred to their ISP. Then the two companies
can work out their own solution without ARIN involvement. The ISP might
charge a premium rate for handling net abuse inquiries and the customer
might want to save money and do it themselves with their underworked 
staff.

>I know the argument over policy enforcement has been
>thrown around with little resolution, but I think there either needs to 
be
>a consequence with real teeth or nothing at all.

I didn't want this policy to deal with issues of teeth. If ARIN were to
adopt some enforcement measures against the organizations that deal
directly with ARIN, then this policy could easily be updated.

--Michael Dillon






From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:52:09 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:52:09 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS  Directory (fwd)
Message-ID: <OF954FDB6D.5116F9D9-ON80256DA3.0056AE67-80256DA3.00572C42@radianz.com>

>The key question, indeed, may be whether you expect that off-the-shelf
>LDAP clients will be able to access the service.  CRISP no longer
>expects this.

I certainly wouldn't expect someone to use a stock LDAP client to do
an LDAP whois lookup. Someone on the CRISP working group developed
a simple PERL client to use with their FIRS proof-of-concept server
and I expect that people would build on that work.

>From a policy point of view, the technical details of the protocol
are not very interesting. What is interesting is whether or not there
is a proof-of-concept implementation that could be used to trial the
service in a way that was not disruptive to the existing service. In
item 7, I suggested that the directory be published in 3 ways, two of
which already exist and the third of which is intended to allow people
to try out new mechanisms to access the WHOIS directory service.

--Michael Dillon






From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:52:30 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:52:30 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS Di	rectory
Message-ID: <OF1D868E5A.457351C9-ON80256DA3.0054F209-80256DA3.00573468@radianz.com>

SPAM: ---- Start SpamAssassin results
SPAM: 5.00 hits, 5 required;
SPAM: *  2.6 -- Subject contains lots of white space
SPAM: *  1.3 -- From: does not include a real name
SPAM: *  1.1 -- BODY: Spam phrases score is 03 to 05 (medium)
SPAM:           [score: 4]
SPAM: 
SPAM: ---- End of SpamAssassin results

>1.  Can someone verify if this is or is not supposed to be a seperate 
list
>from all the SWIP Records in the WHOIS database? 

Tricky question. Today the SWIP records are used by ARIN for their own
internal purposes (verifying utilization) and are also published by
ARIN in the WHOIS directory. This proposal refers only to the published
WHOIS directory that is available to the public.

>2.  In the end...does this policy mean that if I want the End Users and
>ISP's that I Re-assign and RE-allocate to will not have their abuse,
>technical and whatever else contact info visibile unless I take extra 
steps
>to ensure "I want them visible"?

I think that item 4 implies that you don't do anything extra. It's up to 
the
end user and ARIN to communicate about the listing. And if you want to 
keep
sending full SWIP info to ARIN for their own internal private use then 
that's
just fine as long as ARIN keeps the info confidential. In short, you 
probably
don't have to change any procedures if you don't want to. It would be best
if you tell the end users and ISPs that ARIN will contact them about their
contact info, but it's not essential.

>3.  When you mention validating the POC info every three months....is 
this
>to be done with just Direct Allocation from ARIN?  Or do you really mean 
the
>whole WHOIS database?

It's the whole database, but this would be a much smaller database. And it 
is
up to ARIN to develop an efficient mechanism for doing this. Item 6 makes 
it
fairly simple for ARIN because it is a fallback mechanism to let the world 

know when the validation process has failed. If the listed organization 
really
wants to be listed, they will fix their contact data eventually, or if 
they
are an ARIN member, then they eventually have to accept invoices which
provides an ARIN communications channel.

--Michael Dillon




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 11:55:56 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:55:56 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS Di  rectory
Message-ID: <OF4AA2D7BD.D517E51C-ON80256DA3.00575A7B-80256DA3.005784DD@radianz.com>

>> 3.  I still strongly believe a 3 month POC validation is excessive. 
Once a
>> year would be more realistic.  I also strongly believe that in no way 
should
>> it be done the same way it was done this last year.  I have wasted way 
to
>> much time on a daily basis sending in an "update org template"  for
>> companies that the information has not changed.  I'm still sending in 
the
>> damn things for companies that the info hasnt changed.  I shouldnt have 
to
>> do this unless someone has proved the info is not valid.

>I also still strongly agree with this.

Then I hope that you both support my WHOIS policy proposal because if it 
goes
through, you won't have to update contact info any more. It will be 
between
ARIN and the organization whose contact info is published.

--Michael Dillon






From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 16 12:02:23 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:02:23 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS Di rectory
Message-ID: <OF394B1B1E.001B4429-ON80256DA3.0057C73B-80256DA3.00581C12@radianz.com>

>  I do like the concept of opting lower-level records into contact
>verification. With that, a provider who wants to can opt to insist that
>their customers have verification on their records as a condition of use 
>and therefore offload most work associated with network issues for those 
>assignments. 

This is accomodated by the proposal I have made. Item 4 allows orgs with
lower-level records to be listed. If the ISP wants to make it a contract
requirement for their customers to maintain such a listing in good 
standing
then they are free to do this. The new policy doesn't inhibit this.

--Michael Dillon





From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Tue Sep 16 14:09:22 2003
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future
 IPv4 Allocations
In-Reply-To: <OF2840D456.961299BC-ON80256DA3.0052C7FB-80256DA3.0053F45D@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309161337590.6756-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


Michael:
  These two comments from you in two separate messages seem to show the
problem. 
  In the first, you're clearly concerned about the efficiency of
utilization by larger end-users. While I won't dispute that this can be the
case at this time (I addressed this a while ago), it doesn't seem to be
related to the percentage of space the provider has assigned. Also, the
the 25/50% policy applies to end user utilization, which I believe is set
that way to be considerate of the complications of end-user address
management. I don't think you mean to say that a large user of address
space can't manage to achieve 50% efficiency, and I don't think it's meant
to mean 50% of the address space is occupied by hosts, only that 50% of
the address space is reasonably utilized in the network.
  In your second comment, you accept that there is confusion about the 
terms, which I think is exemplified by your fist comment. 
  Clearly what's causing trouble here is that there is not only confusion
about the words, but that there is a mix of users and providers, and in
some cases an organization is both a user and a provider. In such a case,
they need to consider themselves as separate entities by "assigning"
themselves space and applying the 25/50% rule to utilization of that space
while considering the entire space so assigned against their 80%
consumption of assignable space. If you do this, it's consistent with ARIN
policy and there should be little difficulty in managing the block of
space ARIN assigned up to at least 80%, and probably well more.
  The way I read the proposal, the HD ratio will apply to the provider's
pool of assignable address space and not to any end-user space.  The
policy for end-user space utilization would remain as-is. However,
RFC-3194 talks about issues of end-user space utilization and not address
assignment. Clearly what's confusing with the proposal is that the terms
are used without qualification and that RFC-3194 complicates matters with
it's use of "...Address ASSIGNMENT Efficiency...".
  I agree with you that if we just shoot the words "allocate", "assign", 
and "utilize" and come up with new definitions of what we mean then we 
might be able to figure out how to interpret 2003-10.

Chuck Scott



On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> In a nutshell, organizations managing larger hoards of IP addresses
> cannot maintain the same level of efficiency due to the overhead
> inherent in subnetting a large block into many small fragments. In
> order to not penalize them for losing these "crumbs" of IP space, 
> the usage ratio should be lower for larger hoards of space. The HD
> ratio is a neat and simple calculation that achieves this goal.


On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> I agree with you that our terminology is not very precise, mainly
> because we have never clearly defined the terms within our policies. And
> now the meaning of these terms is irretrievably lost because they are
> being used by RIRs in other regions with differing meanings. At this
> point I think we would be better off scrapping the lot of them and using
> something obscure like Section 7 addresses and Section 15 addresses to
> clear up the confusion.




From einarb at arin.net  Wed Sep 17 15:08:01 2003
From: einarb at arin.net (Einar Bohlin)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:08:01 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future IPv4 Allocations
In-Reply-To: <OF2840D456.961299BC-ON80256DA3.0052C7FB-80256DA3.0053F45D@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <009801c37d4f$044b06a0$3d8888c0@arin.net>

Hi Michael,

You wrote:
>> Since the policy only requires ARIN to examine the most recent allocation
(saving on costs)...

Policy text states:
"ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations, and at least
80% of their most recent allocation in order to receive additional space."

Review of utilization is not limited to the most recent allocation.

Regards,

Einar Bohlin - Policy Analyst, ARIN
einarb at arin.net 703 227-9867



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All
> Future IPv4 Allocations
> 
> >Is there a good reason to abandon the relatively simple 80% rule in favor
> 
> >of a mathematically more complicated formula that effectively drops the %
> 
> >utilization rules by a noticable amount?
> 
> Yes. Most of this is explained in RFC 3194
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3194.html
> and in the APNIC paper whose URL was incorrectly
> given in the original posting of my justification
> of the policy.
> http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/08/
> 
> In a nutshell, organizations managing larger hoards of IP addresses
> cannot maintain the same level of efficiency due to the overhead
> inherent in subnetting a large block into many small fragments. In
> order to not penalize them for losing these "crumbs" of IP space,
> the usage ratio should be lower for larger hoards of space. The HD
> ratio is a neat and simple calculation that achieves this goal.
> 
> >I'd always assumed the 80% applied to all of your IP space.  From the
> >above, it's not clear.  The first bit clearly says it applies to your
> most
> >recent allocation.  The second bit suggests to me that it applies to all
> >prior allocations.  If it doesn't, then what's the definition of
> >"efficiently utilized all previous allocations"?
> 
> The assumption is that if you achieve 80% efficiency on a block today,
> then it will be that way forever. Since the policy only requires ARIN
> to examine the most recent allocation (saving on costs) this opens
> a loophole that larger networks can take advantage of. When they get
> a new block, they use these addresses first (LIFO inventory queue)
> but if they run out before there next ARIN allocation then they still
> have spare addresses left in the 20% or so of the previous allocations
> plus in the space released through customer churn.
> 
> >If that's the reason for suggesting a 0.930 HD requirement on the most
> >recent allocation, why not just come out and say 50% for the most recent
> >allocation?
> 
> Because I think that the HD ratio is a better idea and it is simple to
> calculate. I also think that it is better to evaluate an ISP's total
> hoard of addresses rather than only the last one. I'd like to see the
> more flexible HD ratio in use.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Thu Sep 18 07:20:07 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:20:07 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-10: Apply the HD Ratio to All Future IPv4
 Allocations
Message-ID: <OF9878E114.245937A6-ON80256DA5.003C7012-80256DA5.003E4456@radianz.com>

>>> Since the policy only requires ARIN to examine the most recent 
allocation
(saving on costs)...

>Policy text states:
>"ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations, and at 
least
>80% of their most recent allocation in order to receive additional 
space."

>Review of utilization is not limited to the most recent allocation.

The meaning can be confusing here. The policy is clearly not prohibiting
review of previous allocations but it is also clearly not requiring
a review of previous allocations either. In practice, ARIN often does
not review previous allocations because those allocations were, at one
time, shown to be greater than 80% allocated. This clearly saves on the
time and cost of reviewing an allocation but it does allow some 
organizations
to shift usage to newer IP allocations, either through churn or 
renumbering,
in order to artificially improve the efficiency of the most recent block
and to maintain a buffer of older addresses available for use if the most 
recent allocation runs out before they get a new ARIN allocation.
 
I'm not entirely sure that we should change to requiring ARIN to review
the member's total hoard of IP addresses, however there are some things
which lead to this change.

1. Using the HD ratio is based on the idea that there is inherent overhead
in managing a large hoard of IP addresses, therefore if we use the HD 
ratio
at all, we should probably base it on the entire hoard, not just the 
recent
allocation.

2. In recent years the NANP has moved to requiring phone companies to 
account
for their entire hoard of phone numbers when applying for more. While the
IP address situation is not identical, this indicates that other companies
can find a way to manage their entire hoard of numbers/addresses and 
report
on the disposition of the entire hoard.

3. The manipulation of ARIN policy due to churn and renumbering is not 
available to all members because of the diversity of network architectures
and business models. Therefore it doesn't seem fair to continue with the
current policy which is too loose on this point and too rigid on the usage
threshold.

--Michael Dillon




From marla_azinger at eli.net  Thu Sep 18 14:03:01 2003
From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:03:01 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-13: Six Month Supply of IP Addres
	ses 
Message-ID: <5BD887EB4A582A439038636F7A93A5A701E5A1A3@wava00s2kexch01.corp.pvt>

Good Idea.  

Marla Azinger
Electric Lightwave
Frontier Communications
Citizens Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:40 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-13: Six Month Supply of IP
Addresses 


ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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 


Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 



### * ###



Policy Proposal 2003-13: Six Month Supply of IP Addresses

After a subscriber has been a member of ARIN for one year they may
choose to request a 6 month supply of IP addresses.

###################################################

Discussion of the proposal by Michael Dillon:

This is basically intended to reduce some of the administrative burden at
both the subscriber/member and at ARIN. It means that members can choose
to have, on average, two interactions with ARIN per year rather than 4.
There is some benefit to the community in forcing newcomers to interact
every 3 months because of the need to learn and gain experience, but
beyond the first year, we should let people have more flexibility.

This will also allow larger members with more bureaucratic internal
processes to avoid internal address shortage crises. I have mentioned this
on the ppml list before in the following paragraph:

   Here's what I mean. If your goal was to maximize the efficiency
   of address assignment, then you would eventually reach an upper
   limit for every netblock beyond which you can't improve efficiency.
   I'm assuming that is greater than 80% utilization. That means that
   when you reach 80% on your last netblock, you have already used
   up all possible addresses on previous netblocks so that you only
   have the last 20% of the most recent netblock to allocate. In
   fact, you probably have less than 20% because it is not possible
   to assign IPv4 addresses to 100% efficiency. Assuming that the
   allocation is based on 3 months of usage, i.e. 13 weeks, this
   means that you have no more than 2.6 weeks supply of addresses
   left when you submit your ARIN application. The .6 weeks will
   be used up by ARIN's 2-3 business days of turnaround time so
   you will only have 2 weeks to get these new addresses into your
   systems. The people who do this work also do other planned and
   break-fix operational work so they can't be expected to just
   drop everything and handle these new IP addresses every time.

Timetable for implementation

I suggest that this proposal should be implemented within 30 days of a
decision by a members meeting.

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
Capacity Planning, Prescot St., London, UK


From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 16:43:30 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:43:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements
Message-ID: <200309222043.QAA02143@ops.arin.net>

This policy proposal was discussed at the previous Public Policy
Meeting and on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List.  In accordance
with those discussions the following policy proposal text will be
carried forward and discussed at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting.

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 

### * ###

Policy Proposal 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements

Background:

RWhois, a distributed lookup service, 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. The following policy proposal
will describe the set of minimal requirements of operating a RWhois
server for those ISPs who decide to use RWhois to manage their IP 
reassignment information.

In the future, there may be other distributed lookup services that
ARIN may allow ISPs to use. These new services must be approved by
ARIN before being allowed to serve as a repository for reassignment
information.

Policy Proposal:

The proposed minimal requirements for an ISP to setup a distributed
information service to advertise reassignment information are:

The distributed information service must be operational 24 hours a day,
7 days a week to both the general public and ARIN staff. The service is 
allowed reasonable downtime for server maintenance according to
generally accepted community standards.

The distributed information service must allow public access to
reassignment information. The service 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 distributed information service must return reassignment
information for the IP address queried. The service may allow for
privacy protections for customers. Minimally, the service must 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.

The distributed information service may return results for non-IP queries.

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

The distributed information service may include optional attributes per
object that are defined locally.

The distributed information service must return results that are
up-to-date on reassignment information.



From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 16:45:00 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:45:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
Message-ID: <200309222045.QAA02251@ops.arin.net>

This policy proposal was discussed at the previous Public Policy
Meeting and on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. Noting that there
was not adequate support at ARIN XI to accept this proposal as it was
written, additional feedback was requested.  The ARIN AC has reviewed
comments received since ARIN XI and has determined not enough feedback
has been submitted to make revisions to the existing proposal text. It
is expected a final determination will be made regarding this policy
proposal following the ARIN XII meeting.

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 

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 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 memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 16:45:45 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:45:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
Message-ID: <200309222045.QAA02694@ops.arin.net>

This policy proposal was discussed at the previous Public Policy
Meeting and on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. Noting that there
was not adequate support at ARIN XI to accept this proposal as it was
written, additional feedback was requested.  The ARIN AC has reviewed
comments received since ARIN XI and has made modifications to the 
proposal text.

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 

### * ###

Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks

Proposal: 

If an end-user is not multi-homed, the minimum justified block of IP 
address space assigned by ARIN is a /20. If assignments smaller than
/20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider.

If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned ASN, the minimum
justified block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /22. Such 
assignment will be made from a reserve block for this purpose. If 
multi-homed assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, end users should 
contact their upstream provider.

Discussion:

It has further been argued that should this policy (or something 
following from it) be endorsed at the meeting, then an assessment 
should be made of the impact of this policy's implementation by number 
of requests and route table impact for 2 consecutive 6 month periods. 
If the impact is not believed to be problematic, then a proposal should 
be made to lower the minimum to /23 with the same assessment. Given no 
problems for /23 then a proposal for /24 as a minimum would be made.

Also, an assessment of the number of allocations that are still 
multihomed after 12 months should be made to determine whether there is
any change in status of these end nets.



From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 16:46:28 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:46:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-14: Remove /13 Maximum Allocation
Message-ID: <200309222046.QAA02770@ops.arin.net>

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 

### * ###

Policy Proposal 2003-14: Remove /13 Maximum Allocation

Proposal to remove the maximum allocation statement from the 
current policy.

######################################## 

Discussion of the proposal:

The statement is as follows.

"ARIN allocates IP address prefixes no longer than /20. 
If allocations smaller than /20 are needed, ISPs should 
request address space from their upstream provider. The
largest prefix ARIN allocates is a /13."

By removing the statement, the policy would simply read,

"ARIN allocates IP address prefixes no longer than /20. 
If allocations smaller than /20 are needed, ISPs should 
request address space from their upstream provider."

By making this change, ARIN is provided greater flexibility to 
accommodate special situations that may come up with larger ISP. 
Some ISP are required to maintain multiple accounts to accommodate 
the growth of their networks. The policy also imposes the burden 
of having to create additional accounts when large transfers or 
acquisitions occur.

The removal of this statement in no way changes the review 
process or the requirements by which ARIN allocates address space. 
If an application were submitted to ARIN for address space greater 
than a /13 it would be up to ARIN to review the request and approve 
or deny the application based on the legitimacy of the data.

One final justification would be that no other Internet Registries 
found a need to implement a similar policy. Given the policies in 
place that provide ARIN with the tools to responsibly manage the 
limited address space. The current policy only limits ARIN's ability 
to better service the needs of its member organizations.



From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 16:47:32 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:47:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 

### * ###

Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa 
                         Portion of the ARIN Region

1. Minimum Allocation. The minimum allocation size for ISPs from the 
African portion of the ARIN region is /22. 

2. Allocation Criteria. 

a. The requesting organization must show the efficient utilization of
an entire previously allocated /22 from their upstream ISP. This 
allocation (/22) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 4 /24s.

b. A multi-homed organization must show the efficient utilization of
an entire previously allocated /23 from their upstream ISP. This 
allocation (/23) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 2 /24s. 

3. Utilization Reporting and Justification. All other ARIN policies 
regarding the reporting of justification information for the 
allocation of IPv4 address space will remain in effect. 

******************************************************************** 

Discussion: 

This proposal is the result of the discussion and agreement of those
ISPs in the ARIN region that were in attendance at the AfriNIC 
meeting held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 17, 2003. 

This policy proposal is submitted with the intent it only be applied
to the Africa portion of the ARIN region, i.e., those countries in 
Africa that are in the ARIN region. 

It is proposed the minimum allocation criteria and minimum allocation
size for ISPs in Africa be modified. Specifically, the following 
modifications to IPv4 policy are proposed: 

Change the minimum allocation size from a /20 to /22. 
Change the ISP criteria for obtaining an allocation to the following. 

CRITERIA POINT 1 

Current Criteria: The current IPv4 policy for ISPs calls for "the 
efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /20 from 
their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /20 allocation from
ARIN. 

Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 policy for ISPs call for 
"the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 
from their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /22 allocation 
from ARIN. 

CRITERIA POINT 2 

Current Criteria: The current IPv4 multi-homed policy states "Multi-
homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a /21 may be 
allocated a /20." 

Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 multi-homed policy state 
that, "Multi-homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a 
/23 may be allocated a /22." Due to the emerging nature of Internet 
services in Africa and the economic environment, it is often not 
possible for ISPs to meet the current ARIN criteria for the smallest 
allocation size of a /20, or to obtain the IPv4 address space they 
need from an upstream provider in their area of operation. It is due 
to these reasons, and others listed below, that this proposal is 
submitted. 

Arguments for Policy Change 

The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN 
region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The 
number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the 
other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's 
ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from 
upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as 
NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to 
customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate 
IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
the Internet in Africa. 

Proposed Timetable for Implementation 

It is requested this policy proposal be discussed on the ARIN public 
policy mailing list and at the ARIN public policy meeting in October
2003. It is further requested this policy proposal receive immediate 
attention of the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees 
following the October 2003 meeting for implementation before the 
close of the 2003 calendar year. Implementation of this policy change
is critical to the growth and development of the Internet in the 
Africa portion of the ARIN region.


From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 16:48:35 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-16: POC Verification
Message-ID: <200309222048.QAA03217@ops.arin.net>

The ARIN AC puts forth this proposal based on the feedback that
was received from the last Public Policy Meeting and the Public
Policy Mailing List for Policy Proposals 2003-1 and 2003-2.

ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 

Member Services 
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 

### * ###

Policy Proposal 2003-16: POC Verification

Purpose: This policy is intended to provide the Internet community with
information regarding the accuracy of POC data listed in the ARIN whois
database. This policy is designed to provide a framework for the ARIN
staff to implement a system to publicly track the accuracy of a POC's data.

Requirements: ARIN will setup a webform on their website to allow the
Internet community at large to notify ARIN that a POC may be inaccurate.
The public database states will be displayed in whois including the last
verified date.

Public Database States: 
 - Active: The POC has been verified within the last year or there have
   been no reports that the POC data is inaccurate. 
 - In-Process: The ARIN staff is currently investigating the accuracy of
   the POC.
 - Unverified: ARIN has been unable to verify the accuracy of the POC data.
 - Last Verified Date: The database will list the date when the POC data
   was last verified or if the data has never been verified the date when
   ARIN first displayed the accuracy state in whois.

ARIN should also develop any additional private database states that are
necessary to fulfill the verification process of the policy.

Verification Process:
If ARIN receives notification either internally or externally that a POC
record may be inaccurate ARIN should start the process of verifying the POC
if the POC has not been verified or updated within one year.

ARIN should mark the POC as "In-Process" and send an email to the POC
notifying them to verify the accuracy of the data listed. The email should
contain the full POC information, information on how the user can update
the data, and a method (email and/or webform) for the POC to certify the
POC as accurate.

If the POC has not been updated or certified within 15 days ARIN should
send a fax if the POC has a listed fax number, if there is no fax listed
the next verification method should be used.

If the POC has not been updated or certified within the last 15 days of the
last ARIN notice, ARIN should attempt to verify the POC by telephone call.

If ARIN has been unable to reach the POC via telephone ARIN should send via
regular mail a notice to the POC to update or certify their POC record.

If the record has not been updated or verified within 20 days of notice via
regular mail the record should be marked "Unverified" or "Delinquent".



From ahp at hilander.com  Mon Sep 22 16:54:36 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:54:36 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>

--On Monday, September 22, 2003 16:47 -0400 Member Services 
<memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:

> [...]
> Arguments for Policy Change
>
> The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN
> region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The
> number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the
> other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's
> ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
> space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from
> upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as
> NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to
> customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate
> IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> the Internet in Africa.

I am curious, why are African ISPs unable to obtain sufficient address 
space from their upstream providers?  Is the issue that such upstreams 
don't themselves qualify under ARIN's current policies?

Alec
ARIN AC Chair (but speaking only for himself)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030922/0bc32b43/attachment.p7s>

From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 17:02:29 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:02:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN Region Policy Proposals
Message-ID: <200309222102.RAA05431@ops.arin.net>

ARIN will hold its next Public Policy Meeting in Chicago, 
Illinois on October 22-23, 2003. Meeting and registration 
details can be found at: 

  http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XII/index.html 

Policy discussions at this meeting will be centered around 
policy proposals recently introduced to the public policy 
mailing list, and those carried over from the previous 
public policy meeting. 

Leading up to the meeting, the policy proposals are open 
for discussion on this mailing list. Each of the policy 
proposals has been previously posted to this mailing list 
as an independent thread to facilitate discussion. A summary 
of the active policy proposals under discussion is 
available at: 

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

The entire Internet community is invited and encouraged to 
participate in these policy discussions. Your active 
participation in these discussions is vital to the process 
and will help to form policies that are beneficial to all. 

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com  Mon Sep 22 17:06:45 2003
From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:06:45 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
Message-ID: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A336908F0@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>

I have a single comment:
What if that multi-home company has an ASN from LACNIC or other RIR?
should this be accomodated here?
I say LACNIC.. Didn't LACNIC inherit some ASNs from ARIN?
Later,
Jim
->Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
->
->Proposal: 
->
->If an end-user is not multi-homed, the minimum justified block of IP 
->address space assigned by ARIN is a /20. If assignments smaller than
->/20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider.
->
->If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned ASN, 
->the minimum
->


From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 22 17:22:10 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:22:10 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-16: POC Verification
In-Reply-To: <200309222048.QAA03217@ops.arin.net>
References: <200309222048.QAA03217@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064240530@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

I would propose that instead of the date the accuracy data was first put in
the database, the last verified date should reflect "NEVER" for any record
which was never successfully verified.

I think ARIN staff has the flexibility to develop private fields without
specific mention in the Policy, so, that sentence could/should probably be
removed.

Further, if a report is received that a POC is inaccurate after the Last
Verified date in the database, ARIN should investigate, whether it has
been over a year or not.  There is no need to leave cruft in the database
for up to a year.  Obviously, oldest verify date investigations should
probably be conducted as a priority over newer ones, but, that is a staff
issue, not a policy one.

I think that rather than being specific about the contact steps, the 
following
would suffice:

	ARIN staff shall make all reasonable efforts to contact and verify
	the POC based on procedures to be set forth by ARIN management.
	Such procedures shall be published on the ARIN web site and may
	be updated by ARIN management as need arises.

In general, I would suggest to ARIN management that it would be more
appropriate to immediately email, phone, fax.  Wait 10 days for response,
then snail-mail.  Then, wait 30 days for response, and mark the record
as Unverifie or Delinquent.

Further, I would propose that ARIN should make available a list of resources
for FTP/HTTP in easily machine parseable form which have an Unverified
or Delinquent status.  It may be desirable to publish a separate In-Process
list or a list specifying all status.  Publication probably needs to be
part of the policy.  Exact method of publication should be left to staff.

Otherwise, I think this is an excellent policy.

Owen



From william at elan.net  Mon Sep 22 15:25:20 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221209520.26425-100000@sokol.elan.net>

Add the following into this since we're talking about African Region.

"4. All allocations and assignments for African Portion of ARIN Region 
 will be made out of distinct /8 reserved for such purpose and it should
 be reported to IANA which ip block is reserved for African Region. The 
 first such reserved African Region ip block shall be 196/8"

Reasoning is to do it similar to LACNIC (for which ARIN was using 200/8
for all allocations) and when AfriNIC to ready to be able to transfer /8 
to it with as little outside pollution as possible, plus since we have 
this special /22 allocation policy, it would be good to have exact /8 
identified in ARIN region as being used for /22 allocations.

Reason for 196/8 is because this ip block currently has enough free space
(9227 /24 blocks allocated - 14%, 56309 /24 ip blocks not allocated - 85%) 
for Africa and of the allocation 14% of the blocks, about 1/3 are already 
for organizations in Africa - largest portion of African allocations then 
any other ip block ARIN has. Do note that currently IANA identifies 196/8 
as "Various Registries - Early Internic Registrations" which generally 
means ARIN is not allowed to make current registrations out of it (but I 
have in fact seen new registrations as close as 2001 made to africa out of 
this ip block), ARIN should oficially request IANA to change it and 
identify to IANA that it will be making new allocations out of this ip 
block for African portion of the net.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:

> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
> proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 
> 
> Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> ### * ###
> 
> Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa 
>                          Portion of the ARIN Region
> 
> 1. Minimum Allocation. The minimum allocation size for ISPs from the 
> African portion of the ARIN region is /22. 
> 
> 2. Allocation Criteria. 
> 
> a. The requesting organization must show the efficient utilization of
> an entire previously allocated /22 from their upstream ISP. This 
> allocation (/22) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
> provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
> organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 4 /24s.
> 
> b. A multi-homed organization must show the efficient utilization of
> an entire previously allocated /23 from their upstream ISP. This 
> allocation (/23) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
> provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
> organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 2 /24s. 
> 
> 3. Utilization Reporting and Justification. All other ARIN policies 
> regarding the reporting of justification information for the 
> allocation of IPv4 address space will remain in effect. 
> 
> ******************************************************************** 
> 
> Discussion: 
> 
> This proposal is the result of the discussion and agreement of those
> ISPs in the ARIN region that were in attendance at the AfriNIC 
> meeting held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 17, 2003. 
> 
> This policy proposal is submitted with the intent it only be applied
> to the Africa portion of the ARIN region, i.e., those countries in 
> Africa that are in the ARIN region. 
> 
> It is proposed the minimum allocation criteria and minimum allocation
> size for ISPs in Africa be modified. Specifically, the following 
> modifications to IPv4 policy are proposed: 
> 
> Change the minimum allocation size from a /20 to /22. 
> Change the ISP criteria for obtaining an allocation to the following. 
> 
> CRITERIA POINT 1 
> 
> Current Criteria: The current IPv4 policy for ISPs calls for "the 
> efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /20 from 
> their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /20 allocation from
> ARIN. 
> 
> Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 policy for ISPs call for 
> "the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 
> from their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /22 allocation 
> from ARIN. 
> 
> CRITERIA POINT 2 
> 
> Current Criteria: The current IPv4 multi-homed policy states "Multi-
> homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a /21 may be 
> allocated a /20." 
> 
> Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 multi-homed policy state 
> that, "Multi-homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a 
> /23 may be allocated a /22." Due to the emerging nature of Internet 
> services in Africa and the economic environment, it is often not 
> possible for ISPs to meet the current ARIN criteria for the smallest 
> allocation size of a /20, or to obtain the IPv4 address space they 
> need from an upstream provider in their area of operation. It is due 
> to these reasons, and others listed below, that this proposal is 
> submitted. 
> 
> Arguments for Policy Change 
> 
> The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN 
> region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The 
> number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the 
> other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's 
> ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
> space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from 
> upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as 
> NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to 
> customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate 
> IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> the Internet in Africa. 
> 
> Proposed Timetable for Implementation 
> 
> It is requested this policy proposal be discussed on the ARIN public 
> policy mailing list and at the ARIN public policy meeting in October
> 2003. It is further requested this policy proposal receive immediate 
> attention of the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees 
> following the October 2003 meeting for implementation before the 
> close of the 2003 calendar year. Implementation of this policy change
> is critical to the growth and development of the Internet in the 
> Africa portion of the ARIN region.



From william at elan.net  Mon Sep 22 15:41:28 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] The most important proposal ARIN forgot to send today...
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221235390.26425-100000@sokol.elan.net>

Since ARIN has been sending new proposals today, they seem to have 
forgotten the most important one of all, that applies to all RIRs and how 
they deal with ICANN. The info is at http://lacnic.net/sp/draft-9-22.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The four RIRs (Regional Internet Registries): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and
RIPE NCC have jointly worked on the preparation of a proposal concerning
the liaison among the RIRs as well as the structure through which the
RIRs and their communities take part in ICANN.

As a consequence, three documents have been prepared: 

- Proposal to execute an agreement between the four RIRs in order to
create the Number Resource Organization (NRO). This organization will
represent the interests of the IP addresses community before the
national, international or public entities.  

- Proposal of a Memorandum of Understanding between the RIRs, to act
through the NRO and the ICANN in relation to the ASO (Address Supporting
Organization), the ICANN section committed to the Internet Number
Resources issues. The ASO was created through a previous Memorandum of
Understanding, signed in 1999. The current proposal would  replace the
previous Memorandum, modifying the present ASO structure. 

- Proposal of an Open Letter from the RIRs to the ICANN relative to the
previous items.

The RIRs call for public comments from the community members in relation
to these documents. As the comments will be jointly organized, they will
be officially managed in English.



From gregm at datapro.co.za  Mon Sep 22 18:59:03 2003
From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:59:03 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
Message-ID: <011101c3815d$24ce3020$03d616c4@tipsy>

Alec wrote:
> I am curious, why are African ISPs unable to obtain sufficient address
> space from their upstream providers?  Is the issue that such upstreams
> don't themselves qualify under ARIN's current policies?

The scale of African ISPs is significantly smaller than that of North
American ISPs. Consequently, many African ISPs have a requirement to
multi-home at point where they are using much less address space than North
American ISPs. The need to multi-home for additional redundancy is also
significantly greater with reliance on satellite and microwave technology
and theft of and damage to terrestrial cables.

Often upstreams of African ISPs are North American or European ISPs. In
these cases, using the upstream's address space makes multi-homing tricky
and tends to restrict us to relying on using a single international
satellite link or submarine circuit (where available) for global
connectivity.

William wrote:
> Reason for 196/8 is because this ip block currently has enough free space
> (9227 /24 blocks allocated - 14%, 56309 /24 ip blocks not allocated - 85%)
> for Africa and of the allocation 14% of the blocks, about 1/3 are already
> for organizations in Africa - largest portion of African allocations then
> any other ip block ARIN has. Do note that currently IANA identifies 196/8
> as "Various Registries - Early Internic Registrations" which generally
> means ARIN is not allowed to make current registrations out of it (but I
> have in fact seen new registrations as close as 2001 made to africa out of
> this ip block), ARIN should oficially request IANA to change it and
> identify to IANA that it will be making new allocations out of this ip
> block for African portion of the net.

Approximately 70% of IP prefixes announced by South African ISPs fall within
196.0.0.0/8.

192.96.0.0/16 was assigned to the Uninet Project around 1991 and
sub-allocated to various organisations in the following years; consequently,
this is also quite widely used by organisations who received address space
in the early 90's.

The exceptions to these two blocks tend to be historical assignments of
Class B addresses made prior to the introduction of CIDR and IPs assigned by
North American or European upstreams to South African customers.

One can view a South African routing table by telnetting to
public-route-server.is.co.za and issuing the command "show ip bgp". There
are only around 650 prefixes.

Gregory Massel
Co-chairman: ISPA (South Africa)
http://www.ispa.org.za/



From plzak at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 19:14:20 2003
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:14:20 -0400
Subject: [ppml] The most important proposal ARIN forgot to send today...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221235390.26425-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <00ba01c3815f$42321300$2c8888c0@arin.net>

These documents were to be released in a coordinated manner at midnight
UTC (8 PM EDT) today.  LACNIC released them early.  APNIC , ARIN, and
RIPE NCC will release as scheduled.  Sorry no black helicopters, no
memory loss on the part of ARIN, just premature release on the part of
LACNIC.  

Ray  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of william at elan.net
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:41 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] The most important proposal ARIN forgot to 
> send today...
> 
> 
> Since ARIN has been sending new proposals today, they seem to have 
> forgotten the most important one of all, that applies to all 
> RIRs and how 
> they deal with ICANN. The info is at 
> http://lacnic.net/sp/draft-9-22.html
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> The four RIRs (Regional Internet Registries): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and
> RIPE NCC have jointly worked on the preparation of a proposal 
> concerning
> the liaison among the RIRs as well as the structure through which the
> RIRs and their communities take part in ICANN.
> 
> As a consequence, three documents have been prepared: 
> 
> - Proposal to execute an agreement between the four RIRs in order to
> create the Number Resource Organization (NRO). This organization will
> represent the interests of the IP addresses community before the
> national, international or public entities.  
> 
> - Proposal of a Memorandum of Understanding between the RIRs, to act
> through the NRO and the ICANN in relation to the ASO (Address 
> Supporting
> Organization), the ICANN section committed to the Internet Number
> Resources issues. The ASO was created through a previous Memorandum of
> Understanding, signed in 1999. The current proposal would  replace the
> previous Memorandum, modifying the present ASO structure. 
> 
> - Proposal of an Open Letter from the RIRs to the ICANN 
> relative to the
> previous items.
> 
> The RIRs call for public comments from the community members 
> in relation
> to these documents. As the comments will be jointly 
> organized, they will
> be officially managed in English.
> 



From memsvcs at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 19:59:57 2003
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Important Documents Concerning ICANN
Message-ID: <200309222359.TAA25233@ops.arin.net>

The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published 
three (3) documents:

  a.  Proposed Open Letter to ICANN from the Regional 
      Internet Registries
  b.  Proposed Agreement between the RIRs to create the 
      Number Resource Organization
  c.  Proposed Agreement between the RIRs (acting through 
      the NRO) and ICANN concerning the Address Supporting
      Organization

These documents are available at:

  http://www.arin.net/library/rir-docs

In order to ensure that all interested and concerned parties 
have the opportunity to comment, a thirty (30) day comment 
period is now open. The comment period will close at midnight 
UTC (8 PM EDT) October 22, 2003.

The ARIN Board of Trustees will consider the comments as they 
are received and intends to make a decision whether to adopt 
these documents following this comment period. If these 
documents are adopted by all the RIR Boards, it is the 
present intention to formally pass the open letter to ICANN 
on the 24th of October. On the same date the Boards of the 
RIRs currently intend to direct their CEOs to sign the MoU 
concerning the establishment of the Number Resource 
Organization. 

The RIRs welcome feedback from the Internet addressing 
community on the contents of these documents.  All comments 
should be addressed to: nro-comments at apnic.net. The comments 
will be passed to all the Boards of the RIRs, and will also 
be published on the web site http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments. 
Any dialogue that arises from such comments will also be 
published on this site.

Subscription information for the nro-comments mailing list is 
available at:

  http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments

All postings to this mail address (nro-comments at apnic.net) are 
public, and will be published at the following URL: 

  http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments

Raymond A. Plzak
President & CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From plzak at arin.net  Mon Sep 22 20:04:04 2003
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:04:04 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221209520.26425-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <00d901c38166$355cd730$2c8888c0@arin.net>

ARIN already exclusively uses 196 /8 for allocations to the African part
of the ARIN region.  ARIN is in negotiation with RIPE NCC and APNIC with
using this block for their allocations.  Since this is a procedural
matter and not a policy matter wrt to a specific /8 the policy propsers,
(the African ISPs) did not think that this was important.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of william at elan.net
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:25 PM
> To: Member Services
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation 
> Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
> 
> 
> Add the following into this since we're talking about African Region.
> 
> "4. All allocations and assignments for African Portion of 
> ARIN Region 
>  will be made out of distinct /8 reserved for such purpose 
> and it should
>  be reported to IANA which ip block is reserved for African 
> Region. The 
>  first such reserved African Region ip block shall be 196/8"
> 
> Reasoning is to do it similar to LACNIC (for which ARIN was 
> using 200/8
> for all allocations) and when AfriNIC to ready to be able to 
> transfer /8 
> to it with as little outside pollution as possible, plus 
> since we have 
> this special /22 allocation policy, it would be good to have exact /8 
> identified in ARIN region as being used for /22 allocations.
> 
> Reason for 196/8 is because this ip block currently has 
> enough free space
> (9227 /24 blocks allocated - 14%, 56309 /24 ip blocks not 
> allocated - 85%) 
> for Africa and of the allocation 14% of the blocks, about 1/3 
> are already 
> for organizations in Africa - largest portion of African 
> allocations then 
> any other ip block ARIN has. Do note that currently IANA 
> identifies 196/8 
> as "Various Registries - Early Internic Registrations" which 
> generally 
> means ARIN is not allowed to make current registrations out 
> of it (but I 
> have in fact seen new registrations as close as 2001 made to 
> africa out of 
> this ip block), ARIN should oficially request IANA to change it and 
> identify to IANA that it will be making new allocations out 
> of this ip 
> block for African portion of the net.
> 
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:
> 
> > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
> > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> > in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
> > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 
> > 
> > Member Services 
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> > 
> > ### * ###
> > 
> > Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa 
> >                          Portion of the ARIN Region
> > 
> > 1. Minimum Allocation. The minimum allocation size for ISPs 
> from the 
> > African portion of the ARIN region is /22. 
> > 
> > 2. Allocation Criteria. 
> > 
> > a. The requesting organization must show the efficient 
> utilization of
> > an entire previously allocated /22 from their upstream ISP. This 
> > allocation (/22) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
> > provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
> > organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 4 /24s.
> > 
> > b. A multi-homed organization must show the efficient utilization of
> > an entire previously allocated /23 from their upstream ISP. This 
> > allocation (/23) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
> > provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
> > organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 2 /24s. 
> > 
> > 3. Utilization Reporting and Justification. All other ARIN policies 
> > regarding the reporting of justification information for the 
> > allocation of IPv4 address space will remain in effect. 
> > 
> > 
> ******************************************************************** 
> > 
> > Discussion: 
> > 
> > This proposal is the result of the discussion and agreement of those
> > ISPs in the ARIN region that were in attendance at the AfriNIC 
> > meeting held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 17, 2003. 
> > 
> > This policy proposal is submitted with the intent it only be applied
> > to the Africa portion of the ARIN region, i.e., those countries in 
> > Africa that are in the ARIN region. 
> > 
> > It is proposed the minimum allocation criteria and minimum 
> allocation
> > size for ISPs in Africa be modified. Specifically, the following 
> > modifications to IPv4 policy are proposed: 
> > 
> > Change the minimum allocation size from a /20 to /22. 
> > Change the ISP criteria for obtaining an allocation to the 
> following. 
> > 
> > CRITERIA POINT 1 
> > 
> > Current Criteria: The current IPv4 policy for ISPs calls for "the 
> > efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /20 from 
> > their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /20 allocation from
> > ARIN. 
> > 
> > Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 policy for ISPs call for 
> > "the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 
> > from their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /22 allocation 
> > from ARIN. 
> > 
> > CRITERIA POINT 2 
> > 
> > Current Criteria: The current IPv4 multi-homed policy states "Multi-
> > homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a /21 may be 
> > allocated a /20." 
> > 
> > Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 multi-homed policy state 
> > that, "Multi-homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a 
> > /23 may be allocated a /22." Due to the emerging nature of Internet 
> > services in Africa and the economic environment, it is often not 
> > possible for ISPs to meet the current ARIN criteria for the 
> smallest 
> > allocation size of a /20, or to obtain the IPv4 address space they 
> > need from an upstream provider in their area of operation. 
> It is due 
> > to these reasons, and others listed below, that this proposal is 
> > submitted. 
> > 
> > Arguments for Policy Change 
> > 
> > The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN 
> > region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The 
> > number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the 
> > other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> > expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's 
> > ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> > in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain 
> IPv4 address
> > space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from 
> > upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as 
> > NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to 
> > customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate 
> > IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> > the Internet in Africa. 
> > 
> > Proposed Timetable for Implementation 
> > 
> > It is requested this policy proposal be discussed on the 
> ARIN public 
> > policy mailing list and at the ARIN public policy meeting in October
> > 2003. It is further requested this policy proposal receive 
> immediate 
> > attention of the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees 
> > following the October 2003 meeting for implementation before the 
> > close of the 2003 calendar year. Implementation of this 
> policy change
> > is critical to the growth and development of the Internet in the 
> > Africa portion of the ARIN region.
> 



From abz at frogfoot.net  Mon Sep 22 20:20:38 2003
From: abz at frogfoot.net (Abraham van der Merwe)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:20:38 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
Message-ID: <20030923002038.GA3101@oasis.frogfoot.net>

Hi Alec                                          >@2003.09.22_22:54:36_+0200

> >[...]
> >Arguments for Policy Change
> >
> >The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN
> >region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The
> >number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the
> >other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> >expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's
> >ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> >in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
> >space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from
> >upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as
> >NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to
> >customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate
> >IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> >the Internet in Africa.
> 
> I am curious, why are African ISPs unable to obtain sufficient address 
> space from their upstream providers?  Is the issue that such upstreams 
> don't themselves qualify under ARIN's current policies?

It is not just a question of obtaining sufficient address space, it is a
question of multi-homing.

Bandwidth here are very expensive. That means most of us have to scrounge
for cheap local-only connections (cheaper), assymetric satellite connections
(because bidirectional in some places such as South Africa is illegal) for
international bandwidth, and some other connections for outgoing traffic
through one of our very few big ISPs. Unfortunately this is only
possible for those of us who can get portable address space.

There's the question of peering. I can't speak for the rest of Africa, but
here in South Africa we desperately need to get our cost of local bandwidth
down (for most of us it is cheaper to get a international link up than get a
link between major cities here in the country!) and we can only accomplish
that with more peering links - something which is impossible for most right
now because nobody can get portable address space.

-- 

Regards
 Abraham

The only real argument for marriage is that it remains the best method
for getting acquainted.
		-- Heywood Broun

___________________________________________________
 Abraham vd Merwe - Frogfoot Networks CC
 9 Kinnaird Court, 33 Main Street, Newlands, 7700
 Phone: +27 21 686 1665 Cell: +27 82 565 4451
 Http: http://www.frogfoot.net/ Email: abz at frogfoot.net



From william at elan.net  Mon Sep 22 18:07:45 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <00d901c38166$355cd730$2c8888c0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309221430050.26425-100000@sokol.elan.net>


Procedural matters are sometimes important too as is informing the public
about things like regional reserved blocks. I did quite a bit of statistical
analysis of RIR whois data in the last few weeks so I already figured you 
were using it for African allocations - however if it were somebody else 
they would never know the ip block is actively being used for African region
(and that 197/8 is on reserve when AFRINIC becomes RIR). For LACNIC everybody
knew in part because it was mentioned by IANA and the ip block was also
mentioned as part of statistics for active ARIN blocks.

If you do not want it as part of policy and are willing to self regulate
(I'll hold you to this promise, I now have scripts running that can easily 
detect new regional allocations and in which ip blocks they are being made) 
to make sure all ip allocations being made to African region are being 
made in that ip block, then at the very least:
 1. Contact IANA to change the ip blocks designation in their file
    at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
 2. Put information on ARIN website by listing it as one of ARIN ip 
    blocks and commenting that it is being used for African region
 3. If policy is passed inform public about minimum allocation & 
    assignment size that applies to that ip block

For those interested for last 1.5 years, I have kept my own file on how 
ip allocations are made for /8 ip blocks to RIRs (its based on IANA data, 
but I added my own comments and new fields), its at:
 http://www.completewhois.com/iana-ipv4-addresses.txt

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Ray Plzak wrote:

> ARIN already exclusively uses 196 /8 for allocations to the African part
> of the ARIN region.  ARIN is in negotiation with RIPE NCC and APNIC with
> using this block for their allocations.  Since this is a procedural
> matter and not a policy matter wrt to a specific /8 the policy propsers,
> (the African ISPs) did not think that this was important.
> 
> Ray
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> > Behalf Of william at elan.net
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:25 PM
> > To: Member Services
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation 
> > Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
> > 
> > 
> > Add the following into this since we're talking about African Region.
> > 
> > "4. All allocations and assignments for African Portion of 
> > ARIN Region 
> >  will be made out of distinct /8 reserved for such purpose 
> > and it should
> >  be reported to IANA which ip block is reserved for African 
> > Region. The 
> >  first such reserved African Region ip block shall be 196/8"
> > 
> > Reasoning is to do it similar to LACNIC (for which ARIN was 
> > using 200/8
> > for all allocations) and when AfriNIC to ready to be able to 
> > transfer /8 
> > to it with as little outside pollution as possible, plus 
> > since we have 
> > this special /22 allocation policy, it would be good to have exact /8 
> > identified in ARIN region as being used for /22 allocations.
> > 
> > Reason for 196/8 is because this ip block currently has 
> > enough free space
> > (9227 /24 blocks allocated - 14%, 56309 /24 ip blocks not 
> > allocated - 85%) 
> > for Africa and of the allocation 14% of the blocks, about 1/3 
> > are already 
> > for organizations in Africa - largest portion of African 
> > allocations then 
> > any other ip block ARIN has. Do note that currently IANA 
> > identifies 196/8 
> > as "Various Registries - Early Internic Registrations" which 
> > generally 
> > means ARIN is not allowed to make current registrations out 
> > of it (but I 
> > have in fact seen new registrations as close as 2001 made to 
> > africa out of 
> > this ip block), ARIN should oficially request IANA to change it and 
> > identify to IANA that it will be making new allocations out 
> > of this ip 
> > block for African portion of the net.
> > 
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:
> > 
> > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
> > > proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> > > in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
> > > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 
> > > 
> > > Member Services 
> > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> > > 
> > > ### * ###
> > > 
> > > Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa 
> > >                          Portion of the ARIN Region
> > > 
> > > 1. Minimum Allocation. The minimum allocation size for ISPs 
> > from the 
> > > African portion of the ARIN region is /22. 
> > > 
> > > 2. Allocation Criteria. 
> > > 
> > > a. The requesting organization must show the efficient 
> > utilization of
> > > an entire previously allocated /22 from their upstream ISP. This 
> > > allocation (/22) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
> > > provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
> > > organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 4 /24s.
> > > 
> > > b. A multi-homed organization must show the efficient utilization of
> > > an entire previously allocated /23 from their upstream ISP. This 
> > > allocation (/23) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream 
> > > provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The 
> > > organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 2 /24s. 
> > > 
> > > 3. Utilization Reporting and Justification. All other ARIN policies 
> > > regarding the reporting of justification information for the 
> > > allocation of IPv4 address space will remain in effect. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > ******************************************************************** 
> > > 
> > > Discussion: 
> > > 
> > > This proposal is the result of the discussion and agreement of those
> > > ISPs in the ARIN region that were in attendance at the AfriNIC 
> > > meeting held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 17, 2003. 
> > > 
> > > This policy proposal is submitted with the intent it only be applied
> > > to the Africa portion of the ARIN region, i.e., those countries in 
> > > Africa that are in the ARIN region. 
> > > 
> > > It is proposed the minimum allocation criteria and minimum 
> > allocation
> > > size for ISPs in Africa be modified. Specifically, the following 
> > > modifications to IPv4 policy are proposed: 
> > > 
> > > Change the minimum allocation size from a /20 to /22. 
> > > Change the ISP criteria for obtaining an allocation to the 
> > following. 
> > > 
> > > CRITERIA POINT 1 
> > > 
> > > Current Criteria: The current IPv4 policy for ISPs calls for "the 
> > > efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /20 from 
> > > their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /20 allocation from
> > > ARIN. 
> > > 
> > > Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 policy for ISPs call for 
> > > "the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 
> > > from their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /22 allocation 
> > > from ARIN. 
> > > 
> > > CRITERIA POINT 2 
> > > 
> > > Current Criteria: The current IPv4 multi-homed policy states "Multi-
> > > homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a /21 may be 
> > > allocated a /20." 
> > > 
> > > Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 multi-homed policy state 
> > > that, "Multi-homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a 
> > > /23 may be allocated a /22." Due to the emerging nature of Internet 
> > > services in Africa and the economic environment, it is often not 
> > > possible for ISPs to meet the current ARIN criteria for the 
> > smallest 
> > > allocation size of a /20, or to obtain the IPv4 address space they 
> > > need from an upstream provider in their area of operation. 
> > It is due 
> > > to these reasons, and others listed below, that this proposal is 
> > > submitted. 
> > > 
> > > Arguments for Policy Change 
> > > 
> > > The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN 
> > > region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The 
> > > number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the 
> > > other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> > > expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's 
> > > ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> > > in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain 
> > IPv4 address
> > > space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from 
> > > upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as 
> > > NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to 
> > > customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate 
> > > IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> > > the Internet in Africa. 
> > > 
> > > Proposed Timetable for Implementation 
> > > 
> > > It is requested this policy proposal be discussed on the 
> > ARIN public 
> > > policy mailing list and at the ARIN public policy meeting in October
> > > 2003. It is further requested this policy proposal receive 
> > immediate 
> > > attention of the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees 
> > > following the October 2003 meeting for implementation before the 
> > > close of the 2003 calendar year. Implementation of this 
> > policy change
> > > is critical to the growth and development of the Internet in the 
> > > Africa portion of the ARIN region.



From darren at intoweb.co.za  Tue Sep 23 02:36:12 2003
From: darren at intoweb.co.za (Darren)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:36:12 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
Message-ID: <002401c3819c$fc2cc6a0$1700000a@generals>

> [...]
> Arguments for Policy Change
>
> The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN
> region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The
> number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the
> other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's
> ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
> space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from
> upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as
> NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to
> customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate
> IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> the Internet in Africa.

It is obvious that Africa has no where near the resources of first world
countries and therefore should be judged on their own merits as it is
done in other industries. Whereas a smaller ISP in America can obtain
their own IP allocation, this is not possible in Africa. Only the very
rich companies, which are normally international companies, can obtain
the requirements, while the local companies cannot. This seems to be a
good proposal to try to level the playing fields.

Thanks,
Darren Harris
Managing Director
Intoweb Design
http://www.intoweb.co.za
Tel: (012) 348 5320
Fax: (012) 361 5576
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
INTOWEB CLIENT OF THE WEEK, check this site:
See http://www.tangentexhibitions.co.za for
specialised and professional exhibition requirments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Alec
H. Peterson
Sent: 22 September 2003 10:55 PM
To: Member Services; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

--On Monday, September 22, 2003 16:47 -0400 Member Services 
<memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:

> [...]
> Arguments for Policy Change
>
> The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN
> region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The
> number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the
> other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's
> ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
> space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from
> upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as
> NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to
> customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate
> IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> the Internet in Africa.

I am curious, why are African ISPs unable to obtain sufficient address 
space from their upstream providers?  Is the issue that such upstreams 
don't themselves qualify under ARIN's current policies?

Alec
ARIN AC Chair (but speaking only for himself)




From abdulg-lists at eastcoast.co.za  Tue Sep 23 03:02:12 2003
From: abdulg-lists at eastcoast.co.za (Abdul Rehman Gani)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:02:12 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
	 <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
Message-ID: <1064300532.6457.13.camel@merlin.eastcoast.co.za>

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 22:54, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> --On Monday, September 22, 2003 16:47 -0400 Member Services 

> I am curious, why are African ISPs unable to obtain sufficient address 
> space from their upstream providers?  Is the issue that such upstreams 
> don't themselves qualify under ARIN's current policies?

African ISP's tend to be smaller because of local conditions. Although
we can obtain required addresses from our upstream, we are at a stage
where we would like reduce dependence on our upstream (changing
upstreams involves renumbering) and, possibly, start multihoming.
Unfortunately both of those are difficult to impossible without our own
allocation. Reducing the allocation size will allow us to obtain our own
space without prejudicing us for maintaining policies wrt to efficient
usage of space (ie allocating smaller (/28 - /32) blocks to NATted
clients)

Regards

Abdul
> 
> Alec
> ARIN AC Chair (but speaking only for himself)
> 



From william at elan.net  Tue Sep 23 02:45:30 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Important Documents Concerning ICANN
In-Reply-To: <200309222359.TAA25233@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309222328400.28177-100000@sokol.elan.net>


I have quite a bit more questions about this NRO and the documents 
released then actual comments. So would the apnic mailing list mentioned  
(which indicates as being setup to receive comments) is more like
normal mailing list where questions can be asked and the documents
discussed or is is truly posting-only comments list? Accidently that 
mailing list appears to be moderated, but I'm hoping that is just to 
protect again spam.

Regarding questions, since I'm neither lawyer, nor politician I need
clarifictin on all that language, possibly list of key points of difference
between new structure (I see in language that NRO would basicly replace
ASO, so it would be ICANN->NRO->RIRs, but before it was ICANN->ASO->RIRs
which seem almost the same...). One such key point I did notice - 
requirement for 2/3 votes for ICANN board to reject policy proposals
made by NRO. What are other key points and points of difference with 
current (or proposed by ICANN) structure involving ASO?

I also would be interested to know if RIRs tried to resolve disagreements
with new ICANN management as of late (I know you had tried it with old
management, but hopefully ICANN got few new people there now that and 
stalled talks can be moved along without necessity of new MOA, which seems
to be done in rather ultimatum like manner by RIRs).

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:

> The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published 
> three (3) documents:
> 
>   a.  Proposed Open Letter to ICANN from the Regional 
>       Internet Registries
>   b.  Proposed Agreement between the RIRs to create the 
>       Number Resource Organization
>   c.  Proposed Agreement between the RIRs (acting through 
>       the NRO) and ICANN concerning the Address Supporting
>       Organization
> 
> These documents are available at:
> 
>   http://www.arin.net/library/rir-docs
> 
> In order to ensure that all interested and concerned parties 
> have the opportunity to comment, a thirty (30) day comment 
> period is now open. The comment period will close at midnight 
> UTC (8 PM EDT) October 22, 2003.
> 
> The ARIN Board of Trustees will consider the comments as they 
> are received and intends to make a decision whether to adopt 
> these documents following this comment period. If these 
> documents are adopted by all the RIR Boards, it is the 
> present intention to formally pass the open letter to ICANN 
> on the 24th of October. On the same date the Boards of the 
> RIRs currently intend to direct their CEOs to sign the MoU 
> concerning the establishment of the Number Resource 
> Organization. 
> 
> The RIRs welcome feedback from the Internet addressing 
> community on the contents of these documents.  All comments 
> should be addressed to: nro-comments at apnic.net. The comments 
> will be passed to all the Boards of the RIRs, and will also 
> be published on the web site http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments. 
> Any dialogue that arises from such comments will also be 
> published on this site.
> 
> Subscription information for the nro-comments mailing list is 
> available at:
> 
>   http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments
> 
> All postings to this mail address (nro-comments at apnic.net) are 
> public, and will be published at the following URL: 
> 
>   http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments
> 
> Raymond A. Plzak
> President & CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From plzak at arin.net  Tue Sep 23 05:35:40 2003
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:35:40 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Important Documents Concerning ICANN
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309222328400.28177-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <001d01c381b6$0e387d80$2c8888c0@arin.net>

William,

The nro-comments at apnic.net list is a global list hosted by APNIC.  By
this message, I am posting your comments to that list.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of william at elan.net
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:46 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Important Documents Concerning ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> I have quite a bit more questions about this NRO and the documents 
> released then actual comments. So would the apnic mailing 
> list mentioned  
> (which indicates as being setup to receive comments) is more like
> normal mailing list where questions can be asked and the documents
> discussed or is is truly posting-only comments list? Accidently that 
> mailing list appears to be moderated, but I'm hoping that is just to 
> protect again spam.
> 
> Regarding questions, since I'm neither lawyer, nor politician I need
> clarifictin on all that language, possibly list of key points 
> of difference
> between new structure (I see in language that NRO would 
> basicly replace
> ASO, so it would be ICANN->NRO->RIRs, but before it was 
> ICANN->ASO->RIRs
> which seem almost the same...). One such key point I did notice - 
> requirement for 2/3 votes for ICANN board to reject policy proposals
> made by NRO. What are other key points and points of difference with 
> current (or proposed by ICANN) structure involving ASO?
> 
> I also would be interested to know if RIRs tried to resolve 
> disagreements
> with new ICANN management as of late (I know you had tried it with old
> management, but hopefully ICANN got few new people there now that and 
> stalled talks can be moved along without necessity of new 
> MOA, which seems
> to be done in rather ultimatum like manner by RIRs).
> 
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Member Services wrote:
> 
> > The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published 
> > three (3) documents:
> > 
> >   a.  Proposed Open Letter to ICANN from the Regional 
> >       Internet Registries
> >   b.  Proposed Agreement between the RIRs to create the 
> >       Number Resource Organization
> >   c.  Proposed Agreement between the RIRs (acting through 
> >       the NRO) and ICANN concerning the Address Supporting
> >       Organization
> > 
> > These documents are available at:
> > 
> >   http://www.arin.net/library/rir-docs
> > 
> > In order to ensure that all interested and concerned parties 
> > have the opportunity to comment, a thirty (30) day comment 
> > period is now open. The comment period will close at midnight 
> > UTC (8 PM EDT) October 22, 2003.
> > 
> > The ARIN Board of Trustees will consider the comments as they 
> > are received and intends to make a decision whether to adopt 
> > these documents following this comment period. If these 
> > documents are adopted by all the RIR Boards, it is the 
> > present intention to formally pass the open letter to ICANN 
> > on the 24th of October. On the same date the Boards of the 
> > RIRs currently intend to direct their CEOs to sign the MoU 
> > concerning the establishment of the Number Resource 
> > Organization. 
> > 
> > The RIRs welcome feedback from the Internet addressing 
> > community on the contents of these documents.  All comments 
> > should be addressed to: nro-comments at apnic.net. The comments 
> > will be passed to all the Boards of the RIRs, and will also 
> > be published on the web site http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments. 
> > Any dialogue that arises from such comments will also be 
> > published on this site.
> > 
> > Subscription information for the nro-comments mailing list is 
> > available at:
> > 
> >   http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments
> > 
> > All postings to this mail address (nro-comments at apnic.net) are 
> > public, and will be published at the following URL: 
> > 
> >   http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments
> > 
> > Raymond A. Plzak
> > President & CEO
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 



From theo at flame.co.za  Tue Sep 23 06:45:30 2003
From: theo at flame.co.za (Theo Kramer)
Date: 23 Sep 2003 12:45:30 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <1064313192.3407.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 22:47, Member Services wrote:
<snip>

> Discussion: 

This should have the effect of increasing the membership of ARIN and subsequently AfriNIC.
I am for it.

Regards
Theo

> 
> This proposal is the result of the discussion and agreement of those
> ISPs in the ARIN region that were in attendance at the AfriNIC 
> meeting held in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 17, 2003. 
> 
> This policy proposal is submitted with the intent it only be applied
> to the Africa portion of the ARIN region, i.e., those countries in 
> Africa that are in the ARIN region. 
> 
> It is proposed the minimum allocation criteria and minimum allocation
> size for ISPs in Africa be modified. Specifically, the following 
> modifications to IPv4 policy are proposed: 
> 
> Change the minimum allocation size from a /20 to /22. 
> Change the ISP criteria for obtaining an allocation to the following. 
> 
> CRITERIA POINT 1 
> 
> Current Criteria: The current IPv4 policy for ISPs calls for "the 
> efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /20 from 
> their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /20 allocation from
> ARIN. 
> 
> Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 policy for ISPs call for 
> "the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 
> from their upstream ISP" in order to qualify for a /22 allocation 
> from ARIN. 
> 
> CRITERIA POINT 2 
> 
> Current Criteria: The current IPv4 multi-homed policy states "Multi-
> homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a /21 may be 
> allocated a /20." 
> 
> Proposed Criteria: It is proposed the IPv4 multi-homed policy state 
> that, "Multi-homed organizations that have efficiently utilized a 
> /23 may be allocated a /22." Due to the emerging nature of Internet 
> services in Africa and the economic environment, it is often not 
> possible for ISPs to meet the current ARIN criteria for the smallest 
> allocation size of a /20, or to obtain the IPv4 address space they 
> need from an upstream provider in their area of operation. It is due 
> to these reasons, and others listed below, that this proposal is 
> submitted. 
> 
> Arguments for Policy Change 
> 
> The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN 
> region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The 
> number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the 
> other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to
> expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's 
> ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable
> in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address
> space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from 
> upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as 
> NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to 
> customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate 
> IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of
> the Internet in Africa. 
> 
> Proposed Timetable for Implementation 
> 
> It is requested this policy proposal be discussed on the ARIN public 
> policy mailing list and at the ARIN public policy meeting in October
> 2003. It is further requested this policy proposal receive immediate 
> attention of the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees 
> following the October 2003 meeting for implementation before the 
> close of the 2003 calendar year. Implementation of this policy change
> is critical to the growth and development of the Internet in the 
> Africa portion of the ARIN region.



From wizard at sybaweb.com  Tue Sep 23 09:31:36 2003
From: wizard at sybaweb.com (Peter Salvage)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:31:36 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <000c01c381d7$04876640$0a00a8c0@wizard>

> Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa
>                          Portion of the ARIN Region
<snip>

I represent a small ISP in South Africa and endorse what's been said before
with regard to the difficulty in obtaining portable address space.
Accordingly I support the proposal as outlined.

Peter Salvage
SybaWeb Internet



From robh at za.uu.net  Tue Sep 23 09:37:09 2003
From: robh at za.uu.net (Rob Hunter)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:37:09 +0200 (SAST)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <000c01c381d7$04876640$0a00a8c0@wizard>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <000c01c381d7$04876640$0a00a8c0@wizard>
Message-ID: <20030923153635.P99013@hill.noc.uunet.co.za>

> Accordingly I support the proposal as outlined.

as do UUNET SA

Regards

--Rob


From aragon at phat.za.net  Tue Sep 23 09:48:14 2003
From: aragon at phat.za.net (Aragon Gouveia)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:48:14 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <20030923134814.GA45530@phat.za.net>

I have worked and consulted for a few ISPs in South Africa for the past 4
years and currently consult exclusively to a small South African ISP.  I
agree with previous comments about the immense difficulty in obtaining
portable address space here.  I also agree the below provisions will greatly
benefit future Internet growth for reasons already outlined by others
that have posted to this thread.

I fully support this proposal.


Regards,
Aragon



| By Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>
|                                          [ 2003-09-22 22:52 +0200 ]
> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy 
> proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting 
> in Chicago, Illinois, scheduled for October 22-23, 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. Subscription information is available at
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html 
> 
> Member Services 
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> ### * ###
> 
> Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa 
>                          Portion of the ARIN Region


From heath at xnet.co.za  Tue Sep 23 09:58:10 2003
From: heath at xnet.co.za (Heath Jordaan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:58:10 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za>

Must say I support this proposal. Should benefit us all to see it 
implemented.

Regards
Heath



From khetan at sai.co.za  Tue Sep 23 10:09:23 2003
From: khetan at sai.co.za (khetan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:09:23 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <148343173457.20030923160923@sai.co.za>



We (SAI) a ISP in South Africa fully support the proposal for portable
ip allocations as we find it difficult to obtain our own address
space.




-- 
Best regards,
 khetan

 SAI



From mark at rsaweb.co.za  Tue Sep 23 10:27:16 2003
From: mark at rsaweb.co.za (Mark Slingsby)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:27:16 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <148343173457.20030923160923@sai.co.za>
Message-ID: <006801c381de$c9de55a0$9601a8c0@Mark>


We at RSAWeb Internet Services fully support the proposal for portable
ip allocations as we find it difficult to obtain our own address space.

We need to utilise this for multi-homing facilities and to develop our
network further. As an African ISP we do not have the network size
required to be allocated our own address space, but need our own address
space for multihoming and redundancy. At the moment we are limited to
one international connectivity provider and do not have multiple
redundant links because we don't have our own space. Connections
frequently drop due to environmental conditions and other hardware
related issues (not on our side, but our upstream providers) 

We fully support this proposal.

Sincerely,

Mark Slingsby

RSAWeb Internet Services cc




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of
khetan
Sent: 23 September 2003 04:09 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
Africa Portion of the ARIN Region



We (SAI) a ISP in South Africa fully support the proposal for portable
ip allocations as we find it difficult to obtain our own address
space.




-- 
Best regards,
 khetan

 SAI



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Sep 23 11:16:46 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:16:46 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <002401c3819c$fc2cc6a0$1700000a@generals>
References: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]> <002401c3819c$fc2cc6a0$1700000a@generals>
Message-ID: <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:36:12AM +0200, Darren wrote:
> It is obvious that Africa has no where near the resources of first world
> countries and therefore should be judged on their own merits as it is
> done in other industries. Whereas a smaller ISP in America can obtain
> their own IP allocation, this is not possible in Africa. Only the very
> rich companies, which are normally international companies, can obtain
> the requirements, while the local companies cannot. This seems to be a
> good proposal to try to level the playing fields.

I'm having a little bit of trouble with this line of argument.  I'd
like to address a few of the points raised.

- The playing field is level.

  Today the same policies apply to anyone asking for IP space.  It
  doesn't matter if your from Africa or Podunk Iowa, the process
  is applied equally and fairly.  This proposal will actually create
  an unlevel playing field that favors African ISP's.  For instance,
  would it be possible under this proposal for a US company to set
  up an African shell company, get IP space, and then use it in the
  US?  Making things like that possible would be very bad.

- African ISP's have taken steps to preserve space, which is part of
  the problem.

  I think it's great that African ISP's have figured out how to use
  NAT and other technologies to save space.  While I don't want to
  advocate "wasting" space my first question would be if you're
  going to renumber into your own portable block anyway why not get
  rid of the NAT, which will also improve your customers connectivity?
  There are, after all, applications that do not work through NAT.
  Would counting all those customers in a request justify enough
  IP's to qualify under the current procedures?

At the end of the day I'm sure there are more than a few ISP's in the US
and Canada that would love to have smaller allocations.  Indeed, you'll
see in the archives I've argued that we should make smaller allocations
available to everyone.  That said, this proposal leaves a bad taste in
my mouth because it tells the ISP in Africa that needs a /22 that they
are "special enough" to get it, but the same sized ISP in some other
country is not.

Put another way, I don't recall the lack of cheap bandwidth or the
pervasive use of NAT to have ever been factors in setting the allocation
size before, and that makes me wonder why we should start now.

If we're going to change the allocation size I believe strongly it
should be a global change, and not a local change that favors one
particular group.

-- 
       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/20030923/ff728610/attachment.sig>

From depach at bucknet.co.za  Tue Sep 23 12:38:35 2003
From: depach at bucknet.co.za (Jared Cassidy)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:38:35 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach>

Bucknet supports this proposal, and agree that it will stimulate the african
internet
business.

Jared Cassidy
Bucknet Internet

() ASCII Ribbon Campaign -
/\  Just say "no" to HTML, RTF, MS Word, & vCards in email.
_______________________________________________



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003




From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 23 12:54:39 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:54:39 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach>
Message-ID: <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>

clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
other folk would be interesting.

randy (who suggested this hack five years ago)



From ron at aol.net  Tue Sep 23 13:22:13 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:22:13 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach> <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <20030923172213.GB23256@aol.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:54:39AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
> other folk would be interesting.

Is there anything in 2003-15 that is not covered by 2002-3?
-ron


From aragon at phat.za.net  Tue Sep 23 14:59:00 2003
From: aragon at phat.za.net (Aragon Gouveia)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:59:00 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]> <002401c3819c$fc2cc6a0$1700000a@generals> <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <20030923185900.GC57690@phat.za.net>

| By Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
|                                          [ 2003-09-23 17:20 +0200 ]
> - The playing field is level.
> 
>   Today the same policies apply to anyone asking for IP space.  It
>   doesn't matter if your from Africa or Podunk Iowa, the process
>   is applied equally and fairly.  This proposal will actually create
>   an unlevel playing field that favors African ISP's.  For instance,
>   would it be possible under this proposal for a US company to set
>   up an African shell company, get IP space, and then use it in the
>   US?  Making things like that possible would be very bad.

I think the point Darren was trying to make in the case of South Africa was
that because of our vastly different and smaller economy and demographics,
only about 10% of the ISPs in this country have a large enough subscriber
base to qualify for their own address allocation under the current
procedures.  In turn this means only about 10% of the ISPs are capable of
providing the higher service levels that portable address space makes
possible.

There is most certainly a need for higher service levels of internet
connectivity in South Africa to increase internet adoption and, in turn,
grow the local internet here.

Although it may be technically possible for a US company to setup an African
shell company to be used in the US just so they can gain access to their own
/22, this would be practically senseless given the much higher relative costs
of running an ISP type business here and, more importantly, the much lower
levels of service with international connectivity from here.  I think they'd
be more likely to seek another line of business than even considering this
route.


> - African ISP's have taken steps to preserve space, which is part of
>   the problem.
> 
>   I think it's great that African ISP's have figured out how to use
>   NAT and other technologies to save space.  While I don't want to
>   advocate "wasting" space my first question would be if you're
>   going to renumber into your own portable block anyway why not get
>   rid of the NAT, which will also improve your customers connectivity?
>   There are, after all, applications that do not work through NAT.
>   Would counting all those customers in a request justify enough
>   IP's to qualify under the current procedures?

For some ISPs it may bring them closer to qualifying under the current
procedures, but I don't think it'd be the ice breaker for the majority.  By
providing smaller allocations it allows one to preserve IP address
efficiency (without having to get rid of NAT for the sole purpose of
obtaining portable address space) and offer better service levels.

But from my own experiences, those that utilise NAT are doing so for reasons
other than address shortage.  I actually don't think this is really an
issue.


Regards,
Aragon



From robh at za.uu.net  Tue Sep 23 15:32:06 2003
From: robh at za.uu.net (Rob Hunter)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:32:06 +0200 (SAST)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach> <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <20030923212629.M65170@hill.noc.uunet.co.za>

> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
> other folk would be interesting.

it was definately widely supported by south africans at the meeting.
unfortunately there weren't many faces from isp's from neighboring
countries present. hopefully they'll make their voices heard, as i
expect there to be many worse off than those of us in .za

Regards

--Rob


From abdulg-lists at eastcoast.co.za  Tue Sep 23 16:28:36 2003
From: abdulg-lists at eastcoast.co.za (Abdul Rehman Gani)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:28:36 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]>
	 <002401c3819c$fc2cc6a0$1700000a@generals>
	 <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <1064348916.1981.24.camel@linux.local>

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:16, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> - African ISP's have taken steps to preserve space, which is part of
>   the problem.
> 
>   I think it's great that African ISP's have figured out how to use
>   NAT and other technologies to save space.  While I don't want to
>   advocate "wasting" space my first question would be if you're
>   going to renumber into your own portable block anyway why not get
>   rid of the NAT, which will also improve your customers connectivity?

We tackle this on a case-by-case basis. Most small to medium companies
or sohos internet requirements are not affected by NAT - therefore, to
save IP space we use NAT.

>   There are, after all, applications that do not work through NAT.
>   Would counting all those customers in a request justify enough
>   IP's to qualify under the current procedures?

We certainly would, quite easily.

Abdul



From mury at goldengate.net  Tue Sep 23 16:41:36 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:41:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030923185900.GC57690@phat.za.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309231527300.19122-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> procedures.  In turn this means only about 10% of the ISPs are capable of
> providing the higher service levels that portable address space makes
> possible.

Please excuse me for being dense today, but can you define "higher
service levels"?  In addition, would you please tell me why one can't
provide those "higher service levels" under current policies?

Is this an issue of not wanting to renumber?  If so, I think the
discussion on this policy is dead.

The *only* valid argument in the policy proposal I could find is this:

"Lack of adequate IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and
development of the Internet in Africa."

However there are no reasons given.  Why are smaller ISPs in Africa unable
to obtain IP space from upstream providers?  That question needs to be
answered and if there is a valid issue there it needs to be taken care of
at the source.  It shouldn't be circumvented by loosening requirements for
one geogrpahic area.

> Although it may be technically possible for a US company to setup an African
> shell company to be used in the US just so they can gain access to their own
> /22, this would be practically senseless given the much higher relative costs
> of running an ISP type business here and, more importantly, the much lower
> levels of service with international connectivity from here.  I think they'd
> be more likely to seek another line of business than even considering this
> route.

Agreed no US company is going to go through the hassle of setting up a
shell company in Africa.  Renumbering would be far easier.

Regards,

Mury



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Sep 23 16:40:51 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:40:51 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030923185900.GC57690@phat.za.net>
References: <2147483647.1064242476@[192.168.1.101]> <002401c3819c$fc2cc6a0$1700000a@generals> <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20030923185900.GC57690@phat.za.net>
Message-ID: <20030923204051.GA6055@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:59:00PM +0200, Aragon Gouveia wrote:
> I think the point Darren was trying to make in the case of South Africa was
> that because of our vastly different and smaller economy and demographics,
> only about 10% of the ISPs in this country have a large enough subscriber
> base to qualify for their own address allocation under the current
> procedures.  In turn this means only about 10% of the ISPs are capable of
> providing the higher service levels that portable address space makes
> possible.

Even if I believe this is true for South Africa (and I have no
reason not to believe it), do we have any evidence that this is
significantly different than ISP's anywhere else?  There are a ton
of US based ISP's that don't have their own allocation and get
addresses from their upstream.  Many are even able to multi-home
with their upstream's permission using their space.

While I understand there may be a need to provide higher service
levels, and that multi-homing is probably part of that process,
that is not what is going to make South Africa's internet grow.
Cheap bandwidth, to other countries, in country, and to the residence
or business will make the internet grow.  I would venture the average
residential user doesn't care if their provider is multi-homed or
not.  Lower end businesses probably do not.  What you're talking
about enabling here is a premium product for a (relatively) small
group of customers.  That's not going to fuel real growth.

The market is big enough to support people (10%, by your estimate)
who can offer this service.  If the market had no one that could
offer it we might have something to consider, but since it does
clearly there is limited demand for additional service, or those
10% would quickly snap up all the business and no longer be 10%,
but 50% or 100% as the other ISP's went out of business.

So, don't get me wrong, I want smaller allocations and support
proposals like 2003-3.  I have yet to see any reason to treat South
Africa special though, and in fact find geographic differences in
allocation policy to generally be an extremely bad idea (and yes,
that also means I would generally prefer APNIC, RIPE and ARIN to
have the same policies as well, but that's an argument for another
day....).

-- 
       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/20030923/685c7691/attachment.sig>

From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 23 16:29:36 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:29:36 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach>
	<E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
	<20030923212629.M65170@hill.noc.uunet.co.za>
Message-ID: <E1A1tmy-0006TR-N4@roam.psg.com>

>> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
>> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
>> other folk would be interesting.
> it was definately widely supported by south africans at the meeting.
> unfortunately there weren't many faces from isp's from neighboring
> countries present. hopefully they'll make their voices heard, as i
> expect there to be many worse off than those of us in .za

hint: this affects the GLOBAL routing tables

randy



From bmanning at karoshi.com  Tue Sep 23 17:43:20 2003
From: bmanning at karoshi.com (bmanning at karoshi.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
In-Reply-To: <E1A1tmy-0006TR-N4@roam.psg.com> from "Randy Bush" at Sep 23, 2003 01:29:36 PM
Message-ID: <200309232143.h8NLhKi11160@karoshi.com>

> 
> >> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
> >> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
> >> other folk would be interesting.
> > it was definately widely supported by south africans at the meeting.
> > unfortunately there weren't many faces from isp's from neighboring
> > countries present. hopefully they'll make their voices heard, as i
> > expect there to be many worse off than those of us in .za
> 
> hint: this affects the GLOBAL routing tables
	    ^ may
> 
> randy

	since address delegations do not always routing
	entries make. ... 

--bill


From depach at bucknet.co.za  Tue Sep 23 18:07:46 2003
From: depach at bucknet.co.za (Jared Cassidy)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:07:46 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach><E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com><20030923212629.M65170@hill.noc.uunet.co.za> <E1A1tmy-0006TR-N4@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <016601c3821f$1eb5e4e0$0d811eac@depach>

Maybe a good practise to get ready for the rather large tables ipv6 could
bring :)

Jared Cassidy
Bucknet Internet

() ASCII Ribbon Campaign -
/\  Just say "no" to HTML, RTF, MS Word, & vCards in email.
_______________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
To: "Rob Hunter" <robh at za.uu.net>
Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
Africa Portion of the ARIN Region


> >> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
> >> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
> >> other folk would be interesting.
> > it was definately widely supported by south africans at the meeting.
> > unfortunately there weren't many faces from isp's from neighboring
> > countries present. hopefully they'll make their voices heard, as i
> > expect there to be many worse off than those of us in .za
>
> hint: this affects the GLOBAL routing tables
>
> randy
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/19/2003




From ibaker at codecutters.org  Tue Sep 23 18:12:04 2003
From: ibaker at codecutters.org (Ian Baker)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:12:04 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
  Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <xPStXlndVTTN.MBqGGcc4@smtp.orange.net>

Leo,
	(I'm sending this by mobile client, so please forgive the formatting 
eccentricity)

I see (and mostly agree) with your technicaI argument. 

However.

There are very real infrastructure differences and implications between the 
US & Africa.

>From analysis of WHOIS data, I see very real differences in allocations 
between (e.g.) US & EU companies.

Am I attempting to justify some particular policy or override?

No.

Just that - I believe - we all have a common goal in promoting Internet 
availabilty and usage, worldwide.

Apologies for the non-technical content, I've just that I've seen this 
techie vs. "other" stuff before.

I have no "agenda".

I've visited two N.African countries, but that's it. No axe to bear or 
drum/chest to beat..

Regards,

Ian Baker

________________ Reply Header ________________
Subject:	Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the 
Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Author:	Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
Date:		23rd September 2003 11:16:46 am

In a message written on Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:36:12AM +0200, Darren 
wrote:
> It is obvious that Africa has no where near the resources of first 
world
> countries and therefore should be judged on their own merits as it is
> done in other industries. Whereas a smaller ISP in America can obtain
> their own IP allocation, this is not possible in Africa. Only the 
very
> rich companies, which are normally international companies, can 
obtain
> the requirements, while the local companies cannot. This seems to be 
a
> good proposal to try to level the playing fields.

I'm having a little bit of trouble with this line of argument.  I'd
like to address a few of the points raised.

- The playing field is level.

  Today the same policies apply to anyone asking for IP space.  It
  doesn't matter if your from Africa or Podunk Iowa, the process
  is applied equally and fairly.  This proposal will actually create
  an unlevel playing field that favors African ISP's.  For instance,
  would it be possible under this proposal for a US company to set
  up an African shell company, get IP space, and then use it in the
  US?  Making things like that possible would be very bad.

- African ISP's have taken steps to preserve space, which is part of
  the problem.

  I think it's great that African ISP's have figured out how to use
  NAT and other technologies to save space.  While I don't want to
  advocate "wasting" space my first question would be if you're
  going to renumber into your own portable block anyway why not get
  rid of the NAT, which will also improve your customers connectivity?
  There are, after all, applications that do not work through NAT.
  Would counting all those customers in a request justify enough
  IP's to qualify under the current procedures?

At the end of the day I'm sure there are more than a few ISP's in the 
US
and Canada that would love to have smaller allocations.  Indeed, 
you'll
see in the archives I've argued that we should make smaller 
allocations
available to everyone.  That said, this proposal leaves a bad taste in
my mouth because it tells the ISP in Africa that needs a /22 that 
they
are "special enough" to get it, but the same sized ISP in some 
other
country is not.

Put another way, I don't recall the lack of cheap bandwidth or 
the
pervasive use of NAT to have ever been factors in setting the 
allocation
size before, and that makes me wonder why we should start now.

If we're going to change the allocation size I believe strongly it
should be a global change, and not a local change that favors 
one
particular group.

-- 
       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 William at zanet.co.za  Tue Sep 23 19:24:09 2003
From: William at zanet.co.za (William Stucke)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:24:09 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>

Leo Bicknell asked some pertinent questions about "What's special about
Africa"? The answer lies in two related issues: COST and SCALE.

Let's first deal with the issue of cost - and no, it's not a trivial one,
nor is it an "excuse" by Africans for a "free ride".

By way of introduction, in most of the 53 countries in Africa, ISPs don't
have a choice of from whom they get service, nor how it is carried. They are
obliged to use the monopoly incumbent, or go to jail. Some of those monopoly
Telcos are VERY reluctant to assign IP addresses - e.g. Kenya.

> It doesn't matter if your from Africa or Podunk Iowa

I couldn't find a Podunk in Iowa (I gather that the term means "nowhere
town" in American?) but I did find Bonaparte, Iowa, population 465. If I was
an ISP in Bonaparte, Iowa, and I wanted a T1 line to the BWW (Big Wide World
[tm]), it would cost me $1,024 to $1,052 per month from one of two providers
(http://shopfort1.com). If I was an ISP in Africa and I got it from my
state-legislated monopoly Telco, it would cost me ~$55,000 per month for the
same dedicated T1 symmetrical bandwidth.

Shared satellite bandwidth is somewhat cheaper, but obviously of a much
poorer quality - although in many African countries it's all one can get.

Additionally, the cost of leased lines to one's customers, or to local
peering points, is generally several orders of magnitude higher than in the
North American continent.

On the income side, the picture is just as bleak. My company charges $14 per
month for an unlimited access dial-up connection, for example. That compares
rather well with a typical North American ISP, I suspect, especially
considering that my primary input cost is 55 times higher than in Podunk (or
75 times higher than in California) ;-)

SCALE

By way of comparison with Bonaparte, Iowa, the population of African
countries varied from 80,000 (Seychelles) to 116,930,000 (Nigeria) in 2001.
A total of 817 million people shared 1.5 Gbps outgoing - the equivalent of
1000 T1s - in 2002.

Market sizes are not large. In fact they're tiny. There are only 1,600,000
dial-up subscribers, and hardly any cable or DSL subscribers, in the whole
of Africa. The reasons for this include extortionately high Telco costs (we
don't have ANY free local calls in any African country that I'm aware of),
very low average income - $1600 per capita per year in sub-Saharan Africa,
very low tele-density and low literacy rates. Not forgetting the incredibly
high cost of international bandwidth that we "enjoy".

On the tele-density issue, one of the most "connected" and "Internet-active"
countries in Africa, Kenya, only had a total of some 450,000 telephone lines
installed when I last heard. Ghana has 250,000. That's more than Bonaparte,
Iowa, but a lot less than a large town or small city in the USA!

A "really big ISP" (think AOL, Earthlink) in Africa has a few 100,000
dial-up subscribers, or a few hundred leased lines. There are only a handful
of these (I can think of three, off hand), which is why there are only 19
LIRs in sub-Saharan Africa. The overwhelming majority of African ISPs are
far, far, smaller. For them, 1,000 subscribers is a lot.

On the issue of scale, the 10 countries in Africa with the most outgoing
international bandwidth (2002) are (figures in Mbps): -

EGYPT			535
SOUTH AFRICA *	399
MOROCCO		136
ALGERIA		 83
TUNISIA		 75
SENEGAL *		 60
KENYA*		 28
GABON	*		 16
NIGERIA *		 15
BOTSWANA *		 14

* = Sub-Saharan Africa

The remaining countries have less than 13 Mbps each, with Equatorial Guinea
at the bottom of the list with 64 kbps for half a million people.

I'd imagine that many of the people on this list have more bandwidth than
most of these entire countries for their ISP alone. How many North American
ISPs have multiple T3s?

It's not a linear relationship, but size of customer base and IP addresses
used are certainly related to bandwidth consumed.

The high cost (relative to income) of being an Internet subscriber in Africa
means that many ISPs have to share a very small market - which leads to few
IP addresses being used. The high cost of operating as an ISP in Africa
means that margins are small to non-existent, and that it's impossible to
expand as we'd like to.

What this means is that $2500 for an IP allocation from ARIN represents
quite a lot of money for an African ISP. Also, because the scale of an
African ISP is so very much smaller, it's also very difficult indeed to meet
the ARIN requirements in terms of using a /20 before being allocated
portable address space.

> That said, this proposal leaves a bad taste in
my mouth because it tells the ISP in Africa that needs a /22 that they
are "special enough" to get it, but the same sized ISP in some other
country is not.

I understand your point, but consider this: there's something else that
leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I send an email to you in Bonaparte, say,
from anywhere in Africa, I pay the full cost of international transit - both
half circuits. If you send me an email from Bonaparte, I pay the full cost
of international transit - both half circuits. You don't pay a penny for the
international transit. You only pay your "local" connectivity costs of $750
for a T1 in California or $1000 in Bonaparte, Iowa. This represents an
enormous export of scarce foreign currency from the developing world to the
developed world. In fact, Africa pays the developed world some $400M per
year just to send African traffic from one African country to another, via
the USA, Europe and the Far East. (See "The Halfway Proposition"
http://www.afrispa.org)

A point that hasn't been raised yet: PEERING. AfrISPA has been instrumental
in helping a number of countries establish national peering points, with 11
so far installed in total in Africa (AfrISPA can't claim credit for all of
them, mark you). There is *NO* regional peering in place as yet, although
we're working on that too ;-)

It's not impossible to peer at an IXP if you don't have address space
independent from your upstream provider, but it sure is a whole heap
easier - especially if he's uncooperative. It's really difficult to peer
with an ISP in another country (that your upstream doesn't operate in) and
optimise your routing without portable address space.

> If we're going to change the allocation size I believe strongly it
should be a global change

I don't disagree with this point. Bear in mind, however, that part of the
justification of the 2003-15 proposal is to enable more LIRs in sub-Saharan
Africa, so that the infant AfriNIC will have more than 19 members to take
on. This is perhaps a (another) suitable justification for a
geographic-specific policy. ;-)

> - The playing field is level.

I submit that it's far from level, in comparing sub-Saharan Africa with the
North American continent.

Regards,

William Stucke
ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
Chairman - AfrISPA
+27 11 465 0700
William at zanet.co.za

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 2003/09/01



From gih at telstra.net  Tue Sep 23 19:43:11 2003
From: gih at telstra.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:43:11 +1000
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the
In-Reply-To: <200309232143.h8NLhKi11160@karoshi.com>
References: <E1A1tmy-0006TR-N4@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030924092859.01c54db8@kahuna.telstra.net>

At 02:43 PM 23/09/2003 -0700, bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> > >> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
> > >> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
> > >> other folk would be interesting.
> > > it was definately widely supported by south africans at the meeting.
> > > unfortunately there weren't many faces from isp's from neighboring
> > > countries present. hopefully they'll make their voices heard, as i
> > > expect there to be many worse off than those of us in .za
> >
> > hint: this affects the GLOBAL routing tables
>             ^ may
> >
> > randy
>
>         since address delegations do not always routing
>         entries make. ...


If one places an interpretation on the comment that this may
have a potentially _negative_ effect on the routing system, then......

Even so, this may or may not have any material outcome
in terms of routing scaleability and stability in any case.

Its not the size of the routing table that has been the problem
for many years - memory is indeed cheap

Nor the size of the forwarding tables - while various forms
of TCAM is not cheap, it appears to be sufficiently
cheap.

It has been argued its the compute load associated with the protocol
update volume, although that has not been a problem for some years

So it has then been suggested that it was the observation that the
growth in the table was faster than Moore's law (doubling every 18 months)
and that the update volume was directly proportional to the size of the table
and this growth _could_ cause the load to exceed silicon capabilities
at some time in the future.

The observation is that growth trajectories have altered substantially 
since 2000
and this form of Internet death by scaling appears to be once more a
very remote possibility.

So when I read this hint I'm inclined to offer the comment that it is at 
present
a  very minor consideration, and that this particular initiative would be 
absolutely
invisible compared with the more prevalent practice of advertising covering
aggregates and then inserting relatively unstable /24s into the global 
routing mesh.
This latter practice is the noisy end of routing that forms the basis of 
our mutual
concerns over scaleability of the entire inter-domain routing system.

Of course the author may well have deliberately avoided any form of
positive or negative connotation in the hint, and was neutrally pointing out
that such a policy would generate additional routing table entries. In which
case, yes, the close correlation between assignment policies and resultant 
routing
advertisements has been noted in the past, and there is no reason to think
this would be any different.

   Geoff








From tva at truteq.com  Tue Sep 23 20:06:51 2003
From: tva at truteq.com (Tiaan van Aardt)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:06:51 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <HAEHIGFEEEBENEJOMPEPIEGNDHAA.tva@truteq.com>

Hi,

William Stucke wrote:

> If I was an ISP in Africa and I got it from my
> state-legislated monopoly Telco, it would cost me ~$55,000 per
> month for the same dedicated T1 symmetrical bandwidth.

There is another key point to consider: That of lock-in.

Say you are an ISP in the SME business and you provide services to a whole
bunch of small companies with thin but dedicated lines. You get your
bandwidth from one of the large ISP's who rely on (or are themselves) the
monopoly carrier.

As soon as a second carrier is introduced, there is bound to be some shuffle
to the new provider. Likewise with a third carrier (we can dream, can't we).
In such a case would it not be unrealistic to expect said smaller ISP to ask
all its customers to renumber simply because it has changed its upstream to
save dollars?

Regards,
  -Tiaan.
_____________________________________________________
TruTeq Wireless (Pty) Ltd.        Tel +27 12 667 1530
http://www.truteq.co.za           Fax +27 12 667 1531
Wireless communications for remote machine management




From owen at delong.com  Tue Sep 23 20:51:29 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:51:29 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
References: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064339489@dhcp157-204.corp.tellme.com>

> I couldn't find a Podunk in Iowa (I gather that the term means "nowhere
> town" in American?) but I did find Bonaparte, Iowa, population 465. If I
> was an ISP in Bonaparte, Iowa, and I wanted a T1 line to the BWW (Big
> Wide World [tm]), it would cost me $1,024 to $1,052 per month from one of
> two providers (http://shopfort1.com). If I was an ISP in Africa and I got
> it from my state-legislated monopoly Telco, it would cost me ~$55,000 per
> month for the same dedicated T1 symmetrical bandwidth.
>
For that price per month, terrestrial microwave would pay for itself
rather quickly.  Have you considered setting up terrestrial microwave
links between providers?

> Shared satellite bandwidth is somewhat cheaper, but obviously of a much
> poorer quality - although in many African countries it's all one can get.
>
> Additionally, the cost of leased lines to one's customers, or to local
> peering points, is generally several orders of magnitude higher than in
> the North American continent.
>
Whereas the cost of terrestrial microwave tends to be on the order of 2-3
times circuits in north am.

> On the income side, the picture is just as bleak. My company charges $14
> per month for an unlimited access dial-up connection, for example. That
> compares rather well with a typical North American ISP, I suspect,
> especially considering that my primary input cost is 55 times higher than
> in Podunk (or 75 times higher than in California) ;-)
>
I don't think it is the job of ARIN to make exceptions so that your 
particular
business model can work.  If your costs are higher, then, those costs should
be passed on to your customers.

I don't object to moving the minimum allocation unit to /22, but, I do 
object
to doing it specifically for Africa.  It should be done in general.

> SCALE
>
> By way of comparison with Bonaparte, Iowa, the population of African
> countries varied from 80,000 (Seychelles) to 116,930,000 (Nigeria) in
> 2001. A total of 817 million people shared 1.5 Gbps outgoing - the
> equivalent of 1000 T1s - in 2002.
>
> Market sizes are not large. In fact they're tiny. There are only 1,600,000
> dial-up subscribers, and hardly any cable or DSL subscribers, in the whole
> of Africa. The reasons for this include extortionately high Telco costs
> (we don't have ANY free local calls in any African country that I'm aware
> of), very low average income - $1600 per capita per year in sub-Saharan
> Africa, very low tele-density and low literacy rates. Not forgetting the
> incredibly high cost of international bandwidth that we "enjoy".
>
I don't see how changing the minimum IP allocation unit will fix any of
those rather severe social engineering problems.

> On the tele-density issue, one of the most "connected" and
> "Internet-active" countries in Africa, Kenya, only had a total of some
> 450,000 telephone lines installed when I last heard. Ghana has 250,000.
> That's more than Bonaparte, Iowa, but a lot less than a large town or
> small city in the USA!
>
> A "really big ISP" (think AOL, Earthlink) in Africa has a few 100,000
> dial-up subscribers, or a few hundred leased lines. There are only a
> handful of these (I can think of three, off hand), which is why there are
> only 19 LIRs in sub-Saharan Africa. The overwhelming majority of African
> ISPs are far, far, smaller. For them, 1,000 subscribers is a lot.
>
OK... So, let me sum up what you're saying... You think that it's still
OK to engineer the internet allocation policies around what the large
providers feel is necessary, but, that's picking on Africa because the
large providers in Africa can't be large enough to appear large to the
big boys in North America.  Sorry... We should either fix this for ALL
providers that need /22s or none.  I wasn't completely convinced by
Leo's arguments, but, your clarifications have swayed me the rest of
the way there.

> On the issue of scale, the 10 countries in Africa with the most outgoing
> international bandwidth (2002) are (figures in Mbps): -
>
> I submit that it's far from level, in comparing sub-Saharan Africa with
> the North American continent.

The playing field is level.  The resources available to the two teams before
they get to the field are vastly different.  On one side of the field,
you have a collection of well-funded rich kids from North America.  On the
other side, you have a collection of poor ISPs trying to help an even
poorer customer base.  The disparity between the economics of the two
teams does not mean the field is not level.  It does mean that there
are many other factors that come into whether it is a fair contest or not.

However, making exceptions to the rules of the game to make the contest
more fair for a subset of the disadvantaged teams is not the right
answer.  If we are going to change the rules to help disadvantaged teams,
we should help them all.  We should change the rules for all smaller
providers.

I would support this if it generally moved the allocation unit to /22
instead of /20.  I will not support it if it is specific to Africa.


Owen



From gregm at datapro.co.za  Tue Sep 23 20:56:38 2003
From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:56:38 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach><E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com><20030923212629.M65170@hill.noc.uunet.co.za> <E1A1tmy-0006TR-N4@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <004701c38236$c27331c0$0a1929c4@tipsy>

> hint: this affects the GLOBAL routing tables

Let's look at this practically.

ZA is presently announcing approximately 650 prefixes. If you include the
rest of Africa that falls within the ARIN allocation region, this would
still be less than 1000 prefixes. Given that a global routing table is
approximately 120'000 prefixes, we're talking about less than 1% of the
table.

Even if the number of ISPs in Africa receiving address space from ARIN were
to double, this would have an impact of under 1% of the table. (Remember,
not all of the ~1'000 prefixes are ARIN assignments...many - if not most -
are from upstreams and pre-ARIN).

There are only 19 ARIN members in Africa. If this figure were to quadruple,
that may mean another 57 new prefixes to be announced... 0.05% of the total
routing table.

This affects the global routing tables in the same way that a butterfly
affects wind currents.

-Greg



From ahp at hilander.com  Tue Sep 23 21:01:33 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:01:33 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064339489@dhcp157-204.corp.tellme.com>
References: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
 <2147483647.1064339489@dhcp157-204.corp.tellme.com>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064343692@[192.168.1.103]>

--On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 17:51 -0700 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 
wrote:

> For that price per month, terrestrial microwave would pay for itself
> rather quickly.  Have you considered setting up terrestrial microwave
> links between providers?

This assumes the local authority that regulates the electromagnetic 
spectrum allows such links to be setup.

Alec




From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Sep 23 21:12:35 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:12:35 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
References: <20030923151646.GA90679@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <20030924011235.GA18922@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:24:09AM +0200, William Stucke wrote:
> I couldn't find a Podunk in Iowa (I gather that the term means "nowhere
> town" in American?) but I did find Bonaparte, Iowa, population 465. If I was
> an ISP in Bonaparte, Iowa, and I wanted a T1 line to the BWW (Big Wide World
> [tm]), it would cost me $1,024 to $1,052 per month from one of two providers
> (http://shopfort1.com). If I was an ISP in Africa and I got it from my
> state-legislated monopoly Telco, it would cost me ~$55,000 per month for the
> same dedicated T1 symmetrical bandwidth.
[snip]
> On the income side, the picture is just as bleak. My company charges $14 per
> month for an unlimited access dial-up connection, for example. That compares
> rather well with a typical North American ISP, I suspect, especially
> considering that my primary input cost is 55 times higher than in Podunk (or
> 75 times higher than in California) ;-)

[Note; Yes, Podunk is a generic small town.]

You're getting right to my point with this response.  I've been
told small ISP's (eg, 1-5 T1's in a small town, single upstream,
no real network) plan on 50-100 dial-up users per T1.  Let me assume
Africa, being more bandwidth starved, is 10 times worse, so 500-1000.
At 1000 users * $14 per user = 14000, if your T1 costs $55000 you're
losing $41000 per month.

Now, let's say I have you a /16 today, free and clear.  How are you
ever going to be able to afford to use it?  How does having it make
your costs go down?  How does having it encourage more people to
buy service from you?  Or, most directly to the point, why can't
you get addresses from your upstream to meet your needs?  I know
my employer (which doesn't sell IPL's, admittedly) would happily
give you up to a /20, all you have to do is document your usage to
the same guidelines ARIN requires.  Is that process broken?  Would
multi-homing significantly change the cost model for the better (I would
think it would make it worse)?

> A "really big ISP" (think AOL, Earthlink) in Africa has a few 100,000
> dial-up subscribers, or a few hundred leased lines. There are only a handful
> of these (I can think of three, off hand), which is why there are only 19
> LIRs in sub-Saharan Africa. The overwhelming majority of African ISPs are
> far, far, smaller. For them, 1,000 subscribers is a lot.

Let's say 10% are online at any one time (I'm assuming dial up,
which if there are no free local calls seems optimistic).  the ISP
needs a /25 for the dial pool, let's give them another /25 for
"infrastructure".  They fit in a /24.

Is there a problem getting a /24 from the upstream?  Do you think it
would be possible to multihome with a /24 (hint, depending on block it
may or may not work)?  Does it make sense to require a 25% usage
requirement (assuming we give them a /22, per the proposal)?  Is a 75%
waste factor something we want to encourage anywhere?

> I understand your point, but consider this: there's something else that
> leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I send an email to you in Bonaparte, say,
> from anywhere in Africa, I pay the full cost of international transit - both
> half circuits. If you send me an email from Bonaparte, I pay the full cost
> of international transit - both half circuits. You don't pay a penny for the
> international transit. You only pay your "local" connectivity costs of $750
> for a T1 in California or $1000 in Bonaparte, Iowa. This represents an
> enormous export of scarce foreign currency from the developing world to the
> developed world. In fact, Africa pays the developed world some $400M per
> year just to send African traffic from one African country to another, via
> the USA, Europe and the Far East. (See "The Halfway Proposition"
> http://www.afrispa.org)

I agree 100% that this model is broken.  That said, I don't see where
IP's (or lack of them) make any difference in the fact that there is an
imbalance in who pays for the traffic.

All of these arguments come back to the same thing for me, "bandwidth is
expensive".  I 100% agree with that statement in Africa.  I 100% think
it is an unfair situation.  I have yet to see anyone establish a direct
link between IP's (or lack of them) and the problem though.  It looks
like a problem that needs, in order of impact:

1) Deregulating state run monopoly telco's.
2) Creating a competitive local enviornment.
3) Raising the general standard of living in that area of the world.
4) Foreign ISP's building into Africa for local peering.
5) African ISP's building their own infrastructure (eg cables) to
   other countries for peering.
6) Investment by all parties in infrastructure (eg, undersea and
   overland cables).

I have a hard time putting IP's on the list at all, but if I did it
would be way down at the bottom, and it would be because they can
facilitate things like peering.  However, with a lack of any peering
points in Africa, and bandwith being too expensive to go to peering
points outside of africa that seems to be putting the cart before the
horse.  If there were an African peering point where at least 25% of the
African ISP's showed up, and they could document the problems of
accepting more specifics of other providers space across the exchange I
might have a change of heart.

While I admit this is my self serving position, I suggest if you want
smaller allocations you get behind 2003-3, or a similar proposal.  You
can have your own opinion on if it is American arrogance or that we
really do know better, but I don't think you're going to find any real
support for 2003-15 outside of Africa with the reasons given so far.

-- 
       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/20030923/4b808954/attachment.sig>

From william at elan.net  Tue Sep 23 20:55:34 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924011235.GA18922@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309231725350.28177-100000@sokol.elan.net>


On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> While I admit this is my self serving position, I suggest if you want
> smaller allocations you get behind 2003-3, or a similar proposal.  You
> can have your own opinion on if it is American arrogance or that we
> really do know better, but I don't think you're going to find any real
> support for 2003-15 outside of Africa with the reasons given so far.

I do not believe opinion of the north american community on smaller 
allocations should be predominant issue in this case. I believe ARIN's 
operations right now in Africa should be considered as being temporary 
and public service to African community until such time as it can finish 
setup of its own ip registry. Since ARIN operates under consensus and 
based on support from the internet community, I believe ARIN's policies in 
African should be basedon consensus and support in African region and 
since there is very clear support for smaller allocation in Africa, we 
should allow them this.

Plus I think point about ARIN accomodating to allow better development of 
internet is important and I do think there are enough good reasons to believe
that portable allocations are either in case you go to peering exchange 
and can encorange competiton among upstrem providers which can futher 
reduce costs and allow for faster development of internet in the region.
(its not primary factor - Leo provide good overview of what real problems
are but its enough of a factor that it may help ISPs there and they 
clearly want it and are asking for it)

I also would like to ask if similar proposal has been put forward
for North African RIPE region (to reduce allocations to /22) and if so 
when and how it is being considered. In general I think it would be good 
idea for both RIPE and ARIN to begin developing common allocation policies 
for African regions it serves based on feedback received from those 
regions and to allow for either transition when Afrinic becomes RIR.

Separate but related issue has also been mentioned and that is reducing
costs of smaller allocations and assignments (current minimum maintanance
fee is $2500/year no matter how small ip block is), I believe ARIN Finance
Comitee should now (that we have two proposals for allocations & assignments
to be reduced to /22) begin to consider new level of payments for these
allocations and on the meeting should provide its proposal for new level
to be implemented in case policies are passed. It may even be good to 
consider doing proposals for two smaller levels (/21-/22 and /23-/24) in 
case as per policy proposal 2002-3 assignments are futher reduced. While 
its not appropriate for policy related discussion to dictate exact amounts,
my sence for it would be to reduce the amount of payments for /22 to 
about 2/3 of /20 and to about 1/2 for /24 (possibly $1500/year for /22 
and $1000/year for /24 to make for even numbers).

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net



From jlewis at lewis.org  Tue Sep 23 23:56:23 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:56:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <1064348916.1981.24.camel@linux.local>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232338140.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Abdul Rehman Gani wrote:

> We tackle this on a case-by-case basis. Most small to medium companies
> or sohos internet requirements are not affected by NAT - therefore, to
> save IP space we use NAT.

Alot of our customers use NAT too, primarily because the average business 
connecting to the net has no need for all their windows boxes to be 
directly exposed to the internet.  We don't "do NAT" on our network for 
customers though...it's done on CPE.  Are you saying that some African 
ISPs are running portions of their network behind NAT that ISPs in the US 
generally would not?

What's the motivation behind "saving space"?  I don't really worry about 
running out of IP space (other than running out before I can get more) 
because I knew when I was running a small network in PA space, I could 
just ask for (and justify) more and get it.  As a larger network in PI 
space, the same applies...I just have to do alot more paperwork and go to 
ARIN rather than one of my upstreams.

Is there some lack of IP space among African providers?  I don't see why 
there would be.  If you use it, your providers should be able to get more.

As for economic differences, I'm sure we can find ISPs in rural parts of 
the US who have few choices (and no cheap ones) for transit providers.  Is 
there a reason the African ISPs should get special treatment?

And you can multihome without PI space.  It sucks being tied to one of 
your providers (using their space), but that's the way it is.  I have a 
client I helped multihome who currently has 3 transit providers.  He's got 
hundreds of IP devices at the main office and a large handful of remote 
offices connected to the main one via leased lines.  Except for a few 
public IP servers on his DMZ, the entire network is behind NAT.  He'd love 
to have PI space so he'd be more flexible and be able to "fire" transit 
providers at will...but the way he uses IPs, he currently doesn't come 
close to qualifying.  Why shouldn't this policy apply to him?
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From jlewis at lewis.org  Wed Sep 24 00:27:24 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:27:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <HAEHIGFEEEBENEJOMPEPIEGNDHAA.tva@truteq.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240026140.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Tiaan van Aardt wrote:

> As soon as a second carrier is introduced, there is bound to be some shuffle
> to the new provider. Likewise with a third carrier (we can dream, can't we).
> In such a case would it not be unrealistic to expect said smaller ISP to ask
> all its customers to renumber simply because it has changed its upstream to
> save dollars?

That's the way it works in the US.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From leo at ripe.net  Wed Sep 24 03:22:55 2003
From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:22:55 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309231725350.28177-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <20030924011235.GA18922@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309231725350.28177-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <20030924072255.GA20987@ripe.net>

Hi William,

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:55:34PM -0700, william at elan.net wrote:

[...]

> I also would like to ask if similar proposal has been put forward
> for North African RIPE region (to reduce allocations to /22) and if so 
> when and how it is being considered. In general I think it would be good 
> idea for both RIPE and ARIN to begin developing common allocation policies 
> for African regions it serves based on feedback received from those 
> regions and to allow for either transition when Afrinic becomes RIR.

So far there has not been any discussion of separate policies 
for the African portion of the RIPE NCC service region. However, 
if there is demand then I am sure the topic can be raised on 
the <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> list and at RIPE 47 in January.

It is worth noting that current RIPE policy allows LIRs to
request PI address space for network operators. Both PA and PI 
assignment policies are "exactly identical with regards to the 
amount of address space assigned, the registration requirements, 
etc. This also implies that assigning PI space prefixes longer 
than 24 bits is perfectly acceptable if the request does not 
merit 8 bits of address space to be assigned."

(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pi-pa.html)

Essentially, network operators in countries served by the RIPE 
NCC can receive small (or large) PI assignments when justified. 
There are no direct charges for the assignments as the RIPE NCC 
provides service on a membership subscription basis. The request 
for PI address space does not have to come from the LIR run by 
their upstream provider. If their upstream is unwilling to submit 
a request then they can ask any other LIR to submit if for them.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Best regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC


From william at elan.net  Wed Sep 24 02:39:44 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924072255.GA20987@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232328590.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, leo vegoda wrote:

> It is worth noting that current RIPE policy allows LIRs to
> request PI address space for network operators. Both PA and PI 
> assignment policies are "exactly identical with regards to the 
> amount of address space assigned, the registration requirements, 
> etc. This also implies that assigning PI space prefixes longer 
> than 24 bits is perfectly acceptable if the request does not 
> merit 8 bits of address space to be assigned."
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pi-pa.html)

Thank you for the clarification as I could never understood for sure if 
your PI blocks can be allocated or only assigned and it was difficult to 
tell for sure from allocations because so many blocks are improperly 
marked in whois assigned instead of allocated and PA instead of PI.

As it appears inlike ARIN, RIPE already has policies that apply to Africa 
that allow providers there to request PI space, I think it would be 
interesting as feedback when considering 2003-15 to know how many PI 
blocks have been allocated by RIPE to organizations with address listed in 
Africa. If you have kept such statistics, please let us know for last
several years, if possible separately listing number of PI assigned and 
PI Allocated space per year to organizations in Africa. 

If possible also for comparison provide statistics on how LIRs in RIPE
are from Africa (i.e. like member ISPs in ARIN).

Thanks

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Wed Sep 24 05:32:14 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:32:14 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF58FB8F49.BA65F556-ON80256DAB.00338DDA-80256DAB.00346404@radianz.com>

>> procedures.  In turn this means only about 10% of the ISPs are capable 
of
>> providing the higher service levels that portable address space makes
>> possible.

>Please excuse me for being dense today, but can you define "higher
>service levels"?  In addition, would you please tell me why one can't
>provide those "higher service levels" under current policies?

It was already pointed out that portable space is needed for multihoming
and, in Africa, there are more frequent outages for single-homed
providers, therefore in order to increase service levels a provider
needs to multihome. And since these are smaller companies on average
it makes sense to allocate them smaller portable blocks to avoid
wasting IP addresses.

Since current policies make it impossible for African ISPs to get
portable blocks, current policies are making multihoming impossible
therefore current policies are an indirect cause of low service
levels in Africa.

>However there are no reasons given.  Why are smaller ISPs in Africa 
unable
>to obtain IP space from upstream providers? 

We went through this discussion several years ago when U.S. ISPs were a
lot smaller on average. The issue is not lack of IP space, it is lack
of portable IP space. An upstream provider cannot issue portable IP space,
only an RIR like ARIN can do that.

>That question needs to be
>answered and if there is a valid issue there it needs to be taken care of
>at the source.  It shouldn't be circumvented by loosening requirements 
for
>one geogrpahic area.

In this special case, I don't see a problem with setting special policies 
for one geographic area. This is a transitional policy that is part of the
process of setting up an African RIR to handle the needs of ISPs that are
now served by RIPE and ARIN and APNIC. I would be opposed to special 
policies
for California or Newfoundland but I support them for continental Africa.

--Michael Dillon



From adiel at akplogan.net  Wed Sep 24 05:46:46 2003
From: adiel at akplogan.net (Adiel AKPLOGAN)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:46:46 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <HAEHIGFEEEBENEJOMPEPIEGNDHAA.tva@truteq.com>
References: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030924110334.0287e048@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>

Hello,

>As soon as a second carrier is introduced, there is bound to be some shuffle
>to the new provider. Likewise with a third carrier (we can dream, can't we).
>In such a case would it not be unrealistic to expect said smaller ISP to ask
>all its customers to renumber simply because it has changed its upstream to
>save dollars?

I think this point is very important. As it is not always easy to
justify that you have to renumber every time you change
your upstream provider....and i can tell you that this happen
very often in our environment...

*** for those wondering why ISP can not get IP from their upstream?
One reason can be the coast for raising their
membership level (category) according to the RIR fees model.
Using more IP address by providing smaller blocks to their
down stream can and up at their end  with the need to move
to higher membership level and then paying more for IP block
allocated to them....

- a.


############################################
Adiel AKPLOGAN - Ingenieur r?seau - RHCE / CSS
20, Boulevard Richard-Lenoir - 75011 Paris - FRANCE
Hm: +33 (0)1 49 23 02 87 | Mob: +33 (0)6 72 75 80 49
e-mail: adiel at akplogan.net | Web: www.akplogan.net  



From aragon at phat.za.net  Wed Sep 24 06:01:38 2003
From: aragon at phat.za.net (Aragon Gouveia)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:01:38 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064343692@[192.168.1.103]>
References: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za> <2147483647.1064339489@dhcp157-204.corp.tellme.com> <2147483647.1064343692@[192.168.1.103]>
Message-ID: <20030924100138.GA94330@phat.za.net>

| By Alec H. Peterson <ahp at hilander.com>
|                                          [ 2003-09-24 03:02 +0200 ]
> --On Tuesday, September 23, 2003 17:51 -0700 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> >For that price per month, terrestrial microwave would pay for itself
> >rather quickly.  Have you considered setting up terrestrial microwave
> >links between providers?
> 
> This assumes the local authority that regulates the electromagnetic 
> spectrum allows such links to be setup.

Thank you for pointing this out.  Not even 802.11 is legal in South Africa,
let alone Microwave.  Except in very special cases where our monopolised
telco may be forced to implement wireless connectivity, but they will still
charge the same (if not more) for this service as they do for a wired
connection of the same speed.


Regards,
Aragon



From calvin at orange-tree.alt.za  Wed Sep 24 06:47:22 2003
From: calvin at orange-tree.alt.za (Calvin Browne)
Date: 24 Sep 2003 12:47:22 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
References: <00d901c381f1$220c51c0$0d811eac@depach>
	 <E1A1qQx-0006F0-JA@roam.psg.com>
Message-ID: <1064400442.22430.10.camel@calvin.coza.net.za>

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 18:54, Randy Bush wrote:
> clearly there is a big promo campaign in south africa to make
> this proposal seem widely supported.  i suggest that input from
> other folk would be interesting.

Having spoken to other Africans, it's my opinion that they suffer much
more than South African ISP's for the same (but more intense) reasons -
William - how about getting input from the AfrISPA folks from non SA
ISP's?

> 
> randy (who suggested this hack five years ago)

I could have used this five years ago when setting up what by SA
standards would have been a medium ISP, but probably a small ISP by
North American standards.

While we were 'multihomed' we got little of the benefit - eventually I
just hid everything behing IP masquarading, but it was a real pain and
hindered our growth to a large extent - and I've seen the same occuring
to people time again since.

--Calvin

---------------------* My opinions are mine *---------------------------
 Calvin Browne calvin at UniForum.org.za c at lvin.co.za
               Office phone: 080 314 0077        +27 11 314-0077
               http://orange-tree.alt.za Mobile: +27 83 303-0663
               Call me for Linux/Internet consulting
------------------------------------------------------------------------




From leo at ripe.net  Wed Sep 24 07:15:16 2003
From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:15:16 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232328590.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <20030924072255.GA20987@ripe.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232328590.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <20030924111516.GC23558@ripe.net>

Hi William,

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:39:44PM -0700, william at elan.net wrote:

[...]

> Thank you for the clarification as I could never understood for sure if 
> your PI blocks can be allocated or only assigned and it was difficult to 
> tell for sure from allocations because so many blocks are improperly 
> marked in whois assigned instead of allocated and PA instead of PI.

We only make PI assignments, now. In the past we have made PI
allocations. The definitions we use for the terms "allocate" and
"assign" are nicely defined in the common IPv6 policy document (our
IPv4 policy documentation is being updated).

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#allocate

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#assign

> As it appears inlike ARIN, RIPE already has policies that apply to Africa 
> that allow providers there to request PI space, I think it would be 

Our policy applies to the whole of the RIPE NCC service region. We
do not have any policies that apply to a sub-set of countries within
our region.

> interesting as feedback when considering 2003-15 to know how many PI 
> blocks have been allocated by RIPE to organizations with address listed in 
> Africa. If you have kept such statistics, please let us know for last
> several years, if possible separately listing number of PI assigned and 
> PI Allocated space per year to organizations in Africa. 
> 
> If possible also for comparison provide statistics on how LIRs in RIPE
> are from Africa (i.e. like member ISPs in ARIN).

We have 69 active LIRs in the part of Africa served by the RIPE NCC.
We have made 149 IPv4 allocations to these LIRs (about a /12 when
combined) and assigned 49 AS Numbers. 

We have made eight PI assignments to network operators in Africa
since July 2001. There were all between /24 and /22. 

I hope this information is useful to you.

Best regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
Registration Services Manager
RIPE NCC


From theo at uniforum.org.za  Wed Sep 24 07:45:17 2003
From: theo at uniforum.org.za (Theo Kramer)
Date: 24 Sep 2003 13:45:17 +0200
Subject: [IOZ] Fw: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation
	Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030923173105.GA56081@phat.za.net>
References: <013401c381f5$76da6260$0d811eac@depach>
	 <20030923173105.GA56081@phat.za.net>
Message-ID: <1064403917.3601.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 19:31, Aragon Gouveia wrote:
> Not really.  Randy has a point.  The proposal is targetted at Africa, not just
> South Africa.  I'd also like to hear the opinions of other African countries
> to see if they're faced with the same difficulties we are.

It is targeted at the region of Africa which is covered by ARIN.

> 
> Unfortunately I have a feeling few other African internet communities will
> be aware of this proposal right now. :/
> 
> If they are, speak up please!

I have forwarded the policy notification to afrinic-discuss at afrinic.org.
Regards
Theo



From abdulg-lists at eastcoast.co.za  Wed Sep 24 08:16:48 2003
From: abdulg-lists at eastcoast.co.za (Abdul Rehman Gani)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:16:48 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232338140.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232338140.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <1064405807.2227.10.camel@linux.local>

On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 05:56, jlewis at lewis.org wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Abdul Rehman Gani wrote:
> 

> Alot of our customers use NAT too, primarily because the average business 
> connecting to the net has no need for all their windows boxes to be 
> directly exposed to the internet.  We don't "do NAT" on our network for 
> customers though...it's done on CPE.  Are you saying that some African 
> ISPs are running portions of their network behind NAT that ISPs in the US 
> generally would not?

No us, but I cannot speak for all ISP's. We do it on CPE.

> 
> What's the motivation behind "saving space"?  I don't really worry about 

Managing a scarce resource.

Abdul




From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 10:26:05 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:26:05 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF58FB8F49.BA65F556-ON80256DAB.00338DDA-80256DAB.00346404@radianz.com> <20030924111516.GC23558@ripe.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030924110334.0287e048@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
References: <OF58FB8F49.BA65F556-ON80256DAB.00338DDA-80256DAB.00346404@radianz.com> <20030924072255.GA20987@ripe.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309232328590.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net> <20030924111516.GC23558@ripe.net> <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za> <5.2.0.9.0.20030924110334.0287e048@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
Message-ID: <20030924142605.GA47491@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:46:46AM +0200, Adiel AKPLOGAN wrote:
> *** for those wondering why ISP can not get IP from their upstream?
> One reason can be the coast for raising their
> membership level (category) according to the RIR fees model.
> Using more IP address by providing smaller blocks to their
> down stream can and up at their end  with the need to move
> to higher membership level and then paying more for IP block
> allocated to them....

I can see this is a very legitimate problem.  ARIN fees when
translated to local currency and put in the context of an ISP's
budget may be much more of a burden.  I don't think anyone wants
the ARIN support fee to prevent people from getting the IP's they
need, so if that's a problem we should get some economic data and
look at how we can make the fee less of a burden to African ISP's.

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:15:16PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote:
> Our policy applies to the whole of the RIPE NCC service region. We
> do not have any policies that apply to a sub-set of countries within
> our region.
[snip]
> We have 69 active LIRs in the part of Africa served by the RIPE NCC.
> We have made 149 IPv4 allocations to these LIRs (about a /12 when
> combined) and assigned 49 AS Numbers. 
> 
> We have made eight PI assignments to network operators in Africa
> since July 2001. There were all between /24 and /22. 

So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the discussion
so far it seems both are assigning space.  This surprises me, as I
thought things had been divided up geographically.  I don't think we
want two (or more) people assinging space to the same group.

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:32:14AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> It was already pointed out that portable space is needed for multihoming
> and, in Africa, there are more frequent outages for single-homed
> providers, therefore in order to increase service levels a provider
> needs to multihome. And since these are smaller companies on average
> it makes sense to allocate them smaller portable blocks to avoid
> wasting IP addresses.

Portable space is not /needed/ to multihome.  Portable space, in
many cases, makes multi-homing easier, but there are more than a
few ways to do it without.

> Since current policies make it impossible for African ISPs to get
> portable blocks, current policies are making multihoming impossible
> therefore current policies are an indirect cause of low service
> levels in Africa.

s/African ISPs/small providers in the ARIN service region/
s/in Africa/in areas where only a small ISP exists/

While the African's may have brought this up with their proposal,
this is not a situation unique to them.  They may well be the largest
affected group though.

> In this special case, I don't see a problem with setting special policies 
> for one geographic area. This is a transitional policy that is part of the
> process of setting up an African RIR to handle the needs of ISPs that are
> now served by RIPE and ARIN and APNIC. I would be opposed to special 
> policies
> for California or Newfoundland but I support them for continental Africa.

I guess we will just have to disagree on that point.  I am a firm
believer that RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, and any others that come along
should have the same rules for allocating IPv4 space.  There are
two simple reasons, first, it is a global resource, and second if
they are different companies that are able to span regions will be
at an advantage by being able to pick and choose.  While I don't
know the exact players, I'll bet there's at least one international
ISP in Africa that gives away IP's like water because they have a
larger allocation from somewhere else (eg, the old "you get a /24
with every T1" sort of sales campaign).  Differing policies fuel
that sort of abuse.

-- 
       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/20030924/c1c36ee3/attachment.sig>

From mje at posix.co.za  Wed Sep 24 10:27:22 2003
From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark ELkins)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:27:22 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za>
Message-ID: <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za>

I'm in the fortunate position of having some historical allocations.
When it came to assisting some of the ISP's downstream of me with their own 
allocations - so they could Multihome - life was not easy. The process took 
months.  I assisted with two sites, one in Namibia and one in Lesotho. This 
is not just a South African thing but very much an African thing and very 
much needed. I can see a number of ISP's in Swaziland who will benefit.

Excelent proposal.
(I'd have no problem this becomming a global thing)
-- 
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco 
CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496


From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 10:43:28 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:43:28 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za>
Message-ID: <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:27:22PM +0200, Mark ELkins wrote:
> I'm in the fortunate position of having some historical allocations.
> When it came to assisting some of the ISP's downstream of me with their own 
> allocations - so they could Multihome - life was not easy. The process took 
> months.  I assisted with two sites, one in Namibia and one in Lesotho. This 
> is not just a South African thing but very much an African thing and very 
> much needed. I can see a number of ISP's in Swaziland who will benefit.

Let me ask a different, but related, question.

Who gets to multihome?

For this argument I'll take as fact that allocations (or lack of)
decided who can or cannot multihome.  What set of people, globally,
get to multihome?

Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subscribers get to
multihome, yet E-Bay with several gigabits of traffic and millions
of users not?

Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subcribers get to
multihome, but a US ISP with a DS-3 and 10000 subscribers not?

When a US ISP the same size as an African ISP comes to ARIN after
this has passed and claims that if an African ISP of his size can
multi-home, what argument are we going to use to tell him no?  You
have it too easy already because you have cheap bandwidth?  That
doesn't sound like a good answer.

Who gets to multihome?

Are we changing the requirement from the technical (number of users)
to the political (the poor and disadvantaged get extra help)?  That
seems to be a pretty fundamental change to me.

-- 
       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/20030924/59bc7df3/attachment.sig>

From joe at frogfoot.net  Wed Sep 24 11:42:01 2003
From: joe at frogfoot.net (Johann Botha)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:42:01 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za> <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net>

Hi Leo                                           >@2003.09.24_16:43:28_+0200

First of all, let me say I support this porposal 100%

I believe we need to see a change in IP allocation criteria for the African
region.. even if only by one bit, if not by two as in the proposal. And if
we dont see this change while ARIN controls our regions alloctations then we
will see it when AfriNIC does... so why wait?, why hamper growth?

I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other regions.

If porposal 2003-15 is adopted I think it will have a negligible impact on
the size of the global routing table and I cant think of any other technical
reason not to accept this porposal.

> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subscribers get to
> multihome, yet E-Bay with several gigabits of traffic and millions
> of users not?

Because renumbering 5 webservers is not the same sport as renumbering an
entire ISP client base.. and content providers in Africa are also usually
not multi-homed.

> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subcribers get to
> multihome, but a US ISP with a DS-3 and 10000 subscribers not?

Why do you care ? What do you stand to loose ? Ever been to Africa ? It's
very clear there is a need for this policy change.. and more importantly..
there is support for it.

If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
space.. well, then submit a proposal.

I think this should be an open and shut case, pick a block of IPs to be
moved to AfriNIC soon and start handing out /22s to African networks who fit
the criteria. In my mind this is a smart solution until AfriNIC is up and
running and has no real impact on non African ARIN members.

-- 
Regards                  ..Friends don't let friends use Outlook
 Johann

          'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
                                 - Leonardo da Vinci
________________________________________________________________
 Johann L. Botha      Frogfoot Networks ISP              AS22355
 joe at frogfoot.net     http://www.frogfoot.net/
 +27.82.562.6167      Built and Managed with Attention to Detail
 0860 KERMIT
 http://blue.frogfoot.net/


From richardj at arin.net  Wed Sep 24 11:46:29 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:46:29 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924142605.GA47491@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <006e01c382b3$177498e0$698888c0@arin.net>

Hello Leo,

> So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the 
> discussion so far it seems both are assigning space.  This 
> surprises me, as I thought things had been divided up 
> geographically.  I don't think we want two (or more) people 
> assinging space to the same group.

APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC all provide registration services
in Africa, but not all to the same countries.  The Africa
service region is currently split between these three RIRs.
Information about which RIR provides services to particular
countries is available at:

http://www.arin.net/library/internet_info/countries.html

Best Regards,

-Richard Jimmerson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:26 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation 
> Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
> 
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:46:46AM 
> +0200, Adiel AKPLOGAN wrote:
> > *** for those wondering why ISP can not get IP from their upstream? 
> > One reason can be the coast for raising their membership level 
> > (category) according to the RIR fees model. Using more IP 
> address by 
> > providing smaller blocks to their down stream can and up at 
> their end  
> > with the need to move to higher membership level and then 
> paying more 
> > for IP block allocated to them....
> 
> I can see this is a very legitimate problem.  ARIN fees when 
> translated to local currency and put in the context of an 
> ISP's budget may be much more of a burden.  I don't think 
> anyone wants the ARIN support fee to prevent people from 
> getting the IP's they need, so if that's a problem we should 
> get some economic data and look at how we can make the fee 
> less of a burden to African ISP's.
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 01:15:16PM 
> +0200, leo vegoda wrote:
> > Our policy applies to the whole of the RIPE NCC service 
> region. We do 
> > not have any policies that apply to a sub-set of countries 
> within our 
> > region.
> [snip]
> > We have 69 active LIRs in the part of Africa served by the 
> RIPE NCC. 
> > We have made 149 IPv4 allocations to these LIRs (about a /12 when
> > combined) and assigned 49 AS Numbers.
> > 
> > We have made eight PI assignments to network operators in 
> Africa since 
> > July 2001. There were all between /24 and /22.
> 
> So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the 
> discussion so far it seems both are assigning space.  This 
> surprises me, as I thought things had been divided up 
> geographically.  I don't think we want two (or more) people 
> assinging space to the same group.
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:32:14AM 
> +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > It was already pointed out that portable space is needed for 
> > multihoming and, in Africa, there are more frequent outages for 
> > single-homed providers, therefore in order to increase 
> service levels 
> > a provider needs to multihome. And since these are smaller 
> companies 
> > on average it makes sense to allocate them smaller portable 
> blocks to 
> > avoid wasting IP addresses.
> 
> Portable space is not /needed/ to multihome.  Portable space, 
> in many cases, makes multi-homing easier, but there are more 
> than a few ways to do it without.
> 
> > Since current policies make it impossible for African ISPs to get 
> > portable blocks, current policies are making multihoming impossible 
> > therefore current policies are an indirect cause of low 
> service levels 
> > in Africa.
> 
> s/African ISPs/small providers in the ARIN service region/
> s/in Africa/in areas where only a small ISP exists/
> 
> While the African's may have brought this up with their 
> proposal, this is not a situation unique to them.  They may 
> well be the largest affected group though.
> 
> > In this special case, I don't see a problem with setting special 
> > policies
> > for one geographic area. This is a transitional policy that 
> is part of the
> > process of setting up an African RIR to handle the needs of 
> ISPs that are
> > now served by RIPE and ARIN and APNIC. I would be opposed 
> to special 
> > policies
> > for California or Newfoundland but I support them for 
> continental Africa.
> 
> I guess we will just have to disagree on that point.  I am a 
> firm believer that RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, and any others that 
> come along should have the same rules for allocating IPv4 
> space.  There are two simple reasons, first, it is a global 
> resource, and second if they are different companies that are 
> able to span regions will be at an advantage by being able to 
> pick and choose.  While I don't know the exact players, I'll 
> bet there's at least one international ISP in Africa that 
> gives away IP's like water because they have a larger 
> allocation from somewhere else (eg, the old "you get a /24 
> with every T1" sort of sales campaign).  Differing policies 
> fuel that sort of abuse.
> 
> -- 
>        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 mje at posix.co.za  Wed Sep 24 11:51:57 2003
From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark ELkins)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:51:57 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <200309241751.57469.mje@posix.co.za>

On Wednesday 24 September 2003 16:26, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the discussion
> so far it seems both are assigning space.  This surprises me, as I
> thought things had been divided up geographically.  I don't think we
> want two (or more) people assinging space to the same group.

Actually - ARIN, RIPE and APNIC all allocate to what should one day become
AfriNIC  :-)

Generally... RIPE has the top half of Africa, ARIN the bottom half and APNIC
some islands in the Indian Ocean...

--

The proposal is basically allowing an african ISP who is a quarter of the
 size of a non-african ARIN ISP to be seen as equally sized when it comes to
 address allocations. Nothing else.

--
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco
CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496


From William at zanet.co.za  Wed Sep 24 11:57:17 2003
From: William at zanet.co.za (William Stucke)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:57:17 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924142605.GA47491@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEOEEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>

Leo Bicknell asked: -

> So, is ARIN or RIPE assigning space in Africa?  From the discussion
so far it seems both are assigning space.  This surprises me, as I
thought things had been divided up geographically.

ARIN assigns space in sub-Saharan Africa. RIPE assigns space in North
Africa. That's why I specifically highlighted the six countries in my
previous message that form part of sub-Saharan Africa, i.e. get their
allocations from ARIN.

>  don't think anyone wants
the ARIN support fee to prevent people from getting the IP's they
need, so if that's a problem we should get some economic data and
look at how we can make the fee less of a burden to African ISP's.

Thank you for recognising the point I made previously. Smaller allocations,
with a smaller fee, would suit Africans better. $2500 might not be a lot of
money, but R20,000 or Ks200,000 or Us1,000,000 *IS* a lot of money.

> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subscribers get to
multihome, yet E-Bay with several gigabits of traffic and millions
of users not?

Ahem. An African ISP with 1000 subscribers has 64 kbps to 256 kbps, *NOT* an
E1 ;-) We simply can't afford an E1. An E1 would cost 5 times the ISP's
total income, excluding any other costs.

The E-Bay example is comparing apples with oranges, I think. E-Bay runs a
web site, they don't provide access, as far as I know. Their "users" are
accessing their web sites to buy and sell stuff. That doesn't make them an
ISP. It means that they go to an ISP who *IS* multihomed and pay him to host
their servers.

> When a US ISP the same size as an African ISP comes to ARIN after
this has passed and claims that if an African ISP of his size can
multi-home, what argument are we going to use to tell him no?

I have no problem in making it a global solution. Follow the RIPE example
and have "micro" members.


Regards,

William Stucke
ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
+27 11 465 0700
William at zanet.co.za

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24



From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 12:00:40 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:00:40 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za> <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net>
Message-ID: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:42:01PM +0200, Johann Botha wrote:
> I believe we need to see a change in IP allocation criteria for the African
> region.. even if only by one bit, if not by two as in the proposal. And if
> we dont see this change while ARIN controls our regions alloctations then we
> will see it when AfriNIC does... so why wait?, why hamper growth?
> 
> I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other regions.

Then please support 2002-3.  There are three basic positions, people
who don't want to move the prefix size, people who want to move it
globally, and people who want to move it in Africa.  If the latter
two combine efforts behind 2003-3 it will be more likely to pass,
where as if they both continue both are likely to be rejected for
lack of support.

For the record, I generally support 2002-3.  I would like to see
it done differently, but it's the only proposal currently on the
table that does what I want to see, so that's the one I need to
support.

> > Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subcribers get to
> > multihome, but a US ISP with a DS-3 and 10000 subscribers not?
> 
> Why do you care ? What do you stand to loose ? Ever been to Africa ? It's
> very clear there is a need for this policy change.. and more importantly..
> there is support for it.

I care because that will be the very next question raised.  I'll
tell you right now that if 100 ISP's in Africa can get the allocation
size moved in Africa, there will be 1000 ISP's in the US who will
come back and say "what about me, I'm bigger then they are after
all, so I should be able to multi-home too".  This policy change will
have impact to other regions, and ARIN must consider that when it
makes policy.

> If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
> space.. well, then submit a proposal.

One is already there, 2002-3.  I support it.

> I think this should be an open and shut case, pick a block of IPs to be
> moved to AfriNIC soon and start handing out /22s to African networks who fit
> the criteria. In my mind this is a smart solution until AfriNIC is up and
> running and has no real impact on non African ARIN members.

Now, that is a horse of a different color.  I had no idea allocations
were so fragmented across the continent (I had simply never looked
before), and now that I see RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC are all involved
I am a strong supporter of getting an AfriNIC up and running to
unify the process in that region.  They would of course be free to
set their own policies -- however I still believe there should be
generally the same policy worldwide.

At the end of the day 2003-15 seems to treat a symptom of the real
problem, rather than the problem.  We need to pass 2002-3 and solve
the IP allocation size issue for everyone.  We need to create AfriNIC
and unify the African allocations.  We don't need to apply a region
specific band-aid.

-- 
       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/20030924/212bf564/attachment.sig>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 12:29:58 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:29:58 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
 <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za>
 <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
 <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064395798@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>



--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:42 PM +0200 Johann Botha 
<joe at frogfoot.net> wrote:

> Hi Leo
> >@2003.09.24_16:43:28_+0200
>
> First of all, let me say I support this porposal 100%
>
> I believe we need to see a change in IP allocation criteria for the
> African region.. even if only by one bit, if not by two as in the
> proposal. And if we dont see this change while ARIN controls our regions
> alloctations then we will see it when AfriNIC does... so why wait?, why
> hamper growth?
>
I believe we need this change globally, and, I see nothing so far that
makes Africa a special case.  I will support this proposal if it is
ARIN global.  I will not support this proposal if it is sub-region specific.
What AfriNIC may or may not do after it gets created if it gets created
is not something I am willing to consider a factor in developing ARIN
policy.  I don't see any reason to wait or hamper growth in North America
or Africa.  I certainly don't see a reason to give <=10000 user ISPs in
Africa an advantage over <=10000 user ISPs in North America.

> I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other
> regions.
>
I think you will have a problem if ARIN does not.

> If porposal 2003-15 is adopted I think it will have a negligible impact on
> the size of the global routing table and I cant think of any other
> technical reason not to accept this porposal.
>
There is no technical reason not to make it global, either.

>> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subscribers get to
>> multihome, yet E-Bay with several gigabits of traffic and millions
>> of users not?
>
> Because renumbering 5 webservers is not the same sport as renumbering an
> entire ISP client base.. and content providers in Africa are also usually
> not multi-homed.
>
1.	Ebay has far more than 5 webservers.
2.	Renumbering a /22 for 1000 dialup subscribers is nowhere near as
	difficult as renumbering a /22 worth of content hosting.  Therefore,
	I see less reason to make an exception for African ISPs.

>> Why does an African ISP with an E1 and 1000 subcribers get to
>> multihome, but a US ISP with a DS-3 and 10000 subscribers not?
>
> Why do you care ? What do you stand to loose ? Ever been to Africa ? It's
> very clear there is a need for this policy change.. and more importantly..
> there is support for it.
>
Ever been to North America and looked at the reality of being a small(er)
ISP here?  It's very clear there is a need for this policy change.
More importantly, there is support for it, but, to some extent, it is an
opressed minority.

> If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
> space.. well, then submit a proposal.
>
There is a proposal on the table for MicroAllocations.  If African ISPs
want this policy (2002-3 if memory serves), they should support it.  At
best, 2003-15 is an attempt to get what Africa wants/needs while leaving
the rest of ARINs geography twisting in the wind.  My advice would be that
if African ISPs want this, they should get behind the global microallocation
policy and make good use of the allies that will bring to the table.

> I think this should be an open and shut case, pick a block of IPs to be
> moved to AfriNIC soon and start handing out /22s to African networks who
> fit the criteria. In my mind this is a smart solution until AfriNIC is up
> and running and has no real impact on non African ARIN members.
>
I think this should be an open and shut case and African ISPs should get
behind a global policy to move the prefix size to /22.  I agree that ARINs
current operational practice of assigning Africa out of distinct /8(s) is
a good idea.  That way, if AfriNIC comes into existance, those /8(s) can
be transferred easily to AfriNIC.  However, creating exceptions to global
policy for Africa because AfriNIC may adopt a similar policy if AfriNIC
comes into existance is absurd.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for AfriNIC coming into existance and for them
being able to set whatever policies meet the needs of their region if they
do (within ICANN/IANA guidelines).  However, until then, I don't see making
sub-regional exceptions as a good plan.  Especially ones that solve a 
problem
that is not unique to the sub-region.

>           'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
>                                  - Leonardo da Vinci

It is much simpler to make a global policy for a global problem.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 12:35:08 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:35:08 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEOEEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
References: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEOEEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064396108@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

> The E-Bay example is comparing apples with oranges, I think. E-Bay runs a
> web site, they don't provide access, as far as I know. Their "users" are
> accessing their web sites to buy and sell stuff. That doesn't make them an
> ISP. It means that they go to an ISP who *IS* multihomed and pay him to
> host their servers.
>
E-Bay is not an ISP.  However, E-Bay does have reasons to go to more than
one ISP and _BE_ multihomed themselves.

>> When a US ISP the same size as an African ISP comes to ARIN after
> this has passed and claims that if an African ISP of his size can
> multi-home, what argument are we going to use to tell him no?
>
> I have no problem in making it a global solution. Follow the RIPE example
> and have "micro" members.
>
Then encourage everyone trying to get 2003-15 to get behind the 
micro-allocation
policy (I think it's 2002-3) and we can stop having 2003-15 detract from
a real solution.

Owen



From joe at frogfoot.net  Wed Sep 24 12:36:25 2003
From: joe at frogfoot.net (Johann Botha)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:36:25 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za> <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net> <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <20030924163625.GB23053@blue.frogfoot.net>

Hi Leo                                           >@2003.09.24_18:00:40_+0200

> I care because that will be the very next question raised.  I'll
> tell you right now that if 100 ISP's in Africa can get the allocation
> size moved in Africa, there will be 1000 ISP's in the US who will
> come back and say "what about me, I'm bigger then they are after
> all, so I should be able to multi-home too".

I guess the answer would be, because this is a "region specific band-aid"..
(your words)

* until we see AfriNIC up and running
* there was a clear consensus under African network operators
* because ARIN servers probably _the_ two extremes of regions
  ..but lets not get into comparing Africa and America
  
-- 
Regards                  ..Friends don't let friends use Outlook
 Johann

          'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
                                 - Leonardo da Vinci
________________________________________________________________
 Johann L. Botha      Frogfoot Networks ISP              AS22355
 joe at frogfoot.net     http://www.frogfoot.net/
 +27.82.562.6167      Built and Managed with Attention to Detail
 0860 KERMIT
 http://blue.frogfoot.net/


From william at elan.net  Wed Sep 24 10:10:22 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> > I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other regions.
> 
> Then please support 2002-3.  There are three basic positions, people
> who don't want to move the prefix size, people who want to move it
> globally, and people who want to move it in Africa.  If the latter
> two combine efforts behind 2003-3 it will be more likely to pass,
> where as if they both continue both are likely to be rejected for
> lack of support.
I would like to highlight some differences between 2002-3 and 2002-15:

2002-3 is policy to alloe micro-assignments for ARIN region, that is 
assignments of ip space for use directly by organization (that 
organization can be ISP and use it for dialup, though as I uderstand
which may work for African ISPs). Also note that organizations that 
received ip space under 2002 would not become members of ARIN (at least as 
far as I understand proposal now, I would like to have ARIN staff respond 
here if this is not true and they would be members automaticly with 
micro-assignments).

2003-15 proposal would allow for smaller allocations for African region 
only, allowing those ip blocks to be used by ISPs not only for themselve 
but also allowing them to reassign portion of the block to their customers.
Since these would be allocations, my understanding is that African ISPs 
received ip blocks under that proposal would become members of ARIN

> I care because that will be the very next question raised.  I'll
> tell you right now that if 100 ISP's in Africa can get the allocation
> size moved in Africa, there will be 1000 ISP's in the US who will
> come back and say "what about me, I'm bigger then they are after
> all, so I should be able to multi-home too".  This policy change will
> have impact to other regions, and ARIN must consider that when it
> makes policy.
If we make sufficiently clear that policy is being adapted only to support 
establishment of RIR in that region, they would understand and not ask.

> > If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
> > space.. well, then submit a proposal.
> 
> One is already there, 2002-3.  I support it.
See above on differences between 2002-3 (ip space provided to end-usersk, 
not ISPs) and 2003-15 (ip space for ISPs). 
 
> Now, that is a horse of a different color.  I had no idea allocations
> were so fragmented across the continent (I had simply never looked
> before), and now that I see RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC are all involved
> I am a strong supporter of getting an AfriNIC up and running to
> unify the process in that region.  They would of course be free to
> set their own policies -- however 
Fully setting up RIR is not as easy as that, especially in Africa. Its
not only policies and handling of requests but they need to have enough
members to support the RIR financially (and for example LACNIC is getting 
funding from two regional registries in Brazil and Mexico, none of that 
exists in Africa). There are also lots of other technical, administration, 
legal and other challenges before RIR could be ready. I do not think 
Afrinic is anywhere close to that position and will not be in the next 2 
years. Currently Afrinic is instead planning to setup a mini RIR within 
RIPE and handle registrations by their personnel but according to RIPE 
policies, but providing ip space in South Africa would still mean that 
policies of ARIN apply there.

What I do think is that we need a special procedures for policies to be 
adapted for emerging RIRs and these should be considered completely 
separate from other policies and should be done in more formal and global
manner. Something like that if the organization is recognized as emerging 
RIR by ASO and has established liason with ASO, then that liason can 
request certain policies for his/hers region and this request should then 
be evaluated by effected RIRs (making allocations in the region of 
emerging RIR) in a manner similar to global policy but evaluating its 
impact primarily only in how it effects the emerging RIR region. After 
policy is passed it becames policy that would only effect allocations or 
requests in that new region and only if the requests are handled through 
emerging RIR  i.e. somebody would make request to afrinic for example and
it would then pass along request to ARIN, but policy being applied to 
request would be policy specially passed for the emerging RIR. In that 
case basicly overtime emerging RIR is able to established its own policies
(which since its not established RIR are evaluated for their consistancy 
with some global policy document agreed by all rirs) and these policies 
only take effect for the new RIR region. After full RIR is established 
the policies ase migrated to the RIR and it can establish new policies
without having them approved by other RIRs.

> I still believe there should be
> generally the same policy worldwide.
That is what RIRs believe as well, since they tried to work out global
policy for ipv6. However there are enough individual differences between
regions that 100% same policies are not always appropriate so a more 
general framework for ip policies is better (as was provided before
by RFC2050), this should be worked out by ASO (or NRO or whatever else
is established as global organization for all RIRs) as global policy
documents.
  
-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net



From Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca  Wed Sep 24 12:49:27 2003
From: Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca (Trevor Paquette)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:49:27 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <004701c38236$c27331c0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
Message-ID: <013c01c382bb$d19f5040$2a45fea9@teraint.net>

> There are only 19 ARIN members in Africa. If this figure were 
> to quadruple, that may mean another 57 new prefixes to be announced... 
> 0.05% of the total routing table.
> 
> This affects the global routing tables in the same way that a 
> butterfly affects wind currents.

  don't go there... ever hear of chaos-theory??

> -Greg




From joe at frogfoot.net  Wed Sep 24 12:58:10 2003
From: joe at frogfoot.net (Johann Botha)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:58:10 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064395798@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net> <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za> <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net> <2147483647.1064395798@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <20030924165810.GC23053@blue.frogfoot.net>

Hi Owen                                          >@2003.09.24_18:29:58_+0200

> I believe we need this change globally, and, I see nothing so far that
> makes Africa a special case.  I will support this proposal if it is
> ARIN global.  I will not support this proposal if it is sub-region specific.
> What AfriNIC may or may not do after it gets created if it gets created
> is not something I am willing to consider a factor in developing ARIN
> policy.  I don't see any reason to wait or hamper growth in North America
> or Africa.  I certainly don't see a reason to give <=10000 user ISPs in
> Africa an advantage over <=10000 user ISPs in North America.

In principle I support 2002-3, but..

* It may have a much bigger impact on the size of the global routing table
* If by supporting 2002-3 and letting 2003-15 slide we end up without
  consensus or a long timeline until we see this as policy, then I'm sure you
  can see why I would rather focus my voice/effort behind 2003-15.
* I see ARIN (and others) as babysitting Africa's RIR services,
  try to think of this as a decision AfriNIC should be taking but cant and
  is asking for your your support.

So I think what I'm saying is.. please dont stand in the way of 2003-15, or
at least carefully think about why you would want to.. and rather help us
get this done quickly.. after which you can use it as precedent to better
the argument for 2002-3.

-- 
Regards                  ..Friends don't let friends use Outlook
 Johann

          'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
                                 - Leonardo da Vinci
________________________________________________________________
 Johann L. Botha      Frogfoot Networks ISP              AS22355
 joe at frogfoot.net     http://www.frogfoot.net/
 +27.82.562.6167      Built and Managed with Attention to Detail
 0860 KERMIT
 http://blue.frogfoot.net/


From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 13:00:13 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:00:13 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <20030924170013.GA56124@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:10:22AM -0700, william at elan.net wrote:
> 2002-3 is policy to alloe micro-assignments for ARIN region, that is 
> assignments of ip space for use directly by organization (that 
> organization can be ISP and use it for dialup, though as I uderstand
> which may work for African ISPs). Also note that organizations that 
> received ip space under 2002 would not become members of ARIN (at least as 
> far as I understand proposal now, I would like to have ARIN staff respond 
> here if this is not true and they would be members automaticly with 
> micro-assignments).

A good point.  I have previously supported moving both allocations
and assignments, and would support ammending 2002-3, or a new
proposal worded like 2002-3 that addressed both cases.

-- 
       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/20030924/a5e0f9e8/attachment.sig>

From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 13:45:48 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:45:48 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>



--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:10 AM -0700 william at elan.net wrote:

>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>> > I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other
>> > regions.
>>
>> Then please support 2002-3.  There are three basic positions, people
>> who don't want to move the prefix size, people who want to move it
>> globally, and people who want to move it in Africa.  If the latter
>> two combine efforts behind 2003-3 it will be more likely to pass,
>> where as if they both continue both are likely to be rejected for
>> lack of support.
> I would like to highlight some differences between 2002-3 and 2002-15:
>
> 2002-3 is policy to alloe micro-assignments for ARIN region, that is
> assignments of ip space for use directly by organization (that
> organization can be ISP and use it for dialup, though as I uderstand
> which may work for African ISPs). Also note that organizations that
> received ip space under 2002 would not become members of ARIN (at least
> as  far as I understand proposal now, I would like to have ARIN staff
> respond  here if this is not true and they would be members automaticly
> with  micro-assignments).
>
That is true.  However, that is no different from end-user /20 allocations
which are also cheaper annual maintenance.  In fact, an end-user allocation
plus ARIN membership is cheaper than ISP membership.  As such, it seems
to me that this would also help African ISPs more than 2003-15 which, at
least currently, would carry the ISP fee structure.

> 2003-15 proposal would allow for smaller allocations for African region
> only, allowing those ip blocks to be used by ISPs not only for themselve
> but also allowing them to reassign portion of the block to their
> customers. Since these would be allocations, my understanding is that
> African ISPs  received ip blocks under that proposal would become members
> of ARIN
>
Ok... So, let's amend 2002-3 to encompass Allocations as well as 
Assignments.
I agree that should be fixed, although, I think Assignment would be more
beneficial to most African ISPs as described so far.

>> I care because that will be the very next question raised.  I'll
>> tell you right now that if 100 ISP's in Africa can get the allocation
>> size moved in Africa, there will be 1000 ISP's in the US who will
>> come back and say "what about me, I'm bigger then they are after
>> all, so I should be able to multi-home too".  This policy change will
>> have impact to other regions, and ARIN must consider that when it
>> makes policy.
> If we make sufficiently clear that policy is being adapted only to
> support  establishment of RIR in that region, they would understand and
> not ask.
>
Wrong.  This policy is needed globally.  There is no logical reason to
make a sub-regional exception.

>> > If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
>> > space.. well, then submit a proposal.
>>
>> One is already there, 2002-3.  I support it.
> See above on differences between 2002-3 (ip space provided to end-usersk,
> not ISPs) and 2003-15 (ip space for ISPs).
>
Again... Simple amendment to 2002-3.

>> Now, that is a horse of a different color.  I had no idea allocations
>> were so fragmented across the continent (I had simply never looked
>> before), and now that I see RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC are all involved
>> I am a strong supporter of getting an AfriNIC up and running to
>> unify the process in that region.  They would of course be free to
>> set their own policies -- however
> Fully setting up RIR is not as easy as that, especially in Africa. Its
> not only policies and handling of requests but they need to have enough
> members to support the RIR financially (and for example LACNIC is getting
> funding from two regional registries in Brazil and Mexico, none of that
> exists in Africa). There are also lots of other technical,
> administration,  legal and other challenges before RIR could be ready. I
> do not think  Afrinic is anywhere close to that position and will not be
> in the next 2  years. Currently Afrinic is instead planning to setup a
> mini RIR within  RIPE and handle registrations by their personnel but
> according to RIPE  policies, but providing ip space in South Africa would
> still mean that  policies of ARIN apply there.
>
Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we should
not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that eventually AfriNIC
(whatever it may become) would possibly adopt said policy.  If ISPs in
Sub-saharan Africa want to be handled by the Afri-mini registry within
RIPE, I don't see a problem with transferring that responsibility from
ARIN to said mini-registry.  However, until that happens, I still don't
see justification for creating an exception instead of fixing the policy
for everyone.

> What I do think is that we need a special procedures for policies to be
> adapted for emerging RIRs and these should be considered completely
> separate from other policies and should be done in more formal and global
> manner. Something like that if the organization is recognized as emerging
> RIR by ASO and has established liason with ASO, then that liason can
> request certain policies for his/hers region and this request should then
> be evaluated by effected RIRs (making allocations in the region of
> emerging RIR) in a manner similar to global policy but evaluating its
> impact primarily only in how it effects the emerging RIR region. After
> policy is passed it becames policy that would only effect allocations or
> requests in that new region and only if the requests are handled through
> emerging RIR  i.e. somebody would make request to afrinic for example and
> it would then pass along request to ARIN, but policy being applied to
> request would be policy specially passed for the emerging RIR. In that
> case basicly overtime emerging RIR is able to established its own policies
> (which since its not established RIR are evaluated for their consistancy
> with some global policy document agreed by all rirs) and these policies
> only take effect for the new RIR region. After full RIR is established
> the policies ase migrated to the RIR and it can establish new policies
> without having them approved by other RIRs.
>
Respectfully, I disagree.  Once an emerging registry begins to actually 
emerge,
that regsitry can set their own policy.  Until then, whatever RIR applies
should have consistent policies.  Further, I think the assignment and 
allocation
policies of all the registries should be made more consistent with each 
other.

>> I still believe there should be
>> generally the same policy worldwide.
> That is what RIRs believe as well, since they tried to work out global
> policy for ipv6. However there are enough individual differences between
> regions that 100% same policies are not always appropriate so a more
> general framework for ip policies is better (as was provided before
> by RFC2050), this should be worked out by ASO (or NRO or whatever else
> is established as global organization for all RIRs) as global policy
> documents.
>
Yep.  However, absent that work being completed, making an exception for
Africa is just making more brokenness.  This is a good policy.  It would
be a good policy for North America.  As such, I see no reason not to make
it global.  I will vote for it as a global policy.  I will vote against
as a sub-regional exception.  I think alot more people would vote for
amending 2002-3 to encompass allocations than will vote for an African
sub-regioanl exception.  As such, I encourage African ISPs to get behind
2002-3 and recommend an ammendment to expand it to encompass allocations.

Owen





From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Sep 24 13:53:54 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:53:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF58FB8F49.BA65F556-ON80256DAB.00338DDA-80256DAB.00346404@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241242550.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> It was already pointed out that portable space is needed for multihoming
> and, in Africa, there are more frequent outages for single-homed
> providers, therefore in order to increase service levels a provider
> needs to multihome. And since these are smaller companies on average
> it makes sense to allocate them smaller portable blocks to avoid
> wasting IP addresses.

You can't get IPs from one upstream and have your other one announce that
block?

> Since current policies make it impossible for African ISPs to get
> portable blocks, current policies are making multihoming impossible
> therefore current policies are an indirect cause of low service
> levels in Africa.

I guess I'm still missing the point.  Why can't they get IPs from one
upstream provider and announce those IPs through 2 or more paths?

> >However there are no reasons given.  Why are smaller ISPs in Africa
> unable
> >to obtain IP space from upstream providers?
>
> We went through this discussion several years ago when U.S. ISPs were a
> lot smaller on average. The issue is not lack of IP space, it is lack
> of portable IP space. An upstream provider cannot issue portable IP space,
> only an RIR like ARIN can do that.

I didn't think any IP space was "portable."  Sure it belongs to one
entity, but their customers can't move that IP space.  Where does the
chain end?

We did just fine using our upstream's space until we got our own
"portable" space.  Ya, I bitched and moaned just like everyone else does
when we had to renumber, but it didn't kill me.

> In this special case, I don't see a problem with setting special policies
> for one geographic area. This is a transitional policy that is part of the
> process of setting up an African RIR to handle the needs of ISPs that are
> now served by RIPE and ARIN and APNIC. I would be opposed to special
> policies
> for California or Newfoundland but I support them for continental Africa.

This brings up a new question for me.  When AfriNIC becomes a reality are
they going to implement this policy any way?  If so, we may as well do it
now.  I don't agree with it, but if it's a future reality why wait.

Is there any accountability on the part of a RIR to the other RIR's or to
ICAAN?  For example, could RIPE implement some policies that are good for
their members, but are obviously poor for the Internet community as a
whole?

Thanks.

Mury





From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Sep 24 14:04:20 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:04:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030924110334.0287e048@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241255410.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?

For example, are the LIRs in Africa all getting IP space out of 208.X.X.X,
or is it scattered throughout all the space that ARIN is currently making
allocations out of?

If not, does it make sense to have ARIN set aside a block for those
allocations, so if/when AfriNIC is a reality those allocations can be
easily transferred?

I would think it would also be beneficial for filtering purposes.
Non-Afican entities could make the choice to aggregate that block and
push/pull any traffic bound for Africa to a certain path.

This would also ease worries about smaller allocations to African
countries that are insisting they need them.  Those worried about routing
tables could lump all those allocations into much larger blocks, if not
just one.

Regards,

Mury



From german at lacnic.net.uy  Wed Sep 24 16:04:44 2003
From: german at lacnic.net.uy (German Valdez)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:04:44 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20030924143911.04a62140@lacnic.net.uy>

At 09:10 a.m. 24/09/2003, william at elan.net wrote:

>Fully setting up RIR is not as easy as that, especially in Africa. Its
>not only policies and handling of requests but they need to have enough
>members to support the RIR financially (and for example LACNIC is getting
>funding from two regional registries in Brazil and Mexico, none of that
>exists in Africa).

Just to clarify a point. LACNIC do not receive funding from the two 
national registries NIC Brazil and NIC Mexico. Indeed, they support 
LACNIC's operation through two cooperation agreements 
(http://lacnic.net/en/agreement.html) and they have helped the operation of 
LACNIC during the startup process, but they do not inject any amount of 
money to LACNIC accounts. There is a internal medium term plan to transfer 
this tasks to LACNIC staff. LACNIC receive funding exclusively through 
their members

This way, no necessarily through national regstries but ISP associations, 
may help AFRINIC for running operation during the startup process.


German Valdez
LACNIC Policy Liaison
Potos? 1517
Montevideo 11500 - Uruguay
Tel: +598 2 606 2822
Fax: +598 2 601 5509
www.lacnic.net 



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 14:19:09 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:19:09 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924165810.GC23053@blue.frogfoot.net>
References: <200309222047.QAA02984@ops.arin.net>
 <3F705172.3020109@xnet.co.za> <200309241627.22266.mje@posix.co.za>
 <20030924144328.GA49105@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
 <20030924154201.GA22351@blue.frogfoot.net>
 <2147483647.1064395798@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <20030924165810.GC23053@blue.frogfoot.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064402349@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

> In principle I support 2002-3, but..
>
> * It may have a much bigger impact on the size of the global routing table

Likely it will not, since, many of the effected providers are announcing
more specific holes of PA space anyway.

> * If by supporting 2002-3 and letting 2003-15 slide we end up without
>   consensus or a long timeline until we see this as policy, then I'm sure
> you   can see why I would rather focus my voice/effort behind 2003-15.

I'm hoping that you can see that by keeping 2003-15 on the table both 
policies
are being jeopardized to non-consensus or long timelines.  If 2003-15 takes
effect, it could create more of an uphill battle for 2002-3.  Afterall, if
Africa gets what they need, they would have no reason to support what we
need in North America, even though we're asking for the same thing.
In 2002-3, we ask for everybody to get what is needed.  In 2003-15, Africa
asks for what Africa needs while ignoring that everyone needs it.

> * I see ARIN (and others) as babysitting Africa's RIR services,
>   try to think of this as a decision AfriNIC should be taking but cant and
>   is asking for your your support.
>

Sorry... I don't see it that way.  I see AfriNIC as vaporware.  If AfriNIC
existed, AfriNIC could take this step.  AfriNIC doesn't exist and may or
may not exist some time in the future.  I see this as an attempt to get
the policy African ISPs need for African ISPs while leaving other ISPs who
need it out in the cold.  I agree that the large North American ISPs that
have a lot of influence in ARIN are more likely to accept 2003-15 than
to accept 2002-3 because they have a vested financial interest in keeping
smaller ISPs stuck in their PA space to prevent provider independence.
However, isn't that the main argument African ISPs have in favor of this
proposal?  The need for PI space to get out from under the opressions of
the incumbant telcos?  As I see it, the providers in Africa, all of which
qualify as small providers, should band together with those of us in
North America that feel that small providers should be allowed to exist
and have all the same rights to PI space that large providers have (same
ability to get what they need, not necessarily same size blocks).  We should
try to adapt 2002-3 to fully encompass that, and, we should try really hard
to get 2002-3 implemented as soon as possible.

Supporting 2003-15 only serves to fragment this already under-represented
community and undermine the possibility of either policy getting passed.

> So I think what I'm saying is.. please dont stand in the way of 2003-15,
> or at least carefully think about why you would want to.. and rather help
> us get this done quickly.. after which you can use it as precedent to
> better the argument for 2002-3.
>
Sorry... I think 2003-15 is more likely to be used as precedent by the large
ISPs to say "See... This isn't needed in North America where we have large
providers.  We made an exception for Africa where it makes sense." and
2002-3 dies on the table.  I see 2003-15 as a direct threat to getting
a global policy instead of a step towards it.  That is why I will stand
in the way of any sub-regional policy.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 14:21:13 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:21:13 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030924170013.GA56124@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <20030924170013.GA56124@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064402473@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

I don't know if I can do this on the list or not, but, I hereby formally
propose that proposal 2002-3 be amended to include both allocations and
assignments.

Leo, would you like to second this amendment?

Thanks,

Owen


--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:00 PM -0400 Leo Bicknell 
<bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:10:22AM -0700,
> william at elan.net wrote:
>> 2002-3 is policy to alloe micro-assignments for ARIN region, that is
>> assignments of ip space for use directly by organization (that
>> organization can be ISP and use it for dialup, though as I uderstand
>> which may work for African ISPs). Also note that organizations that
>> received ip space under 2002 would not become members of ARIN (at least
>> as  far as I understand proposal now, I would like to have ARIN staff
>> respond  here if this is not true and they would be members automaticly
>> with  micro-assignments).
>
> A good point.  I have previously supported moving both allocations
> and assignments, and would support ammending 2002-3, or a new
> proposal worded like 2002-3 that addressed both cases.
>
> --
>        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  Wed Sep 24 14:36:41 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064402349@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309241424370.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> > In principle I support 2002-3, but..
> >
> > * It may have a much bigger impact on the size of the global routing table
> 
> Likely it will not, since, many of the effected providers are announcing
> more specific holes of PA space anyway.

And it may actually have the opposite effect people seem to be worried 
about.  Take a client of mine as an example.  He currently has multiple 
T1's to 3 "Tier 1's".  I'll just call them A, B, and C.  He's had his C 
connection the longest, so he's using one of C's /24's for his public IPs.  
This is announced via BGP to A, B, and C.  

Things have changed with C, and he knows that connection will be
terminated at some point in the not too distant future.  In fact it
probably would have been already if not for the need to renumber...so he's
effectively keeping that connection for the IP space he's using.

Not knowing which of A or B will be more stable, he's requested and
received /24's from each of them.  So, for the time being, he's announcing
3 PA /24's.  If he could qualify for a micro-allocation from ARIN, those 3
routes would be replaced with 1.

I don't know how many other networks are in similar situations, but I bet
the number is >0.

It might be an interesting exercise to look at a current show ip bgp
snapshot and see how many AS's announce multiple small PA blocks,
especially from multiple P's.  What if all those multiple blocks could be
traded in for single ARIN blocks?  Wouldn't that actually be good for the 
routing table...and for those AS's?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 14:36:17 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:36:17 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241242550.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241242550.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064403377@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

> This brings up a new question for me.  When AfriNIC becomes a reality are
> they going to implement this policy any way?  If so, we may as well do it
> now.  I don't agree with it, but if it's a future reality why wait.
>
We don't know what AfriNIC or who AfriNIC will be _IF_ it ever actually
exists.  We think it probably will exist at some indeterminant point in
the future.  We have some reason to believe that there may, at this time,
be enough support for this in Africa that if it did exist right now, this
policy might pass.

To me, that is far from a certain future reality.

> Is there any accountability on the part of a RIR to the other RIR's or to
> ICAAN?  For example, could RIPE implement some policies that are good for
> their members, but are obviously poor for the Internet community as a
> whole?
>
As near as I can tell, the only accountability to ICANN for anything is
whatever integrity exists within the body.  Verisign has no integrity and
appears to have no accountability to ICANN.  ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC, while
I do not agree with them on all fronts, appear to have significant integrity
and thus hold themselves accountable to ICANN policies.

In any case where any registry can implement any policy, someone could argue
that said policy is good for the registries members, but bad for the 
internet
community.  I know of no clear way to make this determination other than on
a case-by case basis, and, it is unclear who gets to make said 
determination.

However, I still think this policy should be rolled into 2002-3 and made
global.

Owen




From william at elan.net  Wed Sep 24 12:07:50 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241255410.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240835370.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
> 
> Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?
> 
> For example, are the LIRs in Africa all getting IP space out of 208.X.X.X,
> or is it scattered throughout all the space that ARIN is currently making
> allocations out of?

My whois data research showed that majority of south african ip allocations 
are made out of 196/8 ip block (and these allocations account for about 50%
of ip addresses assigned from that ip block - actually greater majority of 
85% of that /7 has not been allocated at all). ARIN has confirmed in earlier
post that despite that /8 being listed by IANA as legacy internic space,
its still actively used for new african allocations in arin region, but
I note however that some ip allocations to africa as recent as 2003 were 
made out of 216/8 and 209/8 and 196/8 was most actively used for allocations
in 1999 and 2000 and part of 2001. Below message from ARIN President has a 
promise to do new african allocations exclusively from 196/8 as before:
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1965.html 

To my knowledge additional block of 197/8 is also kept in reserve by IANA
for future use by Afrinic (i.e. it parallels how 200/8 was used by ARIN for
assignments made to LACNIC organizations and 201/8 was reserved for LACNIC)

For RIPE there does not appear to be such one single /8 used for african
allocations, although 62/8 and 217/8 have larger number of north african 
allocations.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net



From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 14:46:35 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:46:35 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064402473@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <20030924160040.GA52589@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net> <20030924170013.GA56124@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <2147483647.1064402473@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <20030924184635.GA61148@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don't know if I can do this on the list or not, but, I hereby formally
> propose that proposal 2002-3 be amended to include both allocations and
> assignments.
> 
> Leo, would you like to second this amendment?

Not just yet. :)  Before we go down that road yet again, we have
the following options:

1) Amend 2002-3 to include allocations and assignments.

2) Create a new policy, identical to 2002-3 with
   s/assignments/allocations/g, and allow both to be voted on
   separately.

3a) Create a new proposal with possible changes (initial move, final
    prefix length, ramp up period, etc) that includes both.

3b) Create a two new proposals and allow them to be voted on separately.

I lean towards #1, as Owen proposed, but also would be quite willing
to consider 3a if we could find a way to make it even more likely
to pass that didn't upset the technical merit of the proposal.

To that end, I'd ask if we amended 2002-3 to include both, and you would
then expect you'd vote AGAINST the proposal, please let us all know why
so we can see if it is something we could address, or if it is just an
item on which we don't see eye to eye.

-- 
       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/20030924/4a6f1c6f/attachment.sig>

From ibaker at codecutters.org  Wed Sep 24 14:55:04 2003
From: ibaker at codecutters.org (Ian Baker)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:55:04 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <HrKRCsqKkSWC.dPwmy4tX@smtp.orange.net>

 Reply Header ________________
Subject:	Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for 
theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region
Author:	Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date:		24th September 2003 9:29:58 am



--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:42 PM +0200 Johann Botha 

<joe at frogfoot.net> wrote:

> Hi Leo
> >@2003.09.24_16:43:28_+0200
>
> First of all, let me say I support this porposal 100%
>
> I believe we need to see a change in IP allocation criteria for the
> African region.. even if only by one bit, if not by two as in the
> proposal. And if we dont see this change while ARIN controls our 
regions
> alloctations then we will see it when AfriNIC does... so why wait?, 
why
> hamper growth?
>
I believe we need this change globally, and, I see nothing so far 
that
makes Africa a special case.  I will support this proposal if it is
ARIN global.  I will not support this proposal if it is sub-region 
specific.

---

Owen,
	With that amplification of your reasons.. I concur with your proposal. (It 
read slightly differently before!)

Regards,

Ian



From william at elan.net  Wed Sep 24 12:32:22 2003
From: william at elan.net (william at elan.net)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064403377@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240910030.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> > This brings up a new question for me.  When AfriNIC becomes a reality are
> > they going to implement this policy any way?  If so, we may as well do it
> > now.  I don't agree with it, but if it's a future reality why wait.
> >
> We don't know what AfriNIC or who AfriNIC will be _IF_ it ever actually
> exists.  We think it probably will exist at some indeterminant point in
> the future.  We have some reason to believe that there may, at this time,
> be enough support for this in Africa that if it did exist right now, this
> policy might pass.
> 
> To me, that is far from a certain future reality.

I don't think its any longer question of IF the Afrinic would exist, but 
its rather question of WHEN. Go to www.afrinic.org - you'll find enough
material there to support my assesment.

And there is also other evidence as seen from posts from African ISPs 
on this list that if allocation size for africa was reduced, it would 
bring more African ISP members to ARIN (probably from 50% to 100% more) 
and that would go long way in helping to establish stable base for future 
Afrinic.

> > Is there any accountability on the part of a RIR to the other RIR's or to
> > ICAAN?  For example, could RIPE implement some policies that are good for
> > their members, but are obviously poor for the Internet community as a
> > whole?
> >
> As near as I can tell, the only accountability to ICANN for anything is
> whatever integrity exists within the body.  Verisign has no integrity and
> appears to have no accountability to ICANN.  ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC, while
> I do not agree with them on all fronts, appear to have significant integrity
> and thus hold themselves accountable to ICANN policies.

ARIN, RIPE and APNIC also do not want to be accountable to ICANN as can be
seen from some unilateral actions on behalf of RIR such as the latest 
NRO proposal. The problem is really not with RIRs but with badly organized 
and run ICANN itself (which otherwise would not have alllowed Verisign 
freed run it have had so far), but this is topic for discussions on 
diffent mailing lists.
 
> However, I still think this policy should be rolled into 2002-3 and made
> global.
> Owen

I have a sad feeling that if we try amend 2003-3 (to which AC finally 
agreed to) with such fundamental issue as micro-allocations, then it'll
be delayed even more which is worth for the community. In my view it, 
while having both micro assignments and micro-allocation size reduced is 
/22 or less should be utlimate gole, we should not to prevent just the 
micro-assignments. And Owen, since you have been on most of the last ARIN 
meetings you should remember how hard it was to even push simple 
micro-assignemtns on that forum that has 10:1 ratio between representative 
of LARGE and SMALL ISPs. 

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net



From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Sep 24 15:14:51 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:14:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064402349@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


I want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly:

"If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned ASN, the minimum
justified block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /22. Such
assignment will be made from a reserve block for this purpose."

Does this mean that a particular block will be used exclusively for
micro-assignments?  Only micro-assignments will be made out of this block
and all micro-assignments will be made from this block?

In other words anyone could aggregate this block in their routing tables
if they wanted to?  I'm thinking especially of Tier II-III providers.

If this is the case I support 2002-03.

After trying to search for a good reason to support 2003-15, I haven't
found one.  I think a sub-regional policy is asking for trouble down the
road.

Mury



From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Sep 24 15:14:13 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:14:13 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240910030.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240910030.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064409253@[192.168.1.101]>

--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:32 AM -0700 william at elan.net wrote:

>
> I have a sad feeling that if we try amend 2003-3 (to which AC finally
> agreed to) with such fundamental issue as micro-allocations, then it'll
> be delayed even more which is worth for the community.

Just for clarification, the AC has recommended nothing to the board as far 
as ARIN's minimum allocation and assignment size.  However, the AC was 
involved with the modifications to 2002-3.

Alec
Chair, ARIN AC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030924/ae8de849/attachment.p7s>

From ahp at hilander.com  Wed Sep 24 15:17:00 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:17:00 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064409420@[192.168.1.101]>

--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:14 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> 
wrote:

>
> I want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly:
>
> "If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned ASN, the minimum
> justified block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /22. Such
> assignment will be made from a reserve block for this purpose."
>
> Does this mean that a particular block will be used exclusively for
> micro-assignments?  Only micro-assignments will be made out of this block
> and all micro-assignments will be made from this block?
>
> In other words anyone could aggregate this block in their routing tables
> if they wanted to?  I'm thinking especially of Tier II-III providers.

Anybody can aggregate anything he wants to in his own network.  0.0.0.0/0 
is a very effective aggregate, however it generally results in sub-optimal 
routing when diverse egress paths are available.

Based on how the policy reads all micro-allocations will be made from a 
distinct block of address space.

Alec
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030924/7c8c8baf/attachment.p7s>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 15:18:20 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:18:20 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <2147483647.1064402349@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <20030924191820.GB62492@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:14:51PM -0500, Mury wrote:
> Does this mean that a particular block will be used exclusively for
> micro-assignments?  Only micro-assignments will be made out of this block
> and all micro-assignments will be made from this block?

Yes.

> In other words anyone could aggregate this block in their routing tables
> if they wanted to?  I'm thinking especially of Tier II-III providers.

No!  It would be no more aggregatable than 64/8, or any other block
we're assigning IP's from.  The reason to put it into one block is
to make it possible for people to filter based on minimum allocation
size easily.

-- 
       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/20030924/88f69cba/attachment.sig>

From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Sep 24 15:37:10 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:37:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <20030924191820.GB62492@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241427510.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


> No!  It would be no more aggregatable than 64/8, or any other block
> we're assigning IP's from.  The reason to put it into one block is
> to make it possible for people to filter based on minimum allocation
> size easily.

What's the difference between filtering those blocks out by minimum size
and having your default route take over, or putting a static route in for
that /8 block?

Thanks.

Mury



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 15:32:21 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:32:21 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241408310.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064406741@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>



--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:14 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> 
wrote:

>
> I want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly:
>
> "If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned ASN, the minimum
> justified block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /22. Such
> assignment will be made from a reserve block for this purpose."
>
This paragraph means that ARIN can assign a /22 to that end user.  It
doesn't say anything about which block that /22 would come from or
how it would relate to other allocations or assignments.

> Does this mean that a particular block will be used exclusively for
> micro-assignments?  Only micro-assignments will be made out of this block
> and all micro-assignments will be made from this block?
>
I don't see that in the paragraph you quoted, no.

> In other words anyone could aggregate this block in their routing tables
> if they wanted to?  I'm thinking especially of Tier II-III providers.
>
Even if what you said above was true, this conclusion would be false.  If
ARIN were to allocate multiple /22s to different organizations under this
micro-assignment policy, and those organizations had different ISPs with
different upstreams, I don't see how an aggregation of those /22s would
do anything but break connectivity to some subset of them.

> If this is the case I support 2002-03.
>
> After trying to search for a good reason to support 2003-15, I haven't
> found one.  I think a sub-regional policy is asking for trouble down the
> road.
>
I agree.  I think from your comments above, however, that you may be 
thinking
that micro-assignments as being discussed in 2002-3 are sub-assignments of
a /22.  That is not the case.  The policy is to allow ARIN to make micro-
assignments of /22s to end users.  I have proposed an amendment to extend
that capability in the policy to ISPs as well and allow ISPs to treat
it as an allocation instead of an assignment.

> Mury
>

I hope that clarifies.

Owen



From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 24 15:35:54 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:35:54 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241427510.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <20030924191820.GB62492@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241427510.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <20030924193554.GA64104@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:37:10PM -0500, Mury wrote:
> What's the difference between filtering those blocks out by minimum size
> and having your default route take over, or putting a static route in for
> that /8 block?

If you're a tier 1 ISP you don't have default, and you're not going
to static route everyone.  So, on your peering links you install
filters, and one of the simplest is to filter on minimum allocation
size.

-- 
       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/20030924/1205af87/attachment.sig>

From Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com  Wed Sep 24 15:31:55 2003
From: Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com (Taylor, Stacy)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:31:55 -0600
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
Message-ID: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DAE420@DENEXG21>

Hi All,
I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include ARIN membership
with the assignments.
/S

-----Original Message-----
From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 AM
To: Mury
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
> 
> Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?
> 
> For example, are the LIRs in Africa all getting IP space out of 208.X.X.X,
> or is it scattered throughout all the space that ARIN is currently making
> allocations out of?

My whois data research showed that majority of south african ip allocations 
are made out of 196/8 ip block (and these allocations account for about 50%
of ip addresses assigned from that ip block - actually greater majority of 
85% of that /7 has not been allocated at all). ARIN has confirmed in earlier
post that despite that /8 being listed by IANA as legacy internic space,
its still actively used for new african allocations in arin region, but
I note however that some ip allocations to africa as recent as 2003 were 
made out of 216/8 and 209/8 and 196/8 was most actively used for allocations
in 1999 and 2000 and part of 2001. Below message from ARIN President has a 
promise to do new african allocations exclusively from 196/8 as before:
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1965.html 

To my knowledge additional block of 197/8 is also kept in reserve by IANA
for future use by Afrinic (i.e. it parallels how 200/8 was used by ARIN for
assignments made to LACNIC organizations and 201/8 was reserved for LACNIC)

For RIPE there does not appear to be such one single /8 used for african
allocations, although 62/8 and 217/8 have larger number of north african 
allocations.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net


From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 15:43:44 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:43:44 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241427510.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241427510.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064407424@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

Because hopefuly you set your filters to allow /20s from say 64/8 and
similar prefixes and /22s from the prefix covering the micro-allocations
so that all the legitimate routes get through, but, you can still ignore
the /30s and /28s etc.

Owen


--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:37 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> 
wrote:

>
>> No!  It would be no more aggregatable than 64/8, or any other block
>> we're assigning IP's from.  The reason to put it into one block is
>> to make it possible for people to filter based on minimum allocation
>> size easily.
>
> What's the difference between filtering those blocks out by minimum size
> and having your default route take over, or putting a static route in for
> that /8 block?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mury
>




From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 15:47:53 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:47:53 -0700
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
In-Reply-To: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DAE420@DENEXG21>
References: <5BDB545714D0764F8452CC5A25DDEEFA04DAE420@DENEXG21>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064407673@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

There are three possible ways to deal with this:

1.	Amend 2002-3 to include membership if we feel this is important.

2.	Leave 2002-3 as is and allow smaller allocation users to separately
	join ARIN.  Fee-wise, that is still cheaper per year than joining
	as an ISP, so, that may be the best route for African ISPs.

3.	Amend 2002-3 to modify it to include membership for Allocations and
	not for Assignments, as is the current policy for End-User vs. ISP
	registrations of any size.

Personally, I think number 3 is the most consistent, number 2 is the easiest
and most advantageous for African ISPs, and, 1 is the better way to go.

However, I'd like to see membership conferred on _ALL_ ARIN resource
allocations, not just ISP allocations.

Owen


--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:31 PM -0600 "Taylor, Stacy" 
<Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include ARIN membership
> with the assignments.
> /S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 AM
> To: Mury
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
>>
>> Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?
>>
>> For example, are the LIRs in Africa all getting IP space out of
>> 208.X.X.X, or is it scattered throughout all the space that ARIN is
>> currently making allocations out of?
>
> My whois data research showed that majority of south african ip
> allocations  are made out of 196/8 ip block (and these allocations
> account for about 50% of ip addresses assigned from that ip block -
> actually greater majority of  85% of that /7 has not been allocated at
> all). ARIN has confirmed in earlier post that despite that /8 being
> listed by IANA as legacy internic space, its still actively used for new
> african allocations in arin region, but I note however that some ip
> allocations to africa as recent as 2003 were  made out of 216/8 and 209/8
> and 196/8 was most actively used for allocations in 1999 and 2000 and
> part of 2001. Below message from ARIN President has a  promise to do new
> african allocations exclusively from 196/8 as before:
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1965.html
>
> To my knowledge additional block of 197/8 is also kept in reserve by IANA
> for future use by Afrinic (i.e. it parallels how 200/8 was used by ARIN
> for assignments made to LACNIC organizations and 201/8 was reserved for
> LACNIC)
>
> For RIPE there does not appear to be such one single /8 used for african
> allocations, although 62/8 and 217/8 have larger number of north african
> allocations.
>
> --
> William Leibzon
> Elan Networks
> william at elan.net




From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com  Wed Sep 24 15:49:12 2003
From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:49:12 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
Message-ID: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A3369091E@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>

I am confused here.
If 2002-3 is giving out everything an ISP would get, 
and would require nearly everything and ISP would have, 
why not give membership?

IE an ISP I know in SC has a single /22, and an ASN.
	and ONLY 1 upstream.  They have membership.

Why would someone with a more complex Internet connection
not be afforded the same voting rights given to ISP A?

Just curious...

Jim

->-----Original Message-----
->From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
->Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:32 PM
->To: 'william at elan.net'; Mury
->Cc: ppml at arin.net
->Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
->
->
->Hi All,
->I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include 
->ARIN membership
->with the assignments.
->/S
->
->-----Original Message-----
->From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
->Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 AM
->To: Mury
->Cc: ppml at arin.net
->Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
->
->
->On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
->> 
->> Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?
->> 
->> For example, are the LIRs in Africa all getting IP space 
->out of 208.X.X.X,
->> or is it scattered throughout all the space that ARIN is 
->currently making
->> allocations out of?
->
->My whois data research showed that majority of south african 
->ip allocations 
->are made out of 196/8 ip block (and these allocations account 
->for about 50%
->of ip addresses assigned from that ip block - actually 
->greater majority of 
->85% of that /7 has not been allocated at all). ARIN has 
->confirmed in earlier
->post that despite that /8 being listed by IANA as legacy 
->internic space,
->its still actively used for new african allocations in arin 
->region, but
->I note however that some ip allocations to africa as recent 
->as 2003 were 
->made out of 216/8 and 209/8 and 196/8 was most actively used 
->for allocations
->in 1999 and 2000 and part of 2001. Below message from ARIN 
->President has a 
->promise to do new african allocations exclusively from 196/8 
->as before:
->http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1965.html 
->
->To my knowledge additional block of 197/8 is also kept in 
->reserve by IANA
->for future use by Afrinic (i.e. it parallels how 200/8 was 
->used by ARIN for
->assignments made to LACNIC organizations and 201/8 was 
->reserved for LACNIC)
->
->For RIPE there does not appear to be such one single /8 used 
->for african
->allocations, although 62/8 and 217/8 have larger number of 
->north african 
->allocations.
->
->-- 
->William Leibzon
->Elan Networks
->william at elan.net
->


From mje at posix.co.za  Wed Sep 24 15:49:45 2003
From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark ELkins)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:49:45 +0200
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
Message-ID: <200309242149.45131.mje@posix.co.za>

On Wednesday 24 September 2003 21:31, Taylor, Stacy wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include ARIN membership
> with the assignments.

...which kinda excludes merging 2002-3 with 2003-15 ?

The African 2003-15 policy proposal (though I don't think that this should
necessarily exclude anyone else - except from using something from 196/8)
implies ARIN Membership...
--
  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco
CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496


From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 15:55:19 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:55:19 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240910030.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240910030.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064408119@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

> I don't think its any longer question of IF the Afrinic would exist, but
> its rather question of WHEN. Go to www.afrinic.org - you'll find enough
> material there to support my assesment.
>
You're probably right, but, it is far from certain.

> And there is also other evidence as seen from posts from African ISPs
> on this list that if allocation size for africa was reduced, it would
> bring more African ISP members to ARIN (probably from 50% to 100% more)
> and that would go long way in helping to establish stable base for future
> Afrinic.
>
I agree the allocation size needs to be reduced.  I just don't agree that
this need is specific t Africa.

> ARIN, RIPE and APNIC also do not want to be accountable to ICANN as can be
> seen from some unilateral actions on behalf of RIR such as the latest
<snip>  You are right... this is off topic.

>
>> However, I still think this policy should be rolled into 2002-3 and made
>> global.
>> Owen
>
> I have a sad feeling that if we try amend 2003-3 (to which AC finally
> agreed to) with such fundamental issue as micro-allocations, then it'll
> be delayed even more which is worth for the community. In my view it,
> while having both micro assignments and micro-allocation size reduced is
> /22 or less should be utlimate gole, we should not to prevent just the
> micro-assignments. And Owen, since you have been on most of the last ARIN
> meetings you should remember how hard it was to even push simple
> micro-assignemtns on that forum that has 10:1 ratio between
> representative  of LARGE and SMALL ISPs.
>
I think amending 2002-3 probably won't delay this.  I think keeping 2003-15
will kill 2002-3 and 2003-15 by divide and conquer.

Yes, I do remember.  That is why I think that getting ANY microassignment
passed will require the cooperation of ALL people desiring microassignment
(or microallocation) towards a common goal.  If we allow ourselves to become
divided, we will become conquered.  As such, I think that we should amend
2002-3 to support both Micro Assignments and Micro Allocations, and make
a global policy that addresses the needs of small(er) ISPs everywhere in
the ARIN service area.

I also agree that ARIN needs to more actively recruit participation from
small(er) ISPs, but, this is a hard problem to solve.  Unfortunately, the
disenfranchised are the ones least likely to have the resources to become
enfranchised (is that even a valid word?).

Owen



From mury at goldengate.net  Wed Sep 24 16:00:03 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:00:03 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064407424@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241450230.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Sure.  Same difference.  I should have said it that way.  The only reason
I put it my way (mistake) is because I just aggregated a bunch of overseas
stuff with static routes.  In addition, I had a customer running a 2501
that needed/wanted BGP, but couldn't handle the size of the table so we
static routed some of the more fragmented blocks into one big one.

The point is there is the ability to still control the size of the routing
tables by assigning/allocating smaller blocks within one particular larger
block.


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Because hopefuly you set your filters to allow /20s from say 64/8 and
> similar prefixes and /22s from the prefix covering the micro-allocations
> so that all the legitimate routes get through, but, you can still ignore
> the /30s and /28s etc.
>
> Owen
>
>
> --On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:37 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> No!  It would be no more aggregatable than 64/8, or any other block
> >> we're assigning IP's from.  The reason to put it into one block is
> >> to make it possible for people to filter based on minimum allocation
> >> size easily.
> >
> > What's the difference between filtering those blocks out by minimum size
> > and having your default route take over, or putting a static route in for
> > that /8 block?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Mury
> >
>
>



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 15:58:44 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:58:44 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241450230.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309241450230.7820-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064408324@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

To some extent.  However, Aggregating the /22s within the larger block
may or may not produce useful results.  The CIDR report is a much
more useful tool for things to aggregate as it does the appropriate
analysis of what could be aggregated without operational impact.

Owen


--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:00 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> 
wrote:

>
> Sure.  Same difference.  I should have said it that way.  The only reason
> I put it my way (mistake) is because I just aggregated a bunch of overseas
> stuff with static routes.  In addition, I had a customer running a 2501
> that needed/wanted BGP, but couldn't handle the size of the table so we
> static routed some of the more fragmented blocks into one big one.
>
> The point is there is the ability to still control the size of the routing
> tables by assigning/allocating smaller blocks within one particular larger
> block.
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Because hopefuly you set your filters to allow /20s from say 64/8 and
>> similar prefixes and /22s from the prefix covering the micro-allocations
>> so that all the legitimate routes get through, but, you can still ignore
>> the /30s and /28s etc.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:37 PM -0500 Mury
>> <mury at goldengate.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> No!  It would be no more aggregatable than 64/8, or any other block
>> >> we're assigning IP's from.  The reason to put it into one block is
>> >> to make it possible for people to filter based on minimum allocation
>> >> size easily.
>> >
>> > What's the difference between filtering those blocks out by minimum
>> > size and having your default route take over, or putting a static
>> > route in for that /8 block?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Mury
>> >
>>
>>
>




From gregm at datapro.co.za  Wed Sep 24 16:21:11 2003
From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:21:11 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net> <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>

Owen wrote:
> Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we should
> not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that eventually AfriNIC
> (whatever it may become) would possibly adopt said policy.  If ISPs in
> Sub-saharan Africa want to be handled by the Afri-mini registry within
> RIPE, I don't see a problem with transferring that responsibility from
> ARIN to said mini-registry.  However, until that happens, I still don't
> see justification for creating an exception instead of fixing the policy
> for everyone.

I'd like to address your misconception that AfriNIC is vaporware.
- AfriNIC was formally proposed in 1997 at Kuala Lumpur
- Numerous AfriNIC meetings were held in the following years
- AfriNIC is now a recognised organisation with numerous sponsors from
around Africa (including private sponsors and government)
- AfriNIC is in the process of setting up offices in four countries (Egypt,
Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa)
- AfriNIC has an elected board (in fact it has had for many years)
- AfriNIC has two hostmasters (who are in training)

It is true, however, that AfriNIC is not yet able to operate as a
self-sufficient NIC. That will only happen once the offices are all
operational, additional staff have been hired and trained and policies and
fees have been formalised.

The reason AfriNIC will operate as a mini-registry within RIPE initially is
so that the organisation can draw on RIPE's expertise, learn from an
establised NIC, and keep startup costs to a minimum.

Mury wrote:
> This brings up a new question for me.  When AfriNIC becomes a reality are
> they going to implement this policy any way?  If so, we may as well do it
> now.  I don't agree with it, but if it's a future reality why wait.

When AfriNIC first starts making assignments/allocations (???), it will draw
strongly on RIPE and ARIN's existing policies, especially where there are
similarities. Given the almost unanimous support from the African community
for 2003-15, I think it is obvious that AfriNIC will take this into
consideration.

I agree with you wholeheartedly - why wait? The reality is that supporting
2003-15 is very similar to supporting the formation of AfriNIC. Both
ackowlege that the region needs to influence its governance.

Mury wrote:
> Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?

Yes - 196.0.0.0/8
There have been allocations from other blocks, but by far the bulk are from
the aforementioned.

Owen wrote:
> I'm hoping that you can see that by keeping 2003-15 on the table both
> policies
> are being jeopardized to non-consensus or long timelines.  If 2003-15
takes
> effect, it could create more of an uphill battle for 2002-3.  Afterall, if
> Africa gets what they need, they would have no reason to support what we
> need in North America, even though we're asking for the same thing.
> In 2002-3, we ask for everybody to get what is needed.  In 2003-15, Africa
> asks for what Africa needs while ignoring that everyone needs it.

Owen, I don't see how 2003-15 would compromise 2002-3. If anything, I
believe that if 2003-15 is passed, it will create a strong precedent for the
passing of 2002-3.

Where the two proposals differ fundamentally, is that one establishes a
fundamental acceptance that the African region needs to be strongly
acknowleged in the setting of policies that affect it. This is why I support
both 2002-3 and 2003-15 and believe that they should be evaluated
separately.

I also find it alarming that you think that Africa will not back 2002-3 as
well. The reality is that we have felt the pain first hand and accordingly
are immensely sympathetic to our colleagues world-wide. We understand that
in order to gain the support of the global Internet community, we need to
support it too. At the same time, I'd strongly discourage alienating the
African Internet community, because we are your strongest allies with
proposals like 2002-3.

Yes, we have been rather silent in the past, but the reality is that until
recently most Africans were unaware that ARIN was interested in what they
had to say. The time devoted to AfriNIC and ARIN presence at the iWeek
conference in Johannesburg has created a lot more awareness than there was.
In the future, you will see more of us both on this list and at ARIN
meetings.

Owen wrote:
> I don't know if I can do this on the list or not, but, I hereby formally
> propose that proposal 2002-3 be amended to include both allocations and
> assignments.

I support this suggestion.

Finally, I want to address what I see as one of the concerns that 2003-15
may introduce - what happens when a North American ISP asks, "Why am I being
treated differently?"

My answer (assuming hypothetically that 2003-15 is accepted) would be: ARIN
members have afforded Africa the right to influence the policy that is
applied to their region. Similar proposals (eg. 2002-3) are on the cards and
apply to the North American region; We strongly suggest that you voice your
support for these proposals.

Regards
Gregory Massel
co-chairman: ISPA (South Africa)
http://www.ispa.org.za/



From jlewis at lewis.org  Wed Sep 24 16:34:43 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309241628480.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Gregory Massel wrote:

> I'd like to address your misconception that AfriNIC is vaporware.
> - AfriNIC was formally proposed in 1997 at Kuala Lumpur

6 years later, it's still not operational?  How long do you get before 
it's properly called vaporware?

> - AfriNIC is in the process of setting up offices in four countries (Egypt,
> Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa)

Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?  RIPE seems to have _an_ 
office in The Netherlands.  ARIN seems to have _an_ office in VA.  Who's 
going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead of 
a single office?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From gregm at datapro.co.za  Wed Sep 24 17:45:15 2003
From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:45:15 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309241628480.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <019c01c382e5$2427b6d0$0a1929c4@tipsy>

> 6 years later, it's still not operational?  How long do you get before
> it's properly called vaporware?

You underestimate the amount of work that goes into establishing such an
operation, building up the support of the various Internet communities,
obtaining sponsorships, etc. The history is on the AfriNIC web site
(www.afrinic.org) and I'd encourage you to read it.

> > - AfriNIC is in the process of setting up offices in four countries
(Egypt,
> > Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa)
>
> Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?  RIPE seems to have _an_
> office in The Netherlands.  ARIN seems to have _an_ office in VA.  Who's
> going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead of
> a single office?

This is beyond the ambit of the ARIN public policy mailing list and I'm sure
there are many people who would be able to comment on the correct forum.

A corporate plan can be found at
http://www.afrinic.org/AfriNICCorporatePlan-v0.1.shtml

If you have any concerns or comments regarding the funding, I'd strongly
suggest joining the relevent AfriNIC mailing list where such issues are
discussed. Please ensure you are familiar with the plan before knocking it.

Regards
Greg



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 21:38:05 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:38:05 -0700
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
In-Reply-To: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A3369091E@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>
References: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A3369091E@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064428685@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

They didn't get that /22 under current ARIN policy from ARIN.

For some reason, in general, ARIN has divided things into two categories:

Allocations:  An ISP receives allocations and can assign portions of those
allocations to their customers.  ISP efficient utilization is determined 
based
on the percentage of their allocation that they have assigned, and, on their
ability to show that their assignments were justified by their customers
under the end-user policies.

Assignments:  An end user receives assignments under the end user policies.
Assignments from ARIN do not come with membership, and, are much cheaper
per year than allocations.

The difference between an ISP and an End User is what the ORG decides they
want to be when they apply for the space.

An end user organization may separately join ARIN for $500 per year.

I believe the current maintenance fees for end user assignments (regardless
of the number of assignments, ASNs, etc.) are $100 per year.

Under current policy, noone can get a /22.

Under proposed policy 2002-3, an assignment of /22 is avilable, but, without
amendment, it does not allow for allocation of a /22.  I have proposed that
2002-3 be amended to include allocation, but, it has not yet been seconded.

Under porposed policy 2003-15, allocations of /22 would be available, but,
only to ISPs in Sub Saharan Africa.

Hope that clears it up.

Owen


--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:49 PM -0400 "McBurnett, Jim" 
<jmcburnett at msmgmt.com> wrote:

> I am confused here.
> If 2002-3 is giving out everything an ISP would get,
> and would require nearly everything and ISP would have,
> why not give membership?
>
> IE an ISP I know in SC has a single /22, and an ASN.
> 	and ONLY 1 upstream.  They have membership.
>
> Why would someone with a more complex Internet connection
> not be afforded the same voting rights given to ISP A?
>
> Just curious...
>
> Jim
>
> ->-----Original Message-----
> ->From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
> ->Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:32 PM
> ->To: 'william at elan.net'; Mury
> ->Cc: ppml at arin.net
> ->Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
> ->
> ->
> ->Hi All,
> ->I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include
> ->ARIN membership
> ->with the assignments.
> ->/S
> ->
> ->-----Original Message-----
> ->From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> ->Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 AM
> ->To: Mury
> ->Cc: ppml at arin.net
> ->Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
> ->
> ->
> ->On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
> ->>
> ->> Is ARIN allocating IPs to African countries out of the same blocks?
> ->>
> ->> For example, are the LIRs in Africa all getting IP space
> ->out of 208.X.X.X,
> ->> or is it scattered throughout all the space that ARIN is
> ->currently making
> ->> allocations out of?
> ->
> ->My whois data research showed that majority of south african
> ->ip allocations
> ->are made out of 196/8 ip block (and these allocations account
> ->for about 50%
> ->of ip addresses assigned from that ip block - actually
> ->greater majority of
> ->85% of that /7 has not been allocated at all). ARIN has
> ->confirmed in earlier
> ->post that despite that /8 being listed by IANA as legacy
> ->internic space,
> ->its still actively used for new african allocations in arin
> ->region, but
> ->I note however that some ip allocations to africa as recent
> ->as 2003 were
> ->made out of 216/8 and 209/8 and 196/8 was most actively used
> ->for allocations
> ->in 1999 and 2000 and part of 2001. Below message from ARIN
> ->President has a
> ->promise to do new african allocations exclusively from 196/8
> ->as before:
> ->http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/1965.html
> ->
> ->To my knowledge additional block of 197/8 is also kept in
> ->reserve by IANA
> ->for future use by Afrinic (i.e. it parallels how 200/8 was
> ->used by ARIN for
> ->assignments made to LACNIC organizations and 201/8 was
> ->reserved for LACNIC)
> ->
> ->For RIPE there does not appear to be such one single /8 used
> ->for african
> ->allocations, although 62/8 and 217/8 have larger number of
> ->north african
> ->allocations.
> ->
> ->--
> ->William Leibzon
> ->Elan Networks
> ->william at elan.net
> ->




From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep 24 21:53:39 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:53:39 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064429619@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>


> I'd like to address your misconception that AfriNIC is vaporware.
> - AfriNIC was formally proposed in 1997 at Kuala Lumpur
> - Numerous AfriNIC meetings were held in the following years
> - AfriNIC is now a recognised organisation with numerous sponsors from
> around Africa (including private sponsors and government)
> - AfriNIC is in the process of setting up offices in four countries
> (Egypt, Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa)
> - AfriNIC has an elected board (in fact it has had for many years)
> - AfriNIC has two hostmasters (who are in training)
>
OK... I stand corrected. AfriNIC is not vaporware.  An AfriNIC RIR is
vaporware.

> It is true, however, that AfriNIC is not yet able to operate as a
> self-sufficient NIC. That will only happen once the offices are all
> operational, additional staff have been hired and trained and policies and
> fees have been formalised.
>
> The reason AfriNIC will operate as a mini-registry within RIPE initially
> is so that the organisation can draw on RIPE's expertise, learn from an
> establised NIC, and keep startup costs to a minimum.
>
Then, at that time, ARIN and APNIC should transfer to RIPE/AfriNIC the
delegations that apply to Africa and AfriNIC should gain control of policies
for those allocations.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for that.  I wish 
AfriNIC
all the success and independence it deserves.  I like AfriNIC as a concept.
I did not mean to imply that I didn't think highly of the project.  However,
I don't think that the project is at such a state that it makes sense to
regard speculation about what AfriNIC will do as a guideline for setting
policy in ARIN.

> Mury wrote:
>> This brings up a new question for me.  When AfriNIC becomes a reality are
>> they going to implement this policy any way?  If so, we may as well do it
>> now.  I don't agree with it, but if it's a future reality why wait.
>
> When AfriNIC first starts making assignments/allocations (???), it will
> draw strongly on RIPE and ARIN's existing policies, especially where
> there are similarities. Given the almost unanimous support from the
> African community for 2003-15, I think it is obvious that AfriNIC will
> take this into consideration.
>
> I agree with you wholeheartedly - why wait? The reality is that supporting
> 2003-15 is very similar to supporting the formation of AfriNIC. Both
> ackowlege that the region needs to influence its governance.
>
I support the formation of AfriNIC.  However, there are non-African
ramifications to ARIN adopting 2003-15 which I believe override the
desire to provide this solution for Africa.  I believe 2003-15 represents
a good policy with one flaw.  It is Africa specific.  As long as it is
Africa specific, I will vote against it.  If 2003-15 is amended to cover
all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will vote for 2002-3.  I will vote
for an amendment to 2002-3 to expand it's scope to include Allocations as
well as assignments.

> Owen, I don't see how 2003-15 would compromise 2002-3. If anything, I
> believe that if 2003-15 is passed, it will create a strong precedent for
> the passing of 2002-3.
>
You and I have differing views of the political realities of ARIN.  How
many years have you been watching what happens with ARIN?  Admittedly, I
am a recent addition to ARIN PPML and Public Policy meetings, and, Chicago
will be my first meeting as an ARIN member.  However, I have been involved
in ARIN politics as a small(er) and/or large provider since it's inception.

> Where the two proposals differ fundamentally, is that one establishes a
> fundamental acceptance that the African region needs to be strongly
> acknowleged in the setting of policies that affect it. This is why I
> support both 2002-3 and 2003-15 and believe that they should be evaluated
> separately.
>
That is only one place they differ.  There are two others.  In 2003-15, it
creates support for micro-allcations in Africa ONLY.  This will be used by
large(ish) ISPs in north america as a justification that mciro-assignments
and micro-allocations aren't necessary in North America, and, see, we made
this exception for Africa, so the problem is solved.  Further, I have no
reason to believe that African ISPs have the resources or desire to actively
work for 2002-3 once they receive 2003-15.  This is not a criticism, just
reality.  They have much bigger problems to address and much more limited
resources.  If we all support an ammended 2002-3, then we all win.  If we
continue to divide support between 2003-15 and 2002-3, then we will all
lose.

The second way in which they are different is that 2003-15 provides for
allocations, whereas 2002-3 provides for assignments.  Both assignments
and allocations are necessary at the /22 boundary, and that is why
I have proposed an amendment to 2002-3 to achieve that.

> I also find it alarming that you think that Africa will not back 2002-3 as
> well. The reality is that we have felt the pain first hand and accordingly
> are immensely sympathetic to our colleagues world-wide. We understand that
> in order to gain the support of the global Internet community, we need to
> support it too. At the same time, I'd strongly discourage alienating the
> African Internet community, because we are your strongest allies with
> proposals like 2002-3.
>
It's not that I don't think you will back it.  It's that I don't think that
you have the resources to keep attention focused on it after you receive
2003-15 if 2002-3 tunrs into a longer battle.  Be realistic here.  Many
people have pointed out the difficulty and scarcity of resources for
African ISPs.  A prolonged political struggle for something that won't
really effect them is not likely something they will choose to do.

> Yes, we have been rather silent in the past, but the reality is that until
> recently most Africans were unaware that ARIN was interested in what they
> had to say. The time devoted to AfriNIC and ARIN presence at the iWeek
> conference in Johannesburg has created a lot more awareness than there
> was. In the future, you will see more of us both on this list and at ARIN
> meetings.
>
That's fantastic.  I'm glad to see you guys here, and, I'm very glad to
see you proposing policy, even if I don't agree with the proposal.  I
welcome you to the process and I look forward to working with you as things
evolve.  I agree with you that in an ideal world, we could simply support
both policies and it would work out well for all.  However, we don't live
in an ideal world, and, the large providers that traditionally dominate
policy in the ARIN community will use 2003-15 as a means to squash 2002-3
if it passes.  I understand that you don't see it that way, and, I wish I
didn't.  However, in North America, economic self interest is the primary
motivating factor in how most providers have been voting from what I have
observed.  It is in the economic interest of large providers to make it
difficult for large businesses and small(er) ISPs to change upstream
providers.  As such, they tend to vote for policies that allow them to
do so.

Owen

> Owen wrote:
>> I don't know if I can do this on the list or not, but, I hereby formally
>> propose that proposal 2002-3 be amended to include both allocations and
>> assignments.
>
> I support this suggestion.
>
> Finally, I want to address what I see as one of the concerns that 2003-15
> may introduce - what happens when a North American ISP asks, "Why am I
> being treated differently?"
>
> My answer (assuming hypothetically that 2003-15 is accepted) would be:
> ARIN members have afforded Africa the right to influence the policy that
> is applied to their region. Similar proposals (eg. 2002-3) are on the
> cards and apply to the North American region; We strongly suggest that
> you voice your support for these proposals.
>
> Regards
> Gregory Massel
> co-chairman: ISPA (South Africa)
> http://www.ispa.org.za/
>




From joe at frogfoot.net  Thu Sep 25 03:50:03 2003
From: joe at frogfoot.net (Johann Botha)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:50:03 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064429619@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net> <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy> <2147483647.1064429619@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <20030925075003.GA687@blue.frogfoot.net>

Hi Owen                                          >@2003.09.25_03:53:39_+0200

> I support the formation of AfriNIC.

cool

> However, there are non-African ramifications to ARIN adopting 2003-15 which
> I believe override the desire to provide this solution for Africa.  I
> believe 2003-15 represents a good policy with one flaw.  It is Africa
> specific.  As long as it is Africa specific, I will vote against it.  If
> 2003-15 is amended to cover all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will vote
> for 2002-3.

this reminds me of the story of a guy with an open basket full of crayfish.
somebody asked him if he wasn't worried that the crayfish would escape..
no, he replied, as soon as one makes it to the top, the others will drag him
back down.

-- 
Regards                  ..Friends don't let friends use Outlook
 Johann

          'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
                                 - Leonardo da Vinci
________________________________________________________________
 Johann L. Botha      Frogfoot Networks ISP              AS22355
 joe at frogfoot.net     http://www.frogfoot.net/
 +27.82.562.6167      Built and Managed with Attention to Detail
 0860 KERMIT
 http://blue.frogfoot.net/


From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep 25 04:04:17 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:04:17 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030925075003.GA687@blue.frogfoot.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
 <2147483647.1064429619@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <20030925075003.GA687@blue.frogfoot.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064451857@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

>> However, there are non-African ramifications to ARIN adopting 2003-15
>> which I believe override the desire to provide this solution for Africa.
>> I believe 2003-15 represents a good policy with one flaw.  It is Africa
>> specific.  As long as it is Africa specific, I will vote against it.  If
>> 2003-15 is amended to cover all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will vote
>> for 2002-3.
>
> this reminds me of the story of a guy with an open basket full of
> crayfish. somebody asked him if he wasn't worried that the crayfish would
> escape.. no, he replied, as soon as one makes it to the top, the others
> will drag him back down.
>
That is not what I am trying to do here.  If this were an AfriNIC proposal
for the AfriNIC registry, I would support it as an Africa specific proposal.
However, to make Africa specific policy in ARIN, especially on an issue 
which
does need to be resolved globally, sets a very bad precedent.  It also has
the potential to further an unnecessary hardship on small(er) providers in
North America.  I think you and I agree much more than we disagree. 
Hopefully,
together, we can amend and get enacted 2002-3 for assignment and allocation
before 2003-15 comes up for discussion.  That would give everyone what they
need.  If not, I'll propose amending 2003-15 to make it global, then, if the
amendment is added, I'll support it.  Hopefully one of these will move
forward for everyone.

Owen

> --
> Regards                  ..Friends don't let friends use Outlook
>  Johann
>
>           'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
>                                  - Leonardo da Vinci
> ________________________________________________________________
>  Johann L. Botha      Frogfoot Networks ISP              AS22355
>  joe at frogfoot.net     http://www.frogfoot.net/
>  +27.82.562.6167      Built and Managed with Attention to Detail
>  0860 KERMIT
>  http://blue.frogfoot.net/




From adiel at akplogan.net  Thu Sep 25 05:19:57 2003
From: adiel at akplogan.net (Adiel AKPLOGAN)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:19:57 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030925101640.01dc4c90@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>

Hello,

>Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we should
>not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that eventually AfriNIC
>(whatever it may become) would possibly adopt said policy.  If ISPs in
>Sub-saharan Africa want to be handled by the Afri-mini registry within
>RIPE, I don't see a problem with transferring that responsibility from
>ARIN to said mini-registry.

Let me clarify some inappropriate assumption here about AfriNIC:

o AfrNIC as organization and AfriNIC as RIR is not a vaporware.
The Afrinic Initiative certainly start in 1997, but a lot of progress
was done since then. Our main goal is to get a global consensus
on everything we are doing. Africa is very particular...we have differents
culture, differents language, differents colonization background...an so 
and so..
We need to bring everybody together to have a very strong and
sustainable organization.
Today all of these differences are behind us. And AfriNIC is an African
organization supported by the whole community, and on the
process of becoming a recognize RIR www.afrinic.org

o AfriNIC is not running any mini-registry at RIPE. AfriNIC team
are being trained at RIPE as they will probably be at ARIN too.
This is to help during transition from the two different policies
to AfriNIC own one.

>However, until that happens, I still don't
>see justification for creating an exception instead of fixing the policy
>for everyone.

The justification is that ARIN is serving two different region (Continent).
And unfortunately the two have a totally different political, social and
economical background. You can not design a business model for America
and African using the same figure...try it you will loose. This should be
applicable for Internet 'PUBLIC' resource too.

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Gregory Massel wrote:
>Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?

Please read the rapport on the web site.
http://www.afrinic.org/Kampala-15062003-Report-Back.txt

>RIPE seems to have _an_  office in The Netherlands.  A
>RIN seems to have _an_ office in VA.

LACNIC has 3 offices and they running very well. We are
not oblige to follow North American or Europe administration model.
We have our own realities...and we are dealing with them to
better serve our community.

>Who's going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4
>countries with >4x the overhead of
>a single office?

We are working on that....and it is not impossible.

Regards.

- a.




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Thu Sep 25 06:01:07 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:01:07 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>

>We don't know what AfriNIC or who AfriNIC will be _IF_ it ever actually
>exists. 

The funny thing is that Afrinic does exist! It even has a website at
http://www.afrinic.org and it has had several meetings over the past
couple of years including one last week in South Africa at 
Internet Week.

So, why haven't the several .ZA ISPs on this list said anything
about this?

Why didn't the policy proposal indicate whether or not Afrinic
had been consulted or whether the Afrinic Board of Trustees
supports the proposal?

I'm beginning to wonder if we are being dragged into some
internal Afrinic politics here. The transition plan for
Afrinic is that in February 2004, i.e. 3 months after the
ARIN meeting, they plan to process IP requests themselves
using ARIN and/or RIPE only for a 2nd opinion.

The Afrinic update presented at RIPE earlier this month
is available here: 
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-plenary-afrinic.pdf

Someone mentioned that RIPE will be providing some sort
of special handling for African IP requests prior to the
transition. I found no evidence of this, however the
Afrinic hostmasters are spending 6 months working at
RIPE as trainees so this may be the source of that
comment.

I'm beginning to think that the best thing ARIN can
do to support African ISPs is to dump them and let
RIPE and Afrinic pick up the pieces. From the research
I've done it sounds like Afrinic is well progressed
in its functioning and has a closer working relationship
with RIPE than with ARIN.

Is there anyone on the list who knows more about Afrinic
than I do who could confirm, or deny, my assumptions?

--Michael Dillon








From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Thu Sep 25 06:09:23 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:09:23 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF8F1D6A62.8054BBA4-ON80256DAC.0037A192-80256DAC.0037CAA2@radianz.com>

>> - AfriNIC is in the process of setting up offices in four countries 
(Egypt,
>> Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa)

>Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries? 

It's their organization, they can run it how they want to?

>RIPE seems to have _an_ 
>office in The Netherlands.  ARIN seems to have _an_ office in VA. 

APNIC and LACNIC both have offices in multiple countries, 
I believe 2 for APNIC and 3 for LACNIC.

>Who's 
>going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead of 

>a single office?

It's their organization...

--Michael Dillon







From ernest at ripe.net  Thu Sep 25 06:33:59 2003
From: ernest at ripe.net (Ernest Byaruhanga)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:33:59 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
References: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <3F72C497.6080509@ripe.net>

>
>
>Why didn't the policy proposal indicate whether or not Afrinic
>had been consulted or whether the Afrinic Board of Trustees
>supports the proposal?
>
the proposal  is from the community in the african service region of 
arin , to arin.
the afrinic board of trustees were of course directly/indirectly 
consulted  - nearly all
of them run isp's or related business in africa and were at the i-week 
in jo'burg.

>Someone mentioned that RIPE will be providing some sort
>of special handling for African IP requests prior to the
>transition. I found no evidence of this, however the
>Afrinic hostmasters are spending 6 months working at
>RIPE as trainees so this may be the source of that
>comment.
>
i'm not sure what you mean by 'special handling' - the tentative plan is 
that requests from
african LIR's in RIPE service region will be handled by afrinic 
hostmasters via ripe ncc
hostmasters for (second opinion)  - all this is part of the presentation 
you referred to at RIPE46.

>I'm beginning to think that the best thing ARIN can
>do to support African ISPs is to dump them and let
>RIPE and Afrinic pick up the pieces. From the research
>I've done it sounds like Afrinic is well progressed
>in its functioning and has a closer working relationship
>with RIPE than with ARIN.
>
AfriNIC has very good working relationships with ARIN, RIPE NCC, LACNIC 
and APNIC.
 http://www.afrinic.org/Montevideo-June-2003.html can give you more 
ligtht on this.
 I however think that we're swaying from the original issue here....




From jsw at five-elements.com  Thu Sep 25 06:48:57 2003
From: jsw at five-elements.com (Jeff S Wheeler)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:48:57 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF8F1D6A62.8054BBA4-ON80256DAC.0037A192-80256DAC.0037CAA2@radianz.com>
References: 	 <OF8F1D6A62.8054BBA4-ON80256DAC.0037A192-80256DAC.0037CAA2@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <1064486936.4027.297.camel@intrepid.jsw.louisville.ky.us>

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 06:09, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >Who's 
> >going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead of 
> 
> >a single office?
> 
> It's their organization...

<rant>

They will most likely be more efficient with member funds than the ARIN.
$400k annually for office space; and $2M last year spent via what is
essentially an ARIN salad account for travel, lodging, etc?

ARIN's annual reports remind me of a start-up I once worked for, where
the CEO contracted a long-time friend to fly in for two days, conduct
interviews of six of our employees (there were < 25 total), give them
SCANTRON exams, and evaluate them to be psychiatrically fit to be in our
employ. The fee for this service was $170k, and as it turns out, this
CEO had been hiring this individual at various start-ups and re-orgs he
burned through for years, along with a slew of other consultants.

I find it hard to believe that the ARIN's expenditures are remotely
justified for an operation that should be run by a couple of
unixy/sql/perl/c folks, a small help desk crew, some billing folks who
don't need post-it notes to keep track of who has paid what, and a
couple of heads to evaluate applications for new space or AS number
allocations.

With multi-million dollar surpluses and a $2M slush account the ARIN
should be paying members to come represent themselves at meetings
(think, rural electric/telephone co-operative), not charging a fee.

</rant>

--
Jeff S Wheeler




From gregm at datapro.co.za  Thu Sep 25 06:51:26 2003
From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:51:26 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
References: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <200309251251.26322.gregm@datapro.co.za>

> The funny thing is that Afrinic does exist! It even has a website at
> http://www.afrinic.org and it has had several meetings over the past
> couple of years including one last week in South Africa at
> Internet Week.
>
> So, why haven't the several .ZA ISPs on this list said anything
> about this?

I have!!! Repeatedly!

> Why didn't the policy proposal indicate whether or not Afrinic
> had been consulted or whether the Afrinic Board of Trustees
> supports the proposal?

At iWeek there were AfriNIC board members involved in the discussion leading 
up to the 2003-15 proposal (and the discussions were unanimously supported 
without a single person present against making the proposal).

I will ask the AfriNIC board to send a letter officially supporting 2003-15.

> I'm beginning to wonder if we are being dragged into some
> internal Afrinic politics here. The transition plan for
> Afrinic is that in February 2004, i.e. 3 months after the
> ARIN meeting, they plan to process IP requests themselves
> using ARIN and/or RIPE only for a 2nd opinion.

There is no politics involved here at all. I'm sure any one of the AfriNIC 
representatives on this list can confirm this. 

> I'm beginning to think that the best thing ARIN can
> do to support African ISPs is to dump them and let
> RIPE and Afrinic pick up the pieces. From the research
> I've done it sounds like Afrinic is well progressed
> in its functioning and has a closer working relationship
> with RIPE than with ARIN.

This is a completely unfair suggestion. Keep in mind that there are parts of 
Africa served by ARIN and parts served by RIPE (even a few served by APnic). 

AfriNIC has been working closely with a number of registries, include ARIN, 
RIPE and LACNIC. 

There are a few key reasons for the close relationship with RIPE. 
- RIPE have been kind enough to offer extensive training to the AfriNIC 
hostmasters. 
- It is significantly cheaper and faster to travel from Africa to Europe and 
back than to North America and back. (I'm presently organising air-tickets to 
attend to ARIN XII meeting and most of my options involve flying via a 
European hub city.)
- Time zones in Africa are similar to Europe
- RIPE works in both French and English, a key requirement for AfriNIC

> Is there anyone on the list who knows more about Afrinic
> than I do who could confirm, or deny, my assumptions?

Yes. I deny them. They are assumptions and nothing more than that. 

It has taken many years to get the African continent to sing from the same 
hymn book on this issue, and I can proudly say that we stand united.

Regards
Greg



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Thu Sep 25 07:24:38 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:24:38 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF5EC29BF6.027AB48F-ON80256DAC.003D2DB4-80256DAC.003EAE4D@radianz.com>

>> Why didn't the policy proposal indicate whether or not Afrinic
>> had been consulted or whether the Afrinic Board of Trustees
>> supports the proposal?

>At iWeek there were AfriNIC board members involved in the discussion 
leading 
>up to the 2003-15 proposal (and the discussions were unanimously 
supported 
>without a single person present against making the proposal).

This makes a big difference and should have been mentioned
in the discussion attached to 2003-15

>I will ask the AfriNIC board to send a letter officially supporting 
2003-15.

That would be helpful. At the ARIN meetings the person
proposing a policy change has the opportunity to make
a statement before the proposal is voted on. If this
policy is indeed supported by Afrinic and not just the
ARIN members who were at a meeting in .ZA then you 
make a stronger case for having this policy because
it is clearer that this is part of the transition to
full control by Afrinic.


>> I'm beginning to think that the best thing ARIN can
>> do to support African ISPs is to dump them and let
>> RIPE and Afrinic pick up the pieces.

>This is a completely unfair suggestion. Keep in mind that there are parts 
of 
>Africa served by ARIN and parts served by RIPE (even a few served by 
APnic). 

And soon all will be served by Afrinic. In the interim,
why not consolidate services with RIPE?

>There are a few key reasons for the close relationship with RIPE. 
>- RIPE have been kind enough to offer extensive training to the AfriNIC 
>hostmasters. 
>- It is significantly cheaper and faster to travel from Africa to Europe 
and 
>back than to North America and back. (I'm presently organising 
air-tickets to 
>attend to ARIN XII meeting and most of my options involve flying via a 
>European hub city.)
>- Time zones in Africa are similar to Europe
>- RIPE works in both French and English, a key requirement for AfriNIC

And there are a lot more Africans in Europe than in North
America so people tend to understand the African situation
better. We also have a lot of trade between Europe and 
Africa such as fruit and veg in the supermarket and holiday
packages. The politics is similar as well, i.e. the EU is 
a collection of small neighbouring nations struggling to 
find common ground unlike North America.

>It has taken many years to get the African continent to sing from the 
same 
>hymn book on this issue, and I can proudly say that we stand united.

If Afrinic will officially support this policy then
I would vote for it. But if .ZA ISPs could get RIPE
to service them sooner rather than later, I would be
happy to see these issues move away from ARIN's 
direct attention.

--Michael Dillon
 





From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep 25 09:32:06 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:32:06 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030925101640.01dc4c90@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <5.2.0.9.0.20030925101640.01dc4c90@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064471526@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>



--On Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:19 AM +0200 Adiel AKPLOGAN 
<adiel at akplogan.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>> Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we should
>> not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that eventually
>> AfriNIC (whatever it may become) would possibly adopt said policy.  If
>> ISPs in Sub-saharan Africa want to be handled by the Afri-mini registry
>> within RIPE, I don't see a problem with transferring that responsibility
>> from ARIN to said mini-registry.
>
> Let me clarify some inappropriate assumption here about AfriNIC:
>
> o AfrNIC as organization and AfriNIC as RIR is not a vaporware.

Vaporware (n): A product or service which, while announced and hyped
does not yet exist or function in the real world.

How does AfriNIC RIR not fit this definition?

> The Afrinic Initiative certainly start in 1997, but a lot of progress
> was done since then. Our main goal is to get a global consensus
> on everything we are doing. Africa is very particular...we have differents
> culture, differents language, differents colonization background...an so
> and so.. We need to bring everybody together to have a very strong and
> sustainable organization.

Fine.  However, you haven't done it yet, so, for now, it remains vaporware.

> Today all of these differences are behind us. And AfriNIC is an African
> organization supported by the whole community, and on the
> process of becoming a recognize RIR www.afrinic.org
>
That's fantastic.  Sounds like you're close to getting out of the vaporware
stage, but, you're not there yet.

> o AfriNIC is not running any mini-registry at RIPE. AfriNIC team
> are being trained at RIPE as they will probably be at ARIN too.
> This is to help during transition from the two different policies
> to AfriNIC own one.
>
OK... Either way, I support the transfer of authority to set policy for 
Africa
to AfriNIC when AfriNIC becomes RIR.  In the mean time, AfriNIC still isn't
an RIR, and, I don't think ARIN should set policy based on what AfriNIC
may or may not do at some indeterminant point in the future.

>> However, until that happens, I still don't
>> see justification for creating an exception instead of fixing the policy
>> for everyone.
>
> The justification is that ARIN is serving two different region
> (Continent). And unfortunately the two have a totally different
> political, social and economical background. You can not design a
> business model for America and African using the same figure...try it you
> will loose. This should be applicable for Internet 'PUBLIC' resource too.
>
But ARIN isn't about business models.  It's about stewardship of the IP
public resource.  There is  a need for a shorter prefix allocation in
North America.  There is a need for a shorter prefix allocation in
Sub Saharan Africa.  There are providers in North America that are ten
times the size of the largest providers in Sub Saharan Africa that need
these smaller allocations.  Their business models are radically different,
but, their IP needs are very similar.  One ARIN policy that moves the
prefix allocation boundary from /20 to /22 would serve both communities
well.  A policy that only does it for Sub Saharan Africa would serve
only one of these communities.  ARIN has a mandate to serve both communities
until AfriNIC becomes an RIR.

>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Gregory Massel wrote:
>> Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?
>
> Please read the rapport on the web site.
> http://www.afrinic.org/Kampala-15062003-Report-Back.txt
>
>> RIPE seems to have _an_  office in The Netherlands.  A
>> RIN seems to have _an_ office in VA.
>
> LACNIC has 3 offices and they running very well. We are
> not oblige to follow North American or Europe administration model.
> We have our own realities...and we are dealing with them to
> better serve our community.
>
Agreed.  LACNIC should set policies that work for LACNIC's region.
ARIN should set policies that work for ARIN's region.  Currently, ARIN's
region is North America and Sub Saharan Africa.  Therefore ARIN policies
should serve the whole region.  When AfriNIC becomes an RIR serving
sub-saharan Africa, they can set whatever policies they feel they need.


Owen




From bruce.eastman at adelphia.com  Thu Sep 25 08:46:40 2003
From: bruce.eastman at adelphia.com (Bruce Eastman)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:46:40 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <OF8F1D6A62.8054BBA4-ON80256DAC.0037A192-80256DAC.0037CAA2@radianz.com> <1064486936.4027.297.camel@intrepid.jsw.louisville.ky.us>
Message-ID: <013f01c38363$114177d0$5a2012d1@deipadmin>

> I find it hard to believe that the ARIN's expenditures are remotely
> justified for an operation that should be run by a couple of
> unixy/sql/perl/c folks, a small help desk crew, some billing folks who
> don't need post-it notes to keep track of who has paid what, and a
> couple of heads to evaluate applications for new space or AS number
> allocations.

What color is the sky in your world?

This list is not the appropriate place for a battle of wits over how ARIN's
funds
are spent, and the lack of work that you claim the ARIN staff is doing,
especially
when you come unarmed.

I notice that you have all the answers. Yet, I fail to find your name of the
ARIN Members
Meeting Attendee list. ARIN is a non-profit Organization that is governed by
Polices
and guidelines set forth by the members. These polices and guidlines, along
with the
ARIN expenditures. are all discussed at the members meetings. If you feel
you have
a better way, well I quess you better get your name on that list.

The people of ARIN are all hard working individuals, who are doing  a great
job
despite people like you taking unwarranted jabs at them. It is very easy to
say,
"I can do it better" I would love to see you run ARIN, with even 2/3 's the
number
of people that are there now. Trust me, when I tell you,  you would be doing
nothing
but, answering the phone, explaining to the person on the other end, "
Sorry, this is
late, we will get that right out". It will be real hard to keep that two day
turn-around
time on the hundreds of templates that come in, when your phones ringing off
the hook
with late complaints, because your couple of  "unixy/sql/perl/c folks" are
tied up fixing the
things, that can, and will go wrong, and your post-it notes are in the
trash.



Bruce Eastman
Senior IP Analyst
Adelphia Communications

Former (and proud of it) ARIN Employee









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff S Wheeler" <jsw at five-elements.com>
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region


> On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 06:09, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > >Who's
> > >going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead
of
> >
> > >a single office?
> >
> > It's their organization...
>
> <rant>
>
> They will most likely be more efficient with member funds than the ARIN.
> $400k annually for office space; and $2M last year spent via what is
> essentially an ARIN salad account for travel, lodging, etc?
>
> ARIN's annual reports remind me of a start-up I once worked for, where
> the CEO contracted a long-time friend to fly in for two days, conduct
> interviews of six of our employees (there were < 25 total), give them
> SCANTRON exams, and evaluate them to be psychiatrically fit to be in our
> employ. The fee for this service was $170k, and as it turns out, this
> CEO had been hiring this individual at various start-ups and re-orgs he
> burned through for years, along with a slew of other consultants.
>
> I find it hard to believe that the ARIN's expenditures are remotely
> justified for an operation that should be run by a couple of
> unixy/sql/perl/c folks, a small help desk crew, some billing folks who
> don't need post-it notes to keep track of who has paid what, and a
> couple of heads to evaluate applications for new space or AS number
> allocations.
>
> With multi-million dollar surpluses and a $2M slush account the ARIN
> should be paying members to come represent themselves at meetings
> (think, rural electric/telephone co-operative), not charging a fee.
>
> </rant>
>
> --
> Jeff S Wheeler
>
>



From ahp at hilander.com  Thu Sep 25 10:12:14 2003
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:12:14 -0600
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064471526@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <5.2.0.9.0.20030925101640.01dc4c90@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
 <2147483647.1064471526@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064477534@[192.168.1.101]>

--On Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:32 AM -0700 Owen DeLong 
<owen at delong.com> wrote:

> But ARIN isn't about business models.  It's about stewardship of the IP
> public resource.  There is  a need for a shorter prefix allocation in
> North America.  There is a need for a shorter prefix allocation in
> Sub Saharan Africa.

Owen, I don't think you of all people wants a shorter minimum allocation, I 
think you mean longer.

Alec
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030925/36266558/attachment.p7s>

From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Thu Sep 25 10:46:22 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:46:22 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for theAfrica
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF97817072.D80AC8F9-ON80256DAC.00503AF3-80256DAC.00512642@radianz.com>

>This list is not the appropriate place for a battle of wits over how 
ARIN's
>funds
>are spent, and the lack of work that you claim the ARIN staff is doing,

Actually, you're probably wrong. This list *IS* the best
place for such a battle. However, the proper way to fire 
the opening shots would be to propose a policy that ARIN
should operate with no more than 5 staff etc...

Then, with a concrete proposal in front of us, we could
engage in battle. Of course, writing a serious proposal
takes a lot of research and thought and even then, it
can be hard to get everyone else to understand just what
the proposal means.

But, that's life...

>I notice that you have all the answers. Yet, I fail to find your name of 
the
>ARIN Members
>Meeting Attendee list.

ppml is for everybody, not just members. And it is
specifically created so that those unable to attend
meetings can comment on policies. The AC and the BoT
are not bound by the decisions of member meetings.
They can and do consider mailing list input when
making decisions.

Jeff's suggestion is not completely bonkers. Many 
large companies and government agencies have made
policy changes and swept away entire bureaucracies
as a result. It could happen with ARIN as well,
especially when we get to the point where IPv6 
deployment causes overall IPv4 usage to begin
shrinking. 

But, no proposal like this will get anywhere
unless someone presents a serious and well thought
out policy proposal for us to review.

--Michael Dillon





From alan at futureperfect.co.za  Thu Sep 25 14:17:36 2003
From: alan at futureperfect.co.za (Alan Levin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:17:36 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20030925075003.GA687@blue.frogfoot.net>
Message-ID: <8A169D7B-EF84-11D7-98E5-000A957A0234@futureperfect.co.za>

On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 09:50 Africa/Johannesburg, Johann Botha 
wrote:
> Hi Owen                                          
> >@2003.09.25_03:53:39_+0200
>> However, there are non-African ramifications to ARIN adopting 2003-15 
>> which
>> I believe override the desire to provide this solution for Africa.  I
>> believe 2003-15 represents a good policy with one flaw.  It is Africa
>> specific.  As long as it is Africa specific, I will vote against it.  
>> If
>> 2003-15 is amended to cover all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will 
>> vote
>> for 2002-3.
>
> this reminds me of the story of a guy with an open basket full of 
> crayfish.
> somebody asked him if he wasn't worried that the crayfish would 
> escape..
> no, he replied, as soon as one makes it to the top, the others will 
> drag him
> back down.

This story reminds me of how I was indoctrinated to think by the 
apartheid regime.

South Africans are fortunate to be in the position to understand how 
economic empowerment balances the playing field (as an attempt to 
bridge the digital divide) in the development of information society 
and the (hopefully global) knowledge economy.

warm regards,

Alan



From jsw at five-elements.com  Thu Sep 25 14:37:20 2003
From: jsw at five-elements.com (Jeff S Wheeler)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:37:20 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
	theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF97817072.D80AC8F9-ON80256DAC.00503AF3-80256DAC.00512642@radianz.com>
References: 	 <OF97817072.D80AC8F9-ON80256DAC.00503AF3-80256DAC.00512642@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <1064515040.4027.332.camel@intrepid.jsw.louisville.ky.us>

I don't think anyone is suggesting the ARIN be limited by policy to a
fixed head-count. My belief is simply that many expenditures by the ARIN
are irresponsible, and that some are most likely designed to direct
monies to personal associates of parties with spending discretion.

Most of the ARIN members I know who actually take the time to examine
ARIN's annual reports are outraged by the large sums of money that are
spent under vague headings.

If I had to come up with a reasonable proposal to address this
"problem", it would be to increase the level of public expense
accountability by requiring more detailed reports be prepared and
published. I suspect that if two million dollars spent on travel and
accomodations

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 10:46, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >This list is not the appropriate place for a battle of wits over how 
> ARIN's
> >funds
> >are spent, and the lack of work that you claim the ARIN staff is doing,
> 
> Actually, you're probably wrong. This list *IS* the best
> place for such a battle. However, the proper way to fire 
> the opening shots would be to propose a policy that ARIN
> should operate with no more than 5 staff etc...




From jsw at five-elements.com  Thu Sep 25 14:39:33 2003
From: jsw at five-elements.com (Jeff S Wheeler)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:39:33 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
	theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <1064515172.4027.335.camel@intrepid.jsw.louisville.ky.us>

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 10:46, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >This list is not the appropriate place for a battle of wits over how 
> ARIN's
> >funds
> >are spent, and the lack of work that you claim the ARIN staff is doing,
> 
> Actually, you're probably wrong. This list *IS* the best
> place for such a battle. However, the proper way to fire 
> the opening shots would be to propose a policy that ARIN
> should operate with no more than 5 staff etc...

[whoops!]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the ARIN be limited by policy to a
fixed head-count. My belief is simply that many expenditures by the ARIN
are irresponsible, and that some are most likely designed to direct
monies to personal associates of parties with spending discretion.

Most of the ARIN members I know who actually take the time to examine
ARIN's annual reports are outraged by the large sums of money that are
spent under vague headings.

If I had to come up with a reasonable proposal to address this
"problem", it would be to increase the level of public expense
accountability by requiring more detailed reports be prepared and
published. I suspect that the monies spent under headings such as 
"travel and accomodations" would fall substantially, or at least give
the membership specific issues to address.

I think such a policy would be immensely valuable.

--
Jeff S Wheeler





From german at lacnic.net.uy  Thu Sep 25 18:11:15 2003
From: german at lacnic.net.uy (German Valdez)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:11:15 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF8F1D6A62.8054BBA4-ON80256DAC.0037A192-80256DAC.0037CAA2@
 radianz.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20030925170909.0539e720@lacnic.net.uy>

At 05:09 a.m. 25/09/2003, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >> - AfriNIC is in the process of setting up offices in four countries
>(Egypt,
> >> Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa)
>
> >Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?
>
>It's their organization, they can run it how they want to?
>
> >RIPE seems to have _an_
> >office in The Netherlands.  ARIN seems to have _an_ office in VA.
>
>APNIC and LACNIC both have offices in multiple countries,
>I believe 2 for APNIC and 3 for LACNIC.
>
> >Who's
> >going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead of
>
> >a single office?
>
>It's their organization...

Hi Michael

Just for avoiding misundertandings regarding LACNIC operations and services.

LACNIC has only one office. This is based on Montevideo Uruguay (wheres is 
legal established). LACNIC is not incoporated under any other country law 
except uruguayan lesgislation.

LACNIC Members do not deal with different locations neither with 
operational overhead.

 From a service point of view we have certainly an agreement with NIC 
Brazil so they are hosting some servers and some human resources  in Sao 
Paulo, but that is transparent for LACNIC's customers at the moment they 
request for internet resources.

What I understand from AFRINIC proposal is that they will split functions 
in different locations. They do not run the sames responsabilities in each 
location.


>--Michael Dillon

German Valdez
LACNIC Policy Liaison
www.lacnic.net 



From randy at psg.com  Thu Sep 25 17:18:56 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:18:56 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <20030925075003.GA687@blue.frogfoot.net>
	<8A169D7B-EF84-11D7-98E5-000A957A0234@futureperfect.co.za>
Message-ID: <E1A2dVp-000Hfv-Dn@ran.psg.com>

> South Africans are fortunate to be in the position to understand how 
> economic empowerment balances the playing field (as an attempt to 
> bridge the digital divide) in the development of information society 
> and the (hopefully global) knowledge economy.

i would not get carried away.  being in za feels to me like the
states felt in 1960.  and, of course, the corollary is that
americans should not be too proud of our racial, religions, and
other ethnic biases now.

randy



From eyal at connectit.co.za  Thu Sep 25 18:00:40 2003
From: eyal at connectit.co.za (Eyal Tevet)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:40 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20030925170909.0539e720@lacnic.net.uy>
Message-ID: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEAEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>

Hi, as the network administrator of a medium to large ISP within South
Africa I have
experience these difficulties with multi-homing.  Although you are correct
that it is not
impossible to multi-home without being in the posession of a portable block
when you
have 1/2/3 allocations of /24 blocks, doing so when you have maybe 5 or 6
/26 and
/25 allocations is effectively impossible. This is largely because most
larger ISP's
(even in South Africa) will ignore any advertisements smaller than /24.

At the same time, if you do find the need to change upstream providers,
renumbering out
of, say, two to three /24's worth of address space that have been reassigned
to clients
as /30 blocks is not a simple operation. (Yes, due to the limited address
space our policy
is to assign exactly /30 blocks to fixed line clients)

As for supporting proposal 2002-3 with ammendment to support both
micro-assignments
and micro-allocations, I am 100% behind it.  However, I do believe that
there is just cause
in passing 2003-15 regardless, on grounds that:
1. There is a genuine need for it (both economic and scale)
3. It is unanimously supported within it's region
4. It would promote the internet industry within that region
5. This would increase the number of ARIN members
6. The routing table impact assessment resulting from the implementation of
2003-15 would
be invaluable to the support of 2002-3

That looks like a win win to me

Regards
Eyal Tevet
Connect IT / NetraLINK
www.netralink.com
0860-223-638



From eyal at connectit.co.za  Thu Sep 25 18:02:31 2003
From: eyal at connectit.co.za (Eyal Tevet)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:02:31 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A336908F0@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>
Message-ID: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>

As a representative of a medium to large ISP within Sub-Saharan Africa, I
support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro Assignments and
Micro Allocations

Regards
Eyal Tevet
Connect IT / NetraLINK
www.netralink.com
0860-223-638



From jlewis at lewis.org  Thu Sep 25 20:40:53 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:40:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEAEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309252033590.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Eyal Tevet wrote:

> Although you are correct that it is not impossible to multi-home without
> being in the posession of a portable block when you have 1/2/3
> allocations of /24 blocks, doing so when you have maybe 5 or 6 /26 and
> /25 allocations is effectively impossible. This is largely because most
> larger ISP's (even in South Africa) will ignore any advertisements
> smaller than /24.

AFAIK, ignoring prefixes longer than /24 is pretty common over here too.  
But if I were in the situation above, I'd ask the provider who'd given me 
5 or 6 /26-/25 subnets to aggregate my space and trade in those subnets on 
an equivalent number of /24's or shorter prefixes.

> At the same time, if you do find the need to change upstream providers,
> renumbering out of, say, two to three /24's worth of address space that
> have been reassigned to clients as /30 blocks is not a simple operation.
> (Yes, due to the limited address space our policy is to assign exactly
> /30 blocks to fixed line clients)

It takes time.  I don't see anything unusual about that though.  We don't 
have a "/30 policy", but rather assign what the customer can justify.  
Lots of business DSL customers do NAT on their CPE, so they're just a 
/32, with maybe some port forwarding for an internal mail server.  If they 
want to run their own firewall, we route them a /30 (1 IP for the CPE's 
ethernet, 1 for the firewall).  Renumbering in the other ARIN regions 
sucks just as much as in Africa.  Nobody likes to do it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From randy at psg.com  Thu Sep 25 21:14:54 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:14:54 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030925170909.0539e720@lacnic.net.uy>
	<NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEAEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
Message-ID: <E1A2hCA-000NmT-Hi@ran.psg.com>

> Hi, as the network administrator of a medium to large ISP within
> South Africa I have experience these difficulties with
> multi-homing.  Although you are correct that it is not impossible
> to multi-home without being in the posession of a portable block
> when you have 1/2/3 allocations of /24 blocks, doing so when you
> have maybe 5 or 6 /26 and /25 allocations is effectively
> impossible. This is largely because most larger ISP's (even in
> South Africa) will ignore any advertisements smaller than /24.

but we've all been through that for well over a decade.  we've all
been trough it and we decided that the trade-off of pain IF an isp
actually grows, and note the big 'if', is one we'll accept in the
face of routing table fragmentation and growth.

imiho, the simple and really only argument for this proposal is
that, in general, the scale of networking in africa is smaller, and
hence a longer minimum allocation prefix than in the states,
europe, and even alyc, is appropriate.

randy



From theo at uniforum.org.za  Fri Sep 26 03:22:43 2003
From: theo at uniforum.org.za (Theo Kramer)
Date: 26 Sep 2003 09:22:43 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
References: 	 <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <1064560962.4292.55.camel@josh>

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 12:01, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >We don't know what AfriNIC or who AfriNIC will be _IF_ it ever actually
> >exists. 
> 
> The funny thing is that Afrinic does exist! It even has a website at
> http://www.afrinic.org and it has had several meetings over the past
> couple of years including one last week in South Africa at 
> Internet Week.
> 
> So, why haven't the several .ZA ISPs on this list said anything
> about this?

They have.

> Why didn't the policy proposal indicate whether or not Afrinic
> had been consulted or whether the Afrinic Board of Trustees
> supports the proposal?

AfriNIC was consulted about this right from the start. The AfriNIC BoT
supports the proposal.

<snip>

Regards
Theo




From woody at pch.net  Sun Sep 28 07:12:16 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064407673@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280410540.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
    > However, I'd like to see membership conferred on _ALL_ ARIN resource
    > allocations, not just ISP allocations.

    > <Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com> wrote:
    > > I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include ARIN membership
    > > with the assignments.

Owen, I think you misunderstood Stacy.  ARIN membership goes hand-in-hand
with _allocations_, but not _assignments_.  I assume no change is being
contemplated to that long-standing policy.


                                -Bill




From woody at pch.net  Sun Sep 28 07:15:30 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280413400.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

    Owen wrote:
    > Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we should
    > not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that eventually AfriNIC
    > (whatever it may become)...

Uh, Owen, it has staff, a board, and meetings.  What exactly are you
looking for as further evidence of its substance?

                                -Bill




From woody at pch.net  Sun Sep 28 07:22:29 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309241628480.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280417370.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 jlewis at lewis.org wrote:
    > Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?

There are a variety of reasons, of which possibly none will satisfy you as
an engineer.  However, this isn't an engineering problem, this is a
business and political problem.

First: language.  Afrinic will have to operate in more languages than the
other RIRs.  Note that LACNIC operages a good low-overhead operation out
of two offices, in three languages.

Second: politics.  How many more years do you want to wait, before you
allow a compromise like this one to get things moving?  You were the one
complaining that it was taking too long to get going.  If there were an
office in every gcountry in Africa, it could have been started
immediately.  This seems a reasonable compromise.

    > Who's going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the
    > overhead of a single office?

Um, I'd point out that the cost of maintaining a fully-staffed office in
Africa is probably significantly less than the cost of the liability
insurance alone on an office like RIPE's or ARIN's.  Four offices in
Africa isn't a significant cost difference versus one office.  A
significant cost would be sending someone on an international flight to a
conference.

                                -Bill




From anne at apnic.net  Sun Sep 28 22:11:15 2003
From: anne at apnic.net (Anne Lord)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:11:15 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [hm-staff] Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation
 Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF8F1D6A62.8054BBA4-ON80256DAC.0037A192-80256DAC.0037CAA2@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309291210130.13784-100000@durian.apnic.net>


Hi there,

Just one other minor clarification to avoid any misunderstandings..

> APNIC and LACNIC both have offices in multiple countries, 
> I believe 2 for APNIC and 3 for LACNIC.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^

APNIC has only one office, located in Brisbane, Australia.

regards,

Anne
APNIC
--
 
> 
> >Who's 
> >going to fund AfriNIC's 4 offices in 4 countries with >4x the overhead of 
> 
> >a single office?
> 
> It's their organization...
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hostmaster-staff mailing list
> Hostmaster-staff at apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
> 



From alan at futureperfect.co.za  Mon Sep 29 07:05:16 2003
From: alan at futureperfect.co.za (Alan Levin)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:05:16 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280417370.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <CE7F70A8-F26C-11D7-9288-000A957A0234@futureperfect.co.za>

On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 13:22 Africa/Johannesburg, Bill Woodcock 
wrote:

>       On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 jlewis at lewis.org wrote:
>> Why does a NIC need offices in 4 countries?
>
> There are a variety of reasons, of which possibly none will satisfy 
> you as
> an engineer.  However, this isn't an engineering problem, this is a
> business and political problem.
>
> First: language.  Afrinic will have to operate in more languages than 
> the
> other RIRs.  Note that LACNIC operages a good low-overhead operation 
> out
> of two offices, in three languages.
>
> Second: politics.  How many more years do you want to wait, before you
> allow a compromise like this one to get things moving?  You were the 
> one
> complaining that it was taking too long to get going.  If there were an
> office in every gcountry in Africa, it could have been started
> immediately.  This seems a reasonable compromise.


These are the most important reasons but if I may add:

Third: National legislation and forex policy: The finances will be run 
from a tax-free location which is ideal for moving currency and saving 
taxes that could favour any specific African country (ideally from the 
same office that runs Africa's other infrastructure organisations incl. 
Aftld and AfrISPA).

Having served on the board of a US organisation I realise that these 
are not 'normal' US centric things for you to relate to but hopefully 
even an engineer can imagine how this can actually lead to cost savings 
and efficiencies for the community it serves.



---------------------------------------------
Alan Levin



From bicknell at ufp.org  Mon Sep 29 10:23:16 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:23:16 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280413400.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280417370.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net> <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
References: <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280413400.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309241628480.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280417370.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net> <2147483647.1064400348@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <006101c382d9$6613beb0$0a1929c4@tipsy>
Message-ID: <20030929142316.GA8286@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 10:21:11PM +0200, Gregory Massel wrote:
> It is true, however, that AfriNIC is not yet able to operate as a
> self-sufficient NIC. That will only happen once the offices are all
> operational, additional staff have been hired and trained and policies and
> fees have been formalised.

In a message written on Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:22:29AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> First: language.  Afrinic will have to operate in more languages than the
> other RIRs.  Note that LACNIC operages a good low-overhead operation out
> of two offices, in three languages.

In a message written on Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:15:30AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Uh, Owen, it has staff, a board, and meetings.  What exactly are you
> looking for as further evidence of its substance?

These comments confuse me.  The last message suggests we have a
staff, a board, and meetings.  Clearly the policies and fees mentioned
in the first message are important.  I won't touch the fee issue,
as I don't know the groups finances, but I'll come back to policy
in a moment.

Today the whole of Africa is served by ARIN, or RIPE, or APNIC.
Last I checked none have an office in contentinal africa.  ARIN
seems to only do business in English, RIPE seems to prefer english
(do they accept forms and such in other languages?  I've never
tried), and I don't know what languages APNIC uses, but I find it
unlikely at APNIC languages are the natve languages of any significant
part of Africa.  ARIN and APNIC both aren't remotely in similar time
zones to Africa, making RIPE the only one remotely easy to work with
at this time.

Similarly with policy, while I'm sure AfriNIC wants to have a policy
that better serves local members, adopting wholesale the policies
of ARIN, RIPE, or APNIC as a starting point would leave them no
worse off than today where those are the policies by default.
Indeed, simply having one, rather than three policies for the
companies that are in multiple countries would probably be a huge
improvement.

So, please tell me, if there is a board, a staff, and meetings why
the group needs _years_ (as that is the timeframe that has been
suggested) to adopt existing policies and start taking requests in
english?  It seems to me that would leave Africa no worse off, and
probably better as you can start collecting local data immediately.

No doubt taloring the policies, opening other offices, and accepting
other languages will be issues that should be addressed over that
several year time frame.  That said, it seems like a bit of shooting
for the moon is going on here.  Given the numbers of ISP's and the
growth rate we're talking about here it seems to me like one person
in one place could do the job and be bored half the day, and still
provide 10 times better service than Africa's already getting.

-- 
       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/20030929/935036d1/attachment.sig>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 10:51:31 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:51:31 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064477534@[192.168.1.101]>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309240629310.24610-100000@sokol.elan.net>
 <5.2.0.9.0.20030925101640.01dc4c90@pop.mail.yahoo.fr>
 <2147483647.1064471526@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <2147483647.1064477534@[192.168.1.101]>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064821891@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

You are correct... The word I was intending was smaller, as in /22 vs.
a /20.

Owen


--On Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:12 AM -0600 "Alec H. Peterson" 
<ahp at hilander.com> wrote:

> --On Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:32 AM -0700 Owen DeLong
> <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> But ARIN isn't about business models.  It's about stewardship of the IP
>> public resource.  There is  a need for a shorter prefix allocation in
>> North America.  There is a need for a shorter prefix allocation in
>> Sub Saharan Africa.
>
> Owen, I don't think you of all people wants a shorter minimum allocation,
> I think you mean longer.
>
> Alec




From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 11:33:04 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:33:04 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <8A169D7B-EF84-11D7-98E5-000A957A0234@futureperfect.co.za>
References: <8A169D7B-EF84-11D7-98E5-000A957A0234@futureperfect.co.za>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064824383@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

Alan,
	I take some offense to your statement.  I am not opposed to smaller
IP block allocations.  I am not opposed to economic empowerment in Africa.
I am not in favor of the apartheid regime or system.

	I do think that this policy is needed, but, I think it is needed
globally.  I also think that it is a political reality that if this policy
is created as an exception for a portion of Africa, that will be used as
an excuse by large(r) providers in North America to claim that it isn't
needed in North America.  Given the historical dominance of large(r)
North American providers in ARIN politics, I do not believe this problem
will get solved for all of ARIN if an exception is granted.

	This isn't about dragging anyone down.  It's not about racism.
It's certainly not a desire to victimize Africa.  It's about making a policy
which is needed throughout the ARIN region available throughout the
ARIN region instead of for some small sub-region within the ARIN region.

Owen


--On Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:17 PM +0200 Alan Levin 
<alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:

> On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 09:50 Africa/Johannesburg, Johann Botha
> wrote:
>> Hi Owen
>> > @2003.09.25_03:53:39_+0200
>>> However, there are non-African ramifications to ARIN adopting 2003-15
>>> which
>>> I believe override the desire to provide this solution for Africa.  I
>>> believe 2003-15 represents a good policy with one flaw.  It is Africa
>>> specific.  As long as it is Africa specific, I will vote against it.
>>> If
>>> 2003-15 is amended to cover all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will
>>> vote
>>> for 2002-3.
>>
>> this reminds me of the story of a guy with an open basket full of
>> crayfish.
>> somebody asked him if he wasn't worried that the crayfish would
>> escape..
>> no, he replied, as soon as one makes it to the top, the others will
>> drag him
>> back down.
>
> This story reminds me of how I was indoctrinated to think by the
> apartheid regime.
>
> South Africans are fortunate to be in the position to understand how
> economic empowerment balances the playing field (as an attempt to bridge
> the digital divide) in the development of information society and the
> (hopefully global) knowledge economy.
>
> warm regards,
>
> Alan
>




From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 11:41:04 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:41:04 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEAEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEAEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064824864@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

While I agree with almost all of your statements below, especially points
1, 4, and 5 (I don't know what 2 was supposed to be, it was omitted), I
am not in a position to judge 3 (I suspect it is true, but I just don't have
any way to know for sure), and, I must disagree with 6.

In your point 6, you make a logical valid argument.  Unfortunately, I don't
think it reflects the political reality of what has happened in the past
within ARIN.  Instead, if 2003-15 passes, it will be used as a justification
to not implement 2002-3 because "It's not as important in North America and
we made the exception Africa needed." or something close to that.

I hope you can understand that is why I will support 2002-3 regardless, but,
I will favor amending 2002-3 to include micro-allocations.  I will only
support 2003-15 if it is amended to make it apply to all of ARIN region
and not just Africa.  Local policy exceptions produce a very bad precedent
and are counter-productive in the long run.  Especially when the exception
they make is needed as an amendment to policy everywhere.

Owen


--On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:00 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet 
<eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:

> Hi, as the network administrator of a medium to large ISP within South
> Africa I have
> experience these difficulties with multi-homing.  Although you are correct
> that it is not
> impossible to multi-home without being in the posession of a portable
> block when you
> have 1/2/3 allocations of /24 blocks, doing so when you have maybe 5 or 6
> /26 and
> /25 allocations is effectively impossible. This is largely because most
> larger ISP's
> (even in South Africa) will ignore any advertisements smaller than /24.
>
> At the same time, if you do find the need to change upstream providers,
> renumbering out
> of, say, two to three /24's worth of address space that have been
> reassigned to clients
> as /30 blocks is not a simple operation. (Yes, due to the limited address
> space our policy
> is to assign exactly /30 blocks to fixed line clients)
>
> As for supporting proposal 2002-3 with ammendment to support both
> micro-assignments
> and micro-allocations, I am 100% behind it.  However, I do believe that
> there is just cause
> in passing 2003-15 regardless, on grounds that:
> 1. There is a genuine need for it (both economic and scale)
> 3. It is unanimously supported within it's region
> 4. It would promote the internet industry within that region
> 5. This would increase the number of ARIN members
> 6. The routing table impact assessment resulting from the implementation
> of 2003-15 would
> be invaluable to the support of 2002-3
>
> That looks like a win win to me
>
> Regards
> Eyal Tevet
> Connect IT / NetraLINK
> www.netralink.com
> 0860-223-638
>




From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 11:41:39 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:41:39 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed
 Networks
In-Reply-To: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064824899@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 2002-3.  Can you
confirm that?

Owen


--On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet 
<eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:

> As a representative of a medium to large ISP within Sub-Saharan Africa, I
> support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro Assignments and
> Micro Allocations
>
> Regards
> Eyal Tevet
> Connect IT / NetraLINK
> www.netralink.com
> 0860-223-638
>




From joe at frogfoot.net  Mon Sep 29 12:13:54 2003
From: joe at frogfoot.net (Johann Botha)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:13:54 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064824864@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEAEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za> <2147483647.1064824864@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <20030929161354.GA28790@blue.frogfoot.net>

Hi Owen                                          >@2003.09.29_17:41:04_+0200

> I hope you can understand that is why I will support 2002-3 regardless, but,
> I will favor amending 2002-3 to include micro-allocations.  I will only
> support 2003-15 if it is amended to make it apply to all of ARIN region
> and not just Africa.

three things come to mind..

broken record
barrier to entry
dead lock

one of these is a sound you are making (: the second is nothing new, IP
space is a very nice example, big ISPs my want to protect theirs and they
may have a strong voice within ARIN.. which with your current way of
thinking brings us to number three.

Your idea that allowing 2003-15 will somehow have some negative effect on
2002-3 is pure speculation.. I speculate the reverse is true.

-- 
Regards                         "Cape Town in the Summertime.."
 Johann

          'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.'
                                 - Leonardo da Vinci
________________________________________________________________
 Johann L. Botha      Frogfoot Networks ISP              AS22355
 joe at frogfoot.net     http://www.frogfoot.net/
 +27.82.562.6167      Built and Managed with Attention to Detail
 0860 KERMIT
 http://blue.frogfoot.net/


From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 12:31:38 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:31:38 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280413400.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280413400.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064827898@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

They are not yet operating as an RIR, and, there is no set date when they
will start operating as an RIR.  They have no documented RIR policies, and,
they have no IANA blocks from which to allocate.  All of those would need
to be in place before I considered an AfriNIC RIR anything on which policy
decisions within ARIN should be considered.

Owen


--On Sunday, September 28, 2003 4:15 AM -0700 Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 
wrote:

>     Owen wrote:
>     > Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we
> should     > not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that
> eventually AfriNIC     > (whatever it may become)...
>
> Uh, Owen, it has staff, a board, and meetings.  What exactly are you
> looking for as further evidence of its substance?
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Mon Sep 29 12:33:02 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:33:02 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF87B2CC99.BD6A7D07-ON80256DB0.005AA4F2-80256DB0.005AEA6E@radianz.com>

>                I take some offense to your statement.  I am not opposed 
to smaller
>IP block allocations.  I am not opposed to economic empowerment in 
Africa.
>I am not in favor of the apartheid regime or system.

Uhmmm, seems to me that it was Johan Botha who used the
crayfish metaphor, not you. Therefore Alan's comments were
directed towards Johan.

Check the archives if you aren't sure, I did.

--Michael Dillon








From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 12:30:16 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:30:16 -0700
Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP space in African countries...
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280410540.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309280410540.17113-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064827816@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

I assume no change is being contemplated, however, I would like to see
that change occur.

Owen


--On Sunday, September 28, 2003 4:12 AM -0700 Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 
wrote:

>       On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
>     > However, I'd like to see membership conferred on _ALL_ ARIN resource
>     > allocations, not just ISP allocations.
>
>     > <Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com> wrote:
>     > > I have confirmed with Richard that 2002-3 does not include ARIN
> membership     > > with the assignments.
>
> Owen, I think you misunderstood Stacy.  ARIN membership goes hand-in-hand
> with _allocations_, but not _assignments_.  I assume no change is being
> contemplated to that long-standing policy.
>
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>




From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Mon Sep 29 12:45:47 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:45:47 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for  the Africa
 Portion of the ARIN Region
Message-ID: <OF35F7BF98.757EBA59-ON80256DB0.005B25C2-80256DB0.005C153B@radianz.com>

>Your idea that allowing 2003-15 will somehow have some negative effect on
>2002-3 is pure speculation.. I speculate the reverse is true.

I agree and I think this may be an appropriate point
for an AC member to comment. As far as I can tell,
the member's meeting is more of a detailed opinion
poll than a voting session. At the end of the day the
AC will craft an actual policy based on the input of
the members. If one of these two policies loses a
few votes because of the other it is not likely to
kill that policy unless its support is very very
low.

I expect that most people who support the Africa
proposal will also feel inclined to support
micro allocations/assignments across the board.

Let's face it, we are no longer in the same
IPv4 shortage situation we were in 5 years
ago. China has come onto the Internet in a controlled
manner and is not sucking up all the spare
IP addresses. Growth has slowed down due to
various factors and there is a real replacement
being deployed today in Asia (namely IPv6).

We just don't have the same pressing need to
conserve IPv4 addresses that we once had. 
Now our job is to manage the transition to
IPv6. Part of that job is to make IPv4 space
last long enough and part of it is to let
people know that IPv4 is running out at some
approximate date in the near future and that
the IPv6 replacement is viable in at least
some real-world deployments today.

--Michael Dillon



From woody at pch.net  Mon Sep 29 13:26:03 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064827898@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291023410.8235-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
    > They are not yet operating as an RIR, and, there is no set date when they
    > will start operating as an RIR.  They have no documented RIR policies, and,
    > they have no IANA blocks from which to allocate.  All of those would need
    > to be in place before I considered an AfriNIC RIR anything on which policy
    > decisions within ARIN should be considered.

On the contrary...  If they were already an RIR, none of this would
matter, since they'd be handling it within the context of an AfriNIC
meeting.  As the world _actually_ stands, they're still compelled to
handle their business within the context of an ARIN meeting, whether you
like it or not.  Whether they like it or not.  They need to solve their
problem within an ARIN policy context, and that's _completely_ orthoganal
to your desire to make microallocation policies in the US and Canada.

                                -Bill




From billd at cait.wustl.edu  Mon Sep 29 13:56:22 2003
From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:56:22 -0500
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihom
	ed Networks
Message-ID: <DA8A7734F2B39240977D7883C732FF9B02D902@kronos.cait.wustl.edu>

Duly noted that Owen has proposed that 2002-3 should encompass allocation
along with assignment....duly noted that there is some additional support
for the revision of focus.  This information will be part of the
presentation of 2002-3 at the Chicago PPM as will all of the other comments
related to this policy.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC and steward of the 2002-3 policy issues...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:42 AM
> To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
> Multihomed Networks
> 
> 
> I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 
> 2002-3.  Can you
> confirm that?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> --On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet 
> <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
> 
> > As a representative of a medium to large ISP within 
> Sub-Saharan Africa, I
> > support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro 
> Assignments and
> > Micro Allocations
> >
> > Regards
> > Eyal Tevet
> > Connect IT / NetraLINK
> > www.netralink.com
> > 0860-223-638
> >
> 
> 


From owen at delong.com  Mon Sep 29 13:52:22 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:52:22 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed
 Networks
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
 <2147483647.1064824899@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <2147483647.1064828725@[192.168.0.100]>
 <2147483647.1064829457@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <2147483647.1064833311@[192.168.0.100]>
 <2147483647.1064830216@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <2147483647.1064834110@[192.168.0.100]>
 <2147483647.1064831571@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

I'm reposting the following from private email with permission from
Alec Peterson:

> --On Monday, September 29, 2003 11:15 AM -0600 "Alec H. Peterson"
> <ahp at hilander.com> wrote:
>
>> --On Monday, September 29, 2003 10:10 AM -0700 Owen DeLong
>> <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, regardless of how long it takes, both micro-assignments and
>>> micro-allocations are needed.  As such, I would ask your advice on which
>>> of the following alternatives you would think has the best chance:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.	Modify 2002-3 to include allocation and assignment.
>>>
>>> 2.	Pass 2002-3 as is.  Modify 2003-15 to encompass all of ARIN for
>>> 	allocations.
>>>
>>> FWIW, "through the policy process" is a tautological answer, given that
>>> the fundamental question was "what is the policy process for adding an
>>> amendment to a proposed policy".  Admittedly, I did not state it so
>>> clearly the first time.
>>
>> It is difficult to say which would be easiest Owen.  We've been working
>> on trying to get something like this passed for years, but it hasn't
>> happened because there are such strong views on both sides of the issue.
>> We're trying to come up with a compromise, and I think trying to get
>> everything you want in one proposal is a mistake, because it just won't
>> happen.
>>
>> As far as amendments work, there isn't a way to do such things without
>> just changing the proposal.  And such a change would be material enough
>> that it would require yet another public policy meeting for full public
>> vetting before it passes.  So if you do want to amend the current
>> proposal to also include allocations then no micro-anything proposal
>> would pass until after the _next_ pp meeting at the earliest.
>>
>>
>> Alec

Based on this advice, I will now advocate that we should pass 2002-3 without
amendment.  Further, I will advocate amending 2003-15 to encompass all of
ARIN and recommend that it be passed at the next public policy meeting with
just that modification.  I will vote against any sub-region specific policy,
not because I think it is a bad policy, but, because I think it sets a bad
precedent.  i think 2003-15 is a good policy if it is expanded to encompass
all of ARIN.  I think sub-regional specific policies are just not a good
idea in general.

To be fair to Alec, he disagrees with me about 2003-15 and feels that we 
should
pass it now as is and work on expanding it to the rest of ARIN later.  I am
not sure whether his reposting permission included his specific comments,
on this, so I have not included them here.  If he asks me to, I will
post them.  I certainly have no objection to him posting them.  He makes a
good argument for 2003-15 and I agree with his points.  Alec, you are
also welcome to post any portion of my reply that you consider appropriate.


Owen



From woody at pch.net  Mon Sep 29 13:54:13 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309231527300.19122-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291039020.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
    > > procedures.  In turn this means only about 10% of the ISPs are capable of
    > > providing the higher service levels that portable address space makes
    > > possible.
    > Please excuse me for being dense today, but can you define "higher
    > service levels"?

Internet connections with real, globally-reachable IP addresses, which can
be used for servers or sub-allocated to smaller customers.

    > Is this an issue of not wanting to renumber?

No.  I believe everyone concerned would happily renumber, if they were
able to get portable space.  I've heard that said directly, in as many
words, many times.  Renumbering is not an issue here.

    > The *only* valid argument in the policy proposal I could find is this:
    > "Lack of adequate IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and
    > development of the Internet in Africa."

I agree that that's a good and sufficient reason to pass this policy
proposal.  As well, it fits with ARIN's core mandate of encouraging the
growth and development of the Internet industry.

The problem here is simply one of an inappropriate yardstick being
applied.  Nobody is arguing that African and American ISPs are being
treated differently in a quantitative sense; that is in faact exactly the
problem.  A yardstick has been defined by which we measure American ISPs.
The ISPs line up their customers, who line up their dollars, and the ISP
is measured to see if they qualify.  _There simply aren't enough customers
or dollars in Africa_ for ISPs to qualify by American standards.  And
there's _no reason_ to try to measure them by American standards.  Doing
so doesn't benefit anyone.  There's no competitive issue, as no American
ISPs care to do business there, given the absence of customers and
dollars.  However African ISPs don't have a choice about doing business
there; it's their home.  And they certainly don't have any means of
competing with American ISPs in America.  If they had a mechanism to set
their policy in an AfriNIC forum, they'd do so.  But for right now, they
have to set it in an ARIN forum.  And I think it's inappropriate for
people to tell them that they're not allowed to do so, just because there
are more Americans in an American organization than there are Africans
_because we're excluding them already_.

    > Why are smaller ISPs in Africa unable to obtain IP space from
    > upstream providers?

Because the upstream providers also don't qualify for portable space by
the American yardstick, so there are no addresses to be had.  The only
ones who can get the addresses are on the other end of the satellite
links, in the U.S. and Europe, do qualify using an American or RIPE
yardstick, and use that to extract excess cash from Africa by charging
exhorbitantly for addresses.  Cash which simply isn't there to the degree
to allow African ISPs to circumvent the problem by paying more blackmail
money to an upstream monopolist, to put it in politically-charged terms.

                                -Bill




From woody at pch.net  Mon Sep 29 14:33:27 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAGEMPEGAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291103460.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Stucke wrote:
    > In most of the 53 countries in Africa, ISPs don't
    > have a choice of from whom they get service, nor how it is carried. They are
    > obliged to use the monopoly incumbent, or go to jail. Some of those monopoly
    > Telcos are VERY reluctant to assign IP addresses - e.g. Kenya.

This is an important factor for Americans to consider carefully before
rushing to judgement in this issue.  One of the _really fundamental_
assumptions Americans make, upon which the whole policy framework in
America is founded, is that customers can vote with their feet.  That is,
if a customer doesn't like the policies of an upstream provider
($500/month for an additional IP address, or whatever), they can simply
switch providers, and give their money to someone more reasonable.  That
logic is simply not applicable in the African regulatory context, and that
fundamental difference informs this whole debate.  So, American ARIN
members, please step back and think about that before judging this policy.

    > an ISP in Bonaparte, Iowa, and I wanted a T1 line to the BWW (Big Wide World
    > [tm]), it would cost me $1,024 to $1,052 per month from one of two providers
    > (http://shopfort1.com). If I was an ISP in Africa and I got it from my
    > state-legislated monopoly Telco, it would cost me ~$55,000 per month for the
    > same dedicated T1 symmetrical bandwidth.

Simultaneously, the average annual income of the _customers_ in Podunk,
Iowa, is presumably about US$18,000/household.  Which will seem low to the
policy-setters at ISPs, mostly well-paid engineers on the coasts, where
individual engineers' salaries are often US$60,000/year or more.

Ask yourself how many /20s of addresses you could fill with customers
whose average annual incomes were US$250/year.  In a country where the
vast majority of potential customers aren't potential customers because
they don't have a phone line and it's illegal for you to lay one or use
wireless.

Ask yourself again how many you could fill if that were true _and_ you had
to pay US$55,000/month (US$660,000/year) _per T1_ of bandwidth. Which is
_not_ an orthoganal issue, since a) this is an argument of scale, not
technology, and b) IP addresses are being sold to the African continent by
the providers of that bandwidth, based upon how much money they receive.
Unless we allow them to solve that problem by giving them the same
opportunity to use portable address space that ISPs in America take for
granted.

    > On the income side, the picture is just as bleak. My company charges $14 per
    > month for an unlimited access dial-up connection, for example.

Just to point out the obvious to those not keeping score here, $14/month
is 67% of an average local salary.  The equivalent of $1,000/month for a
Podunk, Iowan.  The equivalent of $3,500/month for an ISP engineer.

How many customers would you have if you had to charge $3,500/month per
dial-up?  Would you be able to fill a /20?

    > A "really big ISP" (think AOL, Earthlink) in Africa has a few 100,000
    > dial-up subscribers, or a few hundred leased lines. There are only a handful
    > of these (I can think of three, off hand), which is why there are only 19
    > LIRs in sub-Saharan Africa.

I encourage everyone to consider William's point here.  How relevant would
ARIN's policies be if only nineteen ISPs in America were large enough to
qualify for membership?  Is that the kind of organization we want ARIN to
be?

    > SOUTH AFRICA  399
    > SENEGAL        60
    > KENYA          28
    > GABON          16
    > NIGERIA        15
    > BOTSWANA       14
    > The remaining countries have less than 13 Mbps each, with Equatorial Guinea
    > at the bottom of the list with 64 kbps for half a million people.
    > I'd imagine that many of the people on this list have more bandwidth than
    > most of these entire countries for their ISP alone.

In fact, many have more than _all_ of these countries combined.

      Leo wrote:
    >> That said, this proposal leaves a bad taste in
    >> my mouth because it tells the ISP in Africa that needs a /22 that
    >> they are "special enough" to get it, but the same sized ISP in some
    >> other country is not.

Should we be creating policies that are so "special" that they're only
applicable to nineteen ISPs on a whole continent?  Or should we be
creating policies that are generally applicable?

      William wrote:
    > It's not impossible to peer at an IXP if you don't have address space
    > independent from your upstream provider...

But it is impossible if there's no IXP in your country, and you go to jail
if you try to connect to one in another country.  Something else for
American ISPs to think about, when thinking about this policy.  Which is
why we're talking about having to qualify for a /20 currently, rather than
a /21.

      Leo wrote:
    >> If we're going to change the allocation size I believe strongly it
    >> should be a global change

Sorry, this is ARIN.  We don' set global policy.  We set policy for the
United States, Canada, and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Or at least, currently we
set policy for the United States and Canada, and expect Africans to shut
up and live with the results, however inappropriate.

                                -Bill




From woody at pch.net  Mon Sep 29 14:49:37 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064339489@dhcp157-204.corp.tellme.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291136230.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
    > For that price per month, terrestrial microwave would pay for itself
    > rather quickly.  Have you considered setting up terrestrial microwave
    > links between providers?

Owen, don't be obnoxious.  Don't you think they'd love to?  But they go
to jail for that, remember?

This is getting way off-topic.

    > The playing field is level.  The resources available to the two teams before
    > they get to the field are vastly different.  On one side of the field,
    > you have a collection of well-funded rich kids from North America.  On the
    > other side, you have a collection of poor ISPs trying to help an even
    > poorer customer base.  The disparity between the economics of the two
    > teams does not mean the field is not level.  It does mean that there
    > are many other factors that come into whether it is a fair contest or not.

Correct.

    > However, making exceptions to the rules of the game to make the contest
    > more fair for a subset of the disadvantaged teams is not the right
    > answer.

Right, the correct answer is for Africans to have salary and
quality-of-life parity with Americans.  However I don't think you can
solve that in the context of ARIN policies.  But we can allow Africans to
solve their own problem in the context of ARIN policy, which is where
they have to do it, for now.


                                -Bill




From jmcburnett at msmgmt.com  Mon Sep 29 14:46:21 2003
From: jmcburnett at msmgmt.com (McBurnett, Jim)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:46:21 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
Message-ID: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A3369097B@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>

Can I ask for 1 clarification:
Allocation vs Assignment.
Allocation allows voting rights where as assignment does not.
Is this a true statement?


next questions:

If both Allocation and Assignment are made part of the proposal,
who make the decision of which is completed?
IE Allocation goes to ISPs, Assignment to end user?

And why would I want to accept an assignment versus an
allocation?

Please forgive my possible ignorance here... 

Thanks,
Jim


->-----Original Message-----
->From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
->Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:56 PM
->To: 'Owen DeLong'; eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
->Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
->Multihomed Networks
->
->
->Duly noted that Owen has proposed that 2002-3 should 
->encompass allocation
->along with assignment....duly noted that there is some 
->additional support
->for the revision of focus.  This information will be part of the
->presentation of 2002-3 at the Chicago PPM as will all of the 
->other comments
->related to this policy.
->
->Bill Darte
->ARIN AC and steward of the 2002-3 policy issues...
->
->> -----Original Message-----
->> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
->> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:42 AM
->> To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
->> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
->> Multihomed Networks
->> 
->> 
->> I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 
->> 2002-3.  Can you
->> confirm that?
->> 
->> Owen
->> 
->> 
->> --On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet 
->> <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
->> 
->> > As a representative of a medium to large ISP within 
->> Sub-Saharan Africa, I
->> > support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro 
->> Assignments and
->> > Micro Allocations
->> >
->> > Regards
->> > Eyal Tevet
->> > Connect IT / NetraLINK
->> > www.netralink.com
->> > 0860-223-638
->> >
->> 
->> 
->


From mlawrie at zanet.co.za  Mon Sep 29 15:29:33 2003
From: mlawrie at zanet.co.za (mlawrie at zanet.co.za)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:29:33 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064824383@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <8A169D7B-EF84-11D7-98E5-000A957A0234@futureperfect.co.za>
Message-ID: <3F78A43D.68.20F6042@localhost>

I find this attitude quite appalling, and think that Alan Levin put 
it exactly right wrt the "dragging down" analogy.

If there is a need throughout ARIN's main region of control (USA) to 
have a change in policy, then propose it and let it stand or fall on 
the merits of the arguments. But it is a really sick dog-in-the-
manger approach to set about blocking another proposal for another 
region (Southern Africa) that has had, without choice, to fall under 
ARIN's control and therefore has had to comply with some policies 
that are not appropriate for that latter region.

Mike

> Alan,
>  I take some offense to your statement.  I am not opposed to smaller
> IP block allocations.  I am not opposed to economic empowerment in
> Africa. I am not in favor of the apartheid regime or system.
> 
>  I do think that this policy is needed, but, I think it is needed
> globally.  I also think that it is a political reality that if this
> policy is created as an exception for a portion of Africa, that will
> be used as an excuse by large(r) providers in North America to claim
> that it isn't needed in North America.  Given the historical dominance
> of large(r) North American providers in ARIN politics, I do not
> believe this problem will get solved for all of ARIN if an exception
> is granted.
> 
>  This isn't about dragging anyone down.  It's not about racism.
> It's certainly not a desire to victimize Africa.  It's about making a
> policy which is needed throughout the ARIN region available throughout
> the ARIN region instead of for some small sub-region within the ARIN
> region.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:17 PM +0200 Alan Levin 
> <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 09:50 Africa/Johannesburg, Johann
> > Botha wrote:
> >> Hi Owen
> >> > @2003.09.25_03:53:39_+0200
> >>> However, there are non-African ramifications to ARIN adopting
> >>> 2003-15 which I believe override the desire to provide this
> >>> solution for Africa.  I believe 2003-15 represents a good policy
> >>> with one flaw.  It is Africa specific.  As long as it is Africa
> >>> specific, I will vote against it. If 2003-15 is amended to cover
> >>> all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will vote for 2002-3.
> >>
> >> this reminds me of the story of a guy with an open basket full of
> >> crayfish. somebody asked him if he wasn't worried that the crayfish
> >> would escape.. no, he replied, as soon as one makes it to the top,
> >> the others will drag him back down.
> >
> > This story reminds me of how I was indoctrinated to think by the
> > apartheid regime.
> >
> > South Africans are fortunate to be in the position to understand how
> > economic empowerment balances the playing field (as an attempt to
> > bridge the digital divide) in the development of information society
> > and the (hopefully global) knowledge economy.
> >
> > warm regards,
> >
> > Alan
> >
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Mike Lawrie.
Ph +27 12 348 0944 or 072 480 8898
<mlawrie at zanet.co.za>


From eyal at connectit.co.za  Tue Sep 30 01:47:33 2003
From: eyal at connectit.co.za (Eyal Tevet)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:47:33 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064824899@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEIEGMFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>

Confirmed, I do second your motion

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:42 PM
To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
Multihomed Networks


I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 2002-3.  Can you
confirm that?

Owen


--On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet
<eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:

> As a representative of a medium to large ISP within Sub-Saharan Africa, I
> support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro Assignments and
> Micro Allocations
>
> Regards
> Eyal Tevet
> Connect IT / NetraLINK
> www.netralink.com
> 0860-223-638
>



From tme at multicasttech.com  Tue Sep 30 06:57:52 2003
From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:57:52 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
  Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEIEGMFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
Message-ID: <web-1780908@multicasttech.com>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:47:33 +0200
 "Eyal Tevet" <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
> Confirmed, I do second your motion
> 

Is there text for the admendment ? 

You realize that amending 2002-3 would
probably put passage off for at least another policy meeting.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:42 PM
> To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
> Multihomed Networks
> 
> 
> I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 2002-3.  Can you
> confirm that?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> --On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet
> <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
> 
> > As a representative of a medium to large ISP within Sub-Saharan Africa, I
> > support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro Assignments and
> > Micro Allocations
> >
> > Regards
> > Eyal Tevet
> > Connect IT / NetraLINK
> > www.netralink.com
> > 0860-223-638
> >
> 



From gregm at datapro.co.za  Tue Sep 30 08:59:56 2003
From: gregm at datapro.co.za (Gregory Massel)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:59:56 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za> <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]> <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za>

> Based on this advice, I will now advocate that we should pass 2002-3
> without amendment.  Further, I will advocate amending 2003-15 to encompass
> all of ARIN and recommend that it be passed at the next public policy
> meeting with just that modification.  I will vote against any sub-region

Owen, I find it quite amusing the manner in which you advocated the change to 
2002-3 and dropping of 2003-15 until you found out there would be delays. 

Now you're keen to pass 2002-3 in a manner that doesn't match your 
requirements (you want allocations and assignments) and modify and delay 
2003-15 to achieve what you want out of an amended 2002-3.

Ironically, you think that introducing an unmodified 2002-3 won't prejudice a 
modified 2003-15, yet you claim introducing an unmodified 2003-15 would 
compromise 2002-3??? Why such inconsistency?

Come on, give us a break. You've blatantly displayed to this entire list that 
you have purely your own interests at heart on this issue and that you'll 
happily modify whatever proposals are on the table so long as you get what 
you want with complete disregard to the negative impact that might have on 
the people who originally made the proposals.

Why don't you propose a complete new policy that sets out to achieve what 
you're looking for instead of hacking apart others that were formulated with 
different intentions in mind?

In the mean time, lets judge all the existing proposals on their merits 
instead of tearing them apart to achieve unrelated goals.

-Greg



From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com  Tue Sep 30 11:02:28 2003
From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:02:28 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Afrinic and so-called sub-regional policies
Message-ID: <OF8EED57F9.8A2E43B7-ON80256DB1.00504E97-80256DB1.00529FAC@radianz.com>

It is now clear that ARIN will soon be handing over the responsibility to 
Afrinic to manage Internet numbering resources for parts of the African 
continent which have previously been the responsibility of ARIN. In order 
to facilitate this handover, Afrinic has organized itself and begun to 
function as an African organization. And out of that "functioning", the 
members of Afrinic have collectively agreed that a certain policy change 
is needed to better support the networks in their region. The only awkward 
point here is that ARIN has not yet "officially" handed over 
responsibility to Afrinic. Presumably this "official" handover needs to be 
agreed to by ICANN before it takes place.

Thus we have proposal 2003-15 before us because ARIN is currently the only 
organization that can officially change the policy that affects these 
African organizations. We could either reject it, delay it, or accept it.

Rejection:
This would change nothing for North American ISPs. The idea of "setting 
precedent" for ARIN policy is a red herring since neither the ARIN charter 
nor the law prevent ARIN from overturning its own policies. In fact, 
rejection would only delay this change until the point where Afrinic is 
truly independent of ARIN. But rejection would set a precedent of sorts by 
giving a distinctly negative impression of ARIN members that could affect 
future global addressing policy activities.

Delay:
If we neither accept nor reject the proposal but instead accept it with 
modifications this will result in a delay until the next member meeting. 
This suffers from the same "bad image" issue as rejection but on a larger 
scale because now we are tinkering with the Afrinic policy and meddling in 
African affairs.

Acceptance:
By doing this we are supporting Afrinic as an independent organization 
that is able to make its own policy decisions for its own members. I 
believe this is the only reasonable choice for ARIN members and it's not 
based on the contents of the policy but on the fact that it is a policy 
for Africans that was made by Africans. I don't believe that it sets any 
precedent for so-called sub-regions because this policy is actually about 
uniting the regions of a continent, not about subdividing. Internal North 
American issues are irrelevant to 2003-15. This is a unique situation that 
will not happen again and an opportunity for us to make a gesture of 
goodwill towards the ISPs in southern African countries.

We have plenty of proposed policy changes to discuss that do have very 
real impacts on our organizations and we've spent too much effort already 
on 2003-15. Let's move on, rubberstamp the Afrinic proposal, and focus 
most of our energy on the North American issues that really matter.

-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon
Capacity Planning, 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 owen at delong.com  Tue Sep 30 11:20:07 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:20:07 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for 
 Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <web-1780908@multicasttech.com>
References: <web-1780908@multicasttech.com>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064910007@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>

For that reason, I have withdrawn my desire to amend it.  Instead, I now
advocate the following position:

	1.	Pass 2002-3 as is.
	2.	Amend 2003-15 to include ALL of ARIN, then pass 2003-15 with
		the amendment at the next policy meeting.

Were we to amend 2002-3, I did not provide specific text, but, the intent
was the lexical equivalant of:

	s at assignment@assignment and/or allocation at g

The now proposed amendment to 2003-15 would be to remove all references
to Africa or "Africa only" and replace with language which would construe
the policy as written for the entire ARIN region.

These changes to my position were made based on information and 
recommendations
from Alec Peterson which I quoted in my original posting of my new position.
However, to be fair, Alec does not believe we should amend 2003-15 and
feels that it should be passed as is.  He makes good arguments for his case.
We have simply drawn different conclusions from the facts in front of us.

Owen

--On Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:57 AM -0400 Marshall Eubanks 
<tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:47:33 +0200
>  "Eyal Tevet" <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
>> Confirmed, I do second your motion
>>
>
> Is there text for the admendment ?
>
> You realize that amending 2002-3 would
> probably put passage off for at least another policy meeting.
>
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:42 PM
>> To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
>> Multihomed Networks
>>
>>
>> I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 2002-3.  Can you
>> confirm that?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> --On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet
>> <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> > As a representative of a medium to large ISP within Sub-Saharan
>> > Africa, I support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro
>> > Assignments and Micro Allocations
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Eyal Tevet
>> > Connect IT / NetraLINK
>> > www.netralink.com
>> > 0860-223-638
>> >
>>
>




From tme at multicasttech.com  Tue Sep 30 11:24:26 2003
From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:24:26 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for  Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064910007@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <2D34FE94-F35A-11D7-9E1E-003065FC3726@multicasttech.com>

FWIW, I agree with Owen's position.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> For that reason, I have withdrawn my desire to amend it.  Instead, I 
> now
> advocate the following position:
>
> 	1.	Pass 2002-3 as is.
> 	2.	Amend 2003-15 to include ALL of ARIN, then pass 2003-15 with
> 		the amendment at the next policy meeting.
>
> Were we to amend 2002-3, I did not provide specific text, but, the 
> intent
> was the lexical equivalant of:
>
> 	s at assignment@assignment and/or allocation at g
>
> The now proposed amendment to 2003-15 would be to remove all references
> to Africa or "Africa only" and replace with language which would 
> construe
> the policy as written for the entire ARIN region.
>
> These changes to my position were made based on information and 
> recommendations
> from Alec Peterson which I quoted in my original posting of my new 
> position.
> However, to be fair, Alec does not believe we should amend 2003-15 and
> feels that it should be passed as is.  He makes good arguments for his 
> case.
> We have simply drawn different conclusions from the facts in front of 
> us.
>
> Owen
>
> --On Tuesday, September 30, 2003 6:57 AM -0400 Marshall Eubanks 
> <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:47:33 +0200
>>  "Eyal Tevet" <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
>>> Confirmed, I do second your motion
>>>
>>
>> Is there text for the admendment ?
>>
>> You realize that amending 2002-3 would
>> probably put passage off for at least another policy meeting.
>>
>> Regards
>> Marshall Eubanks
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:42 PM
>>> To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
>>> Multihomed Networks
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend 2002-3.  Can 
>>> you
>>> confirm that?
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet
>>> <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> > As a representative of a medium to large ISP within Sub-Saharan
>>> > Africa, I support this proposa with ammendment to support both 
>>> Micro
>>> > Assignments and Micro Allocations
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Eyal Tevet
>>> > Connect IT / NetraLINK
>>> > www.netralink.com
>>> > 0860-223-638
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
>
>
                                  Regards
                                  Marshall Eubanks

T.M. Eubanks
e-mail : tme at multicasttech.com
http://www.multicasttech.com

Test your network for multicast :
http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/

Our New Video Service is in Beta testing
http://www.americafree.tv



From ron at aol.net  Tue Sep 30 11:26:36 2003
From: ron at aol.net (Ron da Silva)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:26:36 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za> <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]> <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za>
Message-ID: <20030930152636.GA25895@aol.net>


Does anyone here principally care to reject 2002-3 and/or 2003-15 because
the do not want ANY change in allocation/assignment size towards longer
prefixes?  It appears that most of the comments thusfar have been around
the details in support of a change.

-ron


From owen at delong.com  Tue Sep 30 11:46:21 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:46:21 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed
 Networks
In-Reply-To: <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
 <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]>
 <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064911581@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>



--On Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:59 PM +0200 Gregory Massel 
<gregm at datapro.co.za> wrote:

>> Based on this advice, I will now advocate that we should pass 2002-3
>> without amendment.  Further, I will advocate amending 2003-15 to
>> encompass all of ARIN and recommend that it be passed at the next public
>> policy meeting with just that modification.  I will vote against any
>> sub-region
>
> Owen, I find it quite amusing the manner in which you advocated the
> change to  2002-3 and dropping of 2003-15 until you found out there would
> be delays.
>
No... Not only because of the delay.  Also, frankly, at this point, these
two proposals will not directly effect me.  My actual concern is for people
that are still in positions I have been in.  I have all the IP space I need
for quite some time.  Further, when I need more for my current position,
it will be quite easy to justify another /20 for it.

> Now you're keen to pass 2002-3 in a manner that doesn't match your
> requirements (you want allocations and assignments) and modify and delay
> 2003-15 to achieve what you want out of an amended 2002-3.
>
1.	Passing 2002-3 will at least make assignments immediately available
	to EVERYONE in ARIN.  Passing 2003-15 will not help EVERYONE in ARIN,
	but will create a subregional exception.  I believe this to be a bad
	precedent.  Even if 2002-3 were not on the table, I would not accept
	2003-15 without amendment.  Even if I lived in South Africa, I would
	still think 2003-15 was a bad idea without amendment.  In my opinion,
	making sub-regional exceptions, especially based on speculation that
	some future body would probably make the same policy, is a bad idea.

2.	If there is significant support for delaying and amending 2002-3,
	I will go with that.  However, given the possibility of getting
	real relief for EVERYONE immediately, I feel it might be attractive
	to get 2002-3 passed as is.

> Ironically, you think that introducing an unmodified 2002-3 won't
> prejudice a  modified 2003-15, yet you claim introducing an unmodified
> 2003-15 would  compromise 2002-3??? Why such inconsistency?
>
3.	I did not make any claim about introducing 2003-15 other than to
	say I thought it was a good thing that we were seeing more
	participation from Africa.

	As to passing an unmodified 2003-15, I did not say that it would have
	any impact on 2002-3.  I said it would be used as an excuse not
	to pass an ARIN-wide micro-allocation policy.  I still believe that
	if 2003-15 passes, it will be used to do just that.

	It is relatively easy to argue that 2003-15 serves the area where
	large providers don't exist, and, therefore, a micro-allocation
	policy isn't needed elsewhere.  It's not so easy to argue that
	a micro-assignment policy would do the same thing, since as has
	been repeatedly defined, assignments don't really help ISPs the
	way allocations do.  Assignments are really only good for end users.

> Come on, give us a break. You've blatantly displayed to this entire list
> that  you have purely your own interests at heart on this issue and that
> you'll  happily modify whatever proposals are on the table so long as you
> get what  you want with complete disregard to the negative impact that
> might have on  the people who originally made the proposals.
>
This is patently not true.  As I stated above.  I have all the IP space
I need right now, and, all that I anticipate needing for quite some time.
I recently obtained 3 /20 assignments for the company where I work.
I have plenty of portable swamp space for my house.  NOTHING in any of
these policies is about my own personal interest.  I think there are
several people who can confirm for you that I do not approach public
policy from a self-interest perspective.  It is true that I am passionate
about seeing this problem solved.  I _HAVE_ been in positions where
these policies would have helped greatly.  I still feel strongly that
these policies are needed, but, they are needed for ALL of ARIN.

> Why don't you propose a complete new policy that sets out to achieve what
> you're looking for instead of hacking apart others that were formulated
> with  different intentions in mind?
>
I was partially involved in some of the early process on 2002-3.  I was
also involved in other policies that were rolled into what is now 2002-3.
I have been advocating a micro-assignment/micro-allocation policy since
I became involved in ARIN processes (about the time ARIN was formed).
Proposing a new policy would not be effective.  It would get voted down
as a close duplicate of the existing proposals, and, I would be told to
propose amendments instead.  As such, I am proposing amendments.

If you look at the history of 2002-3 and it's other predecessors, you will
find that micro-allocations were, indeed, included in at least one of the
policies combined into 2002-3.  The AC chose to drop micro-allocations from
the policy after much debate and a lot of back-and-forth.

> In the mean time, lets judge all the existing proposals on their merits
> instead of tearing them apart to achieve unrelated goals.
>
Per your request:

2002-3 has merit because it provides some relief to all of ARIN region
and takes care of the micro-assignment requirement for everyone in ARIN.

2003-15 has merit, but, does not merit passage because it provides special
status to a sub-region of ARIN and solves a problem which is global to all
of the ARIN region for only a select sub-set of that region.  2003-15 could
merit passage if it were amended to incorporate all of ARIN and not
disenfranchise the majority of the ARIN region.

I don't think we are in as strong a disagreement as you think.  I am not
opposed to Africans getting the resources they need.  I am not opposed to
African participation in ARIN.  I am not opposed to AfriNIC or the AfriNIC
RIR.  In fact, I fully support doing whatever we can to expidite AfriNIC
getting to the point where they are their own RIR and can make their own
policies.

However, I would think that Africans, of all people, would understand my
desire not to create global policy that grants special status to a
minority.

Owen



From richardj at arin.net  Tue Sep 30 13:08:23 2003
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:08:23 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <9BF6F06C4BC90746ADD6806746492A3369097B@msmmail01.msmgmt.com>
Message-ID: <004701c38775$86c840e0$458888c0@arin.net>

Hello Jim,

> Can I ask for 1 clarification:
> Allocation vs Assignment.
> Allocation allows voting rights where as assignment does not. 
> Is this a true statement?

ISPs who receive allocations from ARIN do automatically become
members of ARIN.  End-user organizations who receive assignments
from ARIN do not automatically become members of ARIN.  Any
organization may become a member of ARIN, however, without
having to obtain numbering resources from ARIN.

Only members may vote in elections of ARIN's Board and
Advisory Council.

Policy discussion is not exclusive to ARIN members.  Any
individual may participate in the Internet Resource Policy
Evaluation Process.

> If both Allocation and Assignment are made part of the 
> proposal, who make the decision of which is completed? IE 
> Allocation goes to ISPs, Assignment to end user?

ISPs receive allocations from ARIN.  End-users receive
assignments.

The fee schedule for ISP subscriptions for bulk IP
registrations and individual address space assignments
for end-users is different.

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, September 29, 2003 2:46 PM
> To: Bill Darte; Owen DeLong; eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments 
> for Multihomed Networks
> 
> 
> Can I ask for 1 clarification:
> Allocation vs Assignment.
> Allocation allows voting rights where as assignment does not. 
> Is this a true statement?
> 
> 
> next questions:
> 
> If both Allocation and Assignment are made part of the 
> proposal, who make the decision of which is completed? IE 
> Allocation goes to ISPs, Assignment to end user?
> 
> And why would I want to accept an assignment versus an allocation?
> 
> Please forgive my possible ignorance here... 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim
> 
> 
> ->-----Original Message-----
> ->From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
> ->Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:56 PM
> ->To: 'Owen DeLong'; eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
> ->Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for 
> ->Multihomed Networks
> ->
> ->
> ->Duly noted that Owen has proposed that 2002-3 should
> ->encompass allocation
> ->along with assignment....duly noted that there is some 
> ->additional support
> ->for the revision of focus.  This information will be part of the
> ->presentation of 2002-3 at the Chicago PPM as will all of the 
> ->other comments
> ->related to this policy.
> ->
> ->Bill Darte
> ->ARIN AC and steward of the 2002-3 policy issues...
> ->
> ->> -----Original Message-----
> ->> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> ->> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:42 AM
> ->> To: eyal at connectit.co.za; ppml at arin.net
> ->> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for 
> ->> Multihomed Networks
> ->> 
> ->> 
> ->> I think that constitutes a second to my motion to amend
> ->> 2002-3.  Can you
> ->> confirm that?
> ->> 
> ->> Owen
> ->> 
> ->> 
> ->> --On Friday, September 26, 2003 12:02 AM +0200 Eyal Tevet
> ->> <eyal at connectit.co.za> wrote:
> ->> 
> ->> > As a representative of a medium to large ISP within
> ->> Sub-Saharan Africa, I
> ->> > support this proposa with ammendment to support both Micro
> ->> Assignments and
> ->> > Micro Allocations
> ->> >
> ->> > Regards
> ->> > Eyal Tevet
> ->> > Connect IT / NetraLINK
> ->> > www.netralink.com
> ->> > 0860-223-638
> ->> >
> ->> 
> ->> 
> ->
> 



From mury at goldengate.net  Tue Sep 30 13:25:39 2003
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:25:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <3F78A43D.68.20F6042@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309301217240.1314-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


Ok,

I can't watch any more.  Some of these comments are frankly making me view
the African request in a new light... not a good one.

I suggest keeping these comments to yourself for your own sake.  Now that
Owen wants to make *your* special requirement request a global policy you
attack him.

It seems to me that this 2003-15 request by Africans is about being
special, since now that someone (Owen) thinks the policy (2003-15) is good
for everyone, it's not good enough for them any more.

I was starting to lean toward voicing my support for 2003-15, but after
this last batch of comments, I'm completely turned off.

Mury



On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 mlawrie at zanet.co.za wrote:

> I find this attitude quite appalling, and think that Alan Levin put
> it exactly right wrt the "dragging down" analogy.
>
> If there is a need throughout ARIN's main region of control (USA) to
> have a change in policy, then propose it and let it stand or fall on
> the merits of the arguments. But it is a really sick dog-in-the-
> manger approach to set about blocking another proposal for another
> region (Southern Africa) that has had, without choice, to fall under
> ARIN's control and therefore has had to comply with some policies
> that are not appropriate for that latter region.
>
> Mike
>
> > Alan,
> >  I take some offense to your statement.  I am not opposed to smaller
> > IP block allocations.  I am not opposed to economic empowerment in
> > Africa. I am not in favor of the apartheid regime or system.
> >
> >  I do think that this policy is needed, but, I think it is needed
> > globally.  I also think that it is a political reality that if this
> > policy is created as an exception for a portion of Africa, that will
> > be used as an excuse by large(r) providers in North America to claim
> > that it isn't needed in North America.  Given the historical dominance
> > of large(r) North American providers in ARIN politics, I do not
> > believe this problem will get solved for all of ARIN if an exception
> > is granted.
> >
> >  This isn't about dragging anyone down.  It's not about racism.
> > It's certainly not a desire to victimize Africa.  It's about making a
> > policy which is needed throughout the ARIN region available throughout
> > the ARIN region instead of for some small sub-region within the ARIN
> > region.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> > --On Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:17 PM +0200 Alan Levin
> > <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 09:50 Africa/Johannesburg, Johann
> > > Botha wrote:
> > >> Hi Owen
> > >> > @2003.09.25_03:53:39_+0200
> > >>> However, there are non-African ramifications to ARIN adopting
> > >>> 2003-15 which I believe override the desire to provide this
> > >>> solution for Africa.  I believe 2003-15 represents a good policy
> > >>> with one flaw.  It is Africa specific.  As long as it is Africa
> > >>> specific, I will vote against it. If 2003-15 is amended to cover
> > >>> all of ARIN, I will vote for it.  I will vote for 2002-3.
> > >>
> > >> this reminds me of the story of a guy with an open basket full of
> > >> crayfish. somebody asked him if he wasn't worried that the crayfish
> > >> would escape.. no, he replied, as soon as one makes it to the top,
> > >> the others will drag him back down.
> > >
> > > This story reminds me of how I was indoctrinated to think by the
> > > apartheid regime.
> > >
> > > South Africans are fortunate to be in the position to understand how
> > > economic empowerment balances the playing field (as an attempt to
> > > bridge the digital divide) in the development of information society
> > > and the (hopefully global) knowledge economy.
> > >
> > > warm regards,
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mike Lawrie.
> Ph +27 12 348 0944 or 072 480 8898
> <mlawrie at zanet.co.za>
>



From jlewis at lewis.org  Tue Sep 30 13:25:15 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:25:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <3F78A43D.68.20F6042@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301319070.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 mlawrie at zanet.co.za wrote:

> If there is a need throughout ARIN's main region of control (USA) to 
> have a change in policy, then propose it and let it stand or fall on 
> the merits of the arguments. But it is a really sick dog-in-the-
> manger approach to set about blocking another proposal for another 
> region (Southern Africa) that has had, without choice, to fall under 
> ARIN's control and therefore has had to comply with some policies 

Nobody chose to be under ARIN's control.  You're not special.

All that's happened here is someone put forth a proposal making special 
policy for a small minority of ARIN members/potential ARIN members, and 
some of us said "hey, wait a second.  That sounds like a good policy for 
everyone.  Why exclude the majority?"

Like Owen, I have lots of IPs and the comfort of knowing when I run
through them, I'll do some ARIN paperwork and just get more.  But I've
been in the situation this policy was written for, and I know people who
still are.  I don't see why they shouldn't benefit from this proposed 
change.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Sep 30 13:29:42 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:29:42 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064910007@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <web-1780908@multicasttech.com> <2147483647.1064910007@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <20030930172942.GA70678@ussenterprise.ufp.org>


I agree as well.

-- 
       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/20030930/081f18a8/attachment.sig>

From woody at pch.net  Tue Sep 30 13:47:18 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Afrinic and so-called sub-regional policies
In-Reply-To: <OF8EED57F9.8A2E43B7-ON80256DB1.00504E97-80256DB1.00529FAC@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301044360.26322-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
    > By doing this we are supporting Afrinic as an independent organization
    > that is able to make its own policy decisions for its own members. I
    > believe this is the only reasonable choice for ARIN members and it's not
    > based on the contents of the policy but on the fact that it is a policy
    > for Africans that was made by Africans. I don't believe that it sets any
    > precedent for so-called sub-regions because this policy is actually about
    > uniting the regions of a continent, not about subdividing. Internal North
    > American issues are irrelevant to 2003-15. This is a unique situation that
    > will not happen again and an opportunity for us to make a gesture of
    > goodwill towards the ISPs in southern African countries.

I couldn't agree more strongly.  This summarizes some of the best
arguments in favor of helping Africa be self-governing.  Just one thing to
add:  By bringing more African ISPs into RIR membership now, we assist
AfriNIC in its jump-starting process, by handing over a larger number of
members to them at their inception.  That means more membership revenue
more quickly, for them, and it means more people coming to their meetings
and voting on policy.  I would be really sad if we were only able to hand
nineteen members over to them at their inception.

                                -Bill




From woody at pch.net  Tue Sep 30 13:52:50 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309301217240.1314-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301048350.26322-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Mury wrote:
    > It seems to me that this 2003-15 request by Africans is about being
    > special, since now that someone (Owen) thinks the policy (2003-15) is good
    > for everyone, it's not good enough for them any more.

No, it's not about being special, it's about self-governance.  Is there
any _particular_ reason you think that Americans should be setting policy
in Africa, rather than Africans?

And they honestly couldn't care less what policy Americans set in America.
The stated objection was to Owen's punative attempt to delay 2003-15 by
making it unpalatable, which would mean it would have to be returned next
cycle, wasting even more of everybody's time.

Please, people, listen to Michael Dillon...  There's no reason to stand in
the way of African self-governance.  Doing so is just mean-spirited and
pointless.  Unneighborly.

                                -Bill




From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 30 14:02:00 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:02:00 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <Pine.BSI.4.44.0309301217240.1314-100000@dew.goldengate.net>
	<Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301048350.26322-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <E1A4Ooz-0001t9-Dn@ran.psg.com>

> No, it's not about being special, it's about self-governance.  Is
> there any _particular_ reason you think that Americans should be
> setting policy in Africa, rather than Africans?

if it about was about SELF-governance, arin would not be asked to
change policy would it?  when there is an afrinic, and it wants to
change local afrinic policy, that will be self-government.

until then, changing global policy for reasons of marketing
afrinic, see your Message-ID:
<Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301044360.26322-100000 at paixhost.pch.net>, is
gonna be hard to explain to my routers.  can we stick to policy and
engineering, and leave marketing to those better suited?

and please stop saying "americans," as arin covers more than the
united states.

randy



From woody at pch.net  Tue Sep 30 14:06:30 2003
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <E1A4Ooz-0001t9-Dn@ran.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301103360.27677-100000@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
    > if it about was about SELF-governance, arin would not be asked to
    > change policy would it?

Uh, how is that different than American members of ARIN asking the rest of
the ARIN members to vote on policy?  This is, after all, a consensus-based
organization.

    > and please stop saying "americans," as arin covers more than the
    > united states.

The distinction I was making was between the American members of ARIN,
that is, those residing in the Americas, specifically North America, and
those residing in Africa.  What does that have to do with the United
States?

                                -Bill




From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 30 14:16:47 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:16:47 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <E1A4Ooz-0001t9-Dn@ran.psg.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301103360.27677-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <E1A4P3I-0002JA-Ds@ran.psg.com>

>> if it about was about SELF-governance, arin would not be asked to
>> change policy would it?
> Uh, how is that different than American members of ARIN asking the rest of
> the ARIN members to vote on policy?  This is, after all, a consensus-based
> organization.

because, as it is about AFRICAN allocations, SELF-governance would be
AFRICANS changing AFRICAN policy.

>> and please stop saying "americans," as arin covers more than the
>> united states.
> The distinction I was making was between the American members of
> ARIN, that is, those residing in the Americas, specifically North
> America, and those residing in Africa.  What does that have to do
> with the United States?

maybe you need to talk to some non-us north americans, who have
enough problems with a big bully for a neighbor

randy



From mlawrie at zanet.co.za  Tue Sep 30 15:01:42 2003
From: mlawrie at zanet.co.za (mlawrie at zanet.co.za)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:01:42 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301319070.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
References: <3F78A43D.68.20F6042@localhost>
Message-ID: <3F79EF36.2356.4F61E2@localhost>

jlewis at jlewis.org wrote:-

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 mlawrie at zanet.co.za wrote:
> ....
> Nobody chose to be under ARIN's control.  You're not special.

Oops, then I must have it wrong! I was under the impression that a 
group of Americans set up ARIN primarily for Americans, and declared 
that parts of Africa shall, like it or not, get their IP numbers from 
ARIN and shall abide by ARIN's policies, be they appropriate for 
Africa or not.

> 
> All that's happened here is someone put forth a proposal making
> special policy for a small minority of ARIN members/potential ARIN
> members, and some of us said "hey, wait a second.  That sounds like a
> good policy for everyone.  Why exclude the majority?"

Not so. What is being said by some is "hey, wait a second. That 
sounds like a good policy for everyone. If we can't get it for the 
entire ARIN region of control then no one can have it, no matter how 
critical the need is for those who are requesting it." I find this 
attitude most distasteful.


> Like Owen, I have lots of IPs and the comfort of knowing when I run
> through them, I'll do some ARIN paperwork and just get more.  But I've
> been in the situation this policy was written for, and I know people
> who still are.  I don't see why they shouldn't benefit from this
> proposed change.

I don't disagree with your last sentence, go for it and good luck. 
But don't do so with the approach that if it cannot be obtained for 
all then it shall not be obtained for any. It is presumptious to 
suggest that if a concession is granted to a subregion then it 
*never* will be granted to the full region.

Mike
-- 
Mike Lawrie.
Ph +27 12 348 0944 or 072 480 8898
<mlawrie at zanet.co.za>


From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 30 15:09:47 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:09:47 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <3F78A43D.68.20F6042@localhost>
	<3F79EF36.2356.4F61E2@localhost>
Message-ID: <E1A4PsZ-0003o7-O8@ran.psg.com>

>> Nobody chose to be under ARIN's control.  You're not special.
> Oops, then I must have it wrong! I was under the impression that
> a group of Americans set up ARIN primarily for Americans, and
> declared that parts of Africa shall, like it or not, get their IP
> numbers from ARIN and shall abide by ARIN's policies, be they
> appropriate for Africa or not.

nope.  it was set up by NORTH americans, e.g, raymundo vega of
mexico was on the founding board for a while, and the focus was
indeed on the americas, north, south, and colonies (to be tactless
but honest).  but, at the time, ripe was already serving some of
africa, and arin, which was taking over from internic/nsi, was
simply inheriting internic's responsibilities to continue to serve
those parts of africa not served by existing rirs.  the thought was
always that africa would have its own rir.  who could have guessed
that intra-african territorial in-fighting would delay that for a
decade?

randy



From dawn.martin at mci.com  Tue Sep 30 15:57:04 2003
From: dawn.martin at mci.com (Dawn Martin)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:57:04 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15 - question on multi-homing issue
Message-ID: <004601c3878d$05cd3960$e3df2799@wcomnet.com>


Just to note - I'm not opposed to this proposal but have a question that I
do not see
answered as of yet.

Why exactly does an ISP in southern Africa HAVE to have portable IP address
space
to be multi-homed? I understand the cost issues, I understand that there are
political
issues. I'm wondering if there is a technical issue? If so, can someone
please state
exactly what it is?

Thanks,
Dawn Martin




From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 30 16:08:22 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:08:22 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15 - question on multi-homing issue
References: <004601c3878d$05cd3960$e3df2799@wcomnet.com>
Message-ID: <E1A4QnG-0005Qf-NT@ran.psg.com>

> Why exactly does an ISP in southern Africa HAVE to have portable
> IP address space to be multi-homed? I understand the cost issues,
> I understand that there are political issues. I'm wondering if
> there is a technical issue? If so, can someone please state
> exactly what it is?

no technical issues of which i am aware.  the main issues are at
layer eight, business.  

the links into africa from the northern providers (europe, north
america) are controlled by colonialist mentalities, "they don't
really need address space, they don't use/need the net the way we
do and they can nat anyway."  

to compound it, when markets are either very small (countries with
one or two providers) and/or a monopoly provider (the damage that
usaid did on this vector was immense), the classic starvation game
is played mercilessly.

i.e., it is significantly worse there than the nasty games to which
we are used here.

randy



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Sep 30 16:17:09 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:17:09 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
References: <OF51E62AC7.36E8CC27-ON80256DAC.00342FDC-80256DAC.003708E1@radianz.com>
Message-ID: <20030930201709.GA76967@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:01:07AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> I'm beginning to wonder if we are being dragged into some
> internal Afrinic politics here. The transition plan for
> Afrinic is that in February 2004, i.e. 3 months after the
> ARIN meeting, they plan to process IP requests themselves
> using ARIN and/or RIPE only for a 2nd opinion.

Do others believe this date?  I ask because if we do, doesn't it
make this more or less a moot point?  It seems to me the quickest
we could expect this policy to be in place (assuming it was rubber
stamped by all involved) is around the first of the year.  If this
date is good, that means this policy might help for 1-2 months.

-- 
       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/20030930/1fa15cac/attachment.sig>

From arin-member at quadrix.com  Tue Sep 30 16:45:53 2003
From: arin-member at quadrix.com (Bill Van Emburg)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:45:53 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed
 Networks
In-Reply-To: <20030930152636.GA25895@aol.net>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
 <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]>
 <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
 <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za> <20030930152636.GA25895@aol.net>
Message-ID: <3F79EB81.4050700@quadrix.com>

Ron da Silva wrote:

> Does anyone here principally care to reject 2002-3 and/or 2003-15 because
> the do not want ANY change in allocation/assignment size towards longer
> prefixes?  It appears that most of the comments thusfar have been around
> the details in support of a change.
> 
I, for one, think both proposals (2002-3 and 2003-15) should be accepted 
as is.  I have a few additional comments on 2003-15 and the discussion 
that has surrounded it.

If anyone actually needed a reason to support Afrinic's creation, this 
discussion provides it.  Here we have several people from N. America 
arguing the political, economic and social realities of Africa.  That is 
a business best left to people from Africa.  I, for one, am embarrassed 
to be from the same country as some of those who have argued against 
this policy to date.  To me, some of the arguments presented simply 
support the "ugly American" image that exists in the rest of the world.

It is completely and entirely reasonable to have a separate policy for 
this part of the ARIN region, specifically because it *is* a separate 
region, except by accident of Internet history.  It is irrelevant 
whether or when Afrinic will or will not fully take over IP allocation 
for Africa.  Let's just drop that part of the discussion.

How many times have people on this list argued their case for having an 
ARIN-specific policy (as opposed to using an existing one from RIPE or 
APNIC) on the grounds that ARIN is a different region, and "things are 
different here..."??  I supported the use of that argument then, and I 
support it now, wrt 2003-15.

The basis for evaluation of this policy should include things like:
(...and I do not claim this list is all-inclusive)
* Is their a need?
* Is the proposal reasonable and responsible?
* Will the proposal accomplish its goals?
* Will it cause damage to the global routing tables, or cause some other 
adverse technical impact?
* Will it promote use of the Internet?
* Is it fair to those it affects?

I believe that those who've expressed some knowledge of the situation in 
Africa have made a reasonable case for the need.
I believe the proposal is well designed to address some aspects of that 
need.
I believe that more discussion should occur before considering 
generalization of this policy to other parts of the ARIN region, but no 
further discussion is really necessary wrt Africa and this policy (at 
least for me to feel comfortable with my decision).
I believe the numbers show that anyone would be hard-pressed to make a 
case that there will be a meaningful adverse impact on routing due to 
this policy, at least for a few years.
I believe that it will "facilitate the advancement of the Internet," 
which is part of ARIN's charter.


Leo Bicknell posted a question to this list on 9/24:
"Are we changing the requirement from the technical (number of users)
to the political (the poor and disadvantaged get extra help)?  That
seems to be a pretty fundamental change to me."

I believe that we are changing nothing in how we go about creating 
policy with this proposal.  ARIN has *always* balanced social, economic 
and political issues against technical ones.  I believe that ARIN has 
done a pretty good job of staying mostly technical about it, but the 
very argument being made by Mr. Bicknell and Owen DeLong is a 
non-technical argument, at least to some degree.  (Let me remind 
everyone that I *support* the adoption of 2002-3.)  It is appropriate to 
consider the realities of the situation when creating policy!


In any case, I want to make it clear to the AC that there are a number 
of folks "lurking" out on this list who support Africa-specific policy, 
and in particular, who support 2003-15.
-- 
				     -- Bill Van Emburg
					Quadrix Solutions, Inc.




From William at zanet.co.za  Tue Sep 30 16:53:13 2003
From: William at zanet.co.za (William Stucke)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:53:13 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064827898@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAKEHJEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>

Owen DeLong said: -

> They are not yet operating as an RIR, and, there is no set date when they
will start operating as an RIR.  They have no documented RIR policies, and,
they have no IANA blocks from which to allocate.  All of those would need
to be in place before I considered an AfriNIC RIR anything on which policy
decisions within ARIN should be considered.

Oh, very good.  Well done, Owen. Once AfriNIC is operating as an RIR, has
RIR policies in place and has IANA blocks from which to allocate / assign,
what will ARIN policy decisions have to do with anything in Africa?

ARIN will then be irrelevant, because African ISPs will go to AfriNIC, and
sub-Saharan ISPs will no longer be FORCED to go to ARIN, nor will North
African ISPs be forced to go to RIPE, nor will Indian Ocean ISPs be forced
to go to Apnic.

That comment's about on a par with those members of this list who didn't
even know that sub-Saharan Africa makes up part of ARIN's constituency.

Regards,

William Stucke
*** AfriNIC Member ***

ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
+27 11 465 0700
William at zanet.co.za

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24



From lee.howard at mci.com  Tue Sep 30 16:27:57 2003
From: lee.howard at mci.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
 theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <1064515172.4027.335.camel@intrepid.jsw.louisville.ky.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0309301503490.29774-100000@sun222-31.corp.us.uu.net>

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:

> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:39:33 -0400
> From: Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at five-elements.com>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
>     theAfrica Portion of the ARIN Region
> 
> On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 10:46, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > >This list is not the appropriate place for a battle of wits over how 
> > ARIN's
> > >funds
> > >are spent, and the lack of work that you claim the ARIN staff is doing,
> > 
> > Actually, you're probably wrong. This list *IS* the best
> > place for such a battle. However, the proper way to fire 
> > the opening shots would be to propose a policy that ARIN
> > should operate with no more than 5 staff etc...

The member list would be better, but since I want to be responsive to
the public, and since I don't know who on this thread is or isn't a
member, I'll reply here.  If the thread continues, I would prefer to
move it to arin-discuss, the charter for which is "a forum for the member 
community to discuss ARIN-specific issues such as fee structures and 
internal policies. "

> 
> I don't think anyone is suggesting the ARIN be limited by policy to a
> fixed head-count. My belief is simply that many expenditures by the ARIN
> are irresponsible, and that some are most likely designed to direct
> monies to personal associates of parties with spending discretion.

As Treasurer, I don't think ARIN's expenditures are irresponsible, but
that's probably tautological.
I can say that the members of the Board and ARIN's management are
extremely careful to avoid a conflict of interest, or even anything that
might even look like a conflict of interest.  


> Most of the ARIN members I know who actually take the time to examine
> ARIN's annual reports are outraged by the large sums of money that are
> spent under vague headings.

Let's use http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/fy2002/annual_report_web.pdf
the latest annual report as an example.

ARIN's annual reports are prepared in accordance with GAAP and are
reviewed by independent auditors, who have no other relationship with
ARIN.  I'm not sure which statement (Activites?  Cash Flow?) you think 
is outrageous, but we are somewhat limited on how much detail is
appropriate to present there.

We do have more flexibility in preparing the budget, but have to balance
the interest of open and transparent operations with presenting data
that are useful.  Are the headings too vague in the budget, too?
http://www.arin.net/library/corp_docs/budget.html

> 
> If I had to come up with a reasonable proposal to address this
> "problem", it would be to increase the level of public expense
> accountability by requiring more detailed reports be prepared and
> published. I suspect that the monies spent under headings such as 
> "travel and accomodations" would fall substantially, or at least give
> the membership specific issues to address.

What level of detail do you think would best serve the interest of
ARIN's membership?   I don't see a heading called "travel and 
accomodations" in either the 2002 Annual Report or the 2003 Budget, 
maybe you mean the "Travel" line item in the Budget.  What kind of 
detail did you have in mind?

I make presentations at every Members Meeting, and they are archived
on ARIN's web site (click Meetings, Members Meeting Minutes, then 
pick the meeting and look for the Treasurer's Report or Financial
Report).

 
> I think such a policy would be immensely valuable.
> --
> Jeff S Wheeler


It probably doesn't even need to be a policy.  As a last resort, you
can elect new Board members, though nominations for this fall are 
now closed.  Also, the Treasurer is appointed by the Board annually,
so you could contact Board members and tell them to throw the bum
(me) out.

 
Lee Howard






From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 30 17:00:50 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:00:50 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <2147483647.1064827898@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
	<LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAKEHJEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <E1A4Rc3-0006vZ-DQ@ran.psg.com>

> Oh, very good.  Well done, Owen. Once AfriNIC is operating as an
> RIR, has RIR policies in place and has IANA blocks from which to
> allocate / assign, what will ARIN policy decisions have to do
> with anything in Africa?

more and more, as the registries have seen the need for
more and more inter-registry policy coordination.

in fact, they seem to want to go very far in this direction, and
increase their war with icann, see
<http://arin.net/announcements/20030922.html

randy>



From calvin at orange-tree.alt.za  Tue Sep 30 17:05:49 2003
From: calvin at orange-tree.alt.za (Calvin Browne)
Date: 30 Sep 2003 23:05:49 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
	Multihomed Networks
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1064911581@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
References: <NGBBINAOIOJFGDPFFPAEKEBAFMAA.eyal@connectit.co.za>
	 <2147483647.1064835379@[192.168.0.100]>
	 <2147483647.1064832742@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
	 <200309301459.56198.gregm@datapro.co.za>
	 <2147483647.1064911581@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Message-ID: <1064955949.6833.6.camel@pear.orange-tree.alt.za>

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 17:46, Owen DeLong wrote:

<SNIP>

> > Now you're keen to pass 2002-3 in a manner that doesn't match your
> > requirements (you want allocations and assignments) and modify and delay
> > 2003-15 to achieve what you want out of an amended 2002-3.
> >
> 1.	Passing 2002-3 will at least make assignments immediately available
> 	to EVERYONE in ARIN.  Passing 2003-15 will not help EVERYONE in ARIN,
> 	but will create a subregional exception.  I believe this to be a bad
> 	precedent.  Even if 2002-3 were not on the table, I would not accept
> 	2003-15 without amendment.  Even if I lived in South Africa, I would
> 	still think 2003-15 was a bad idea without amendment.  In my opinion,
> 	making sub-regional exceptions, especially based on speculation that
> 	some future body would probably make the same policy, is a bad idea.

Yeah - that makes sense - lets do away with the pesky old ripe, lacnic
and apnic - after all they are 'sub-regional exceptions'.

And BTW, if this were a South African centric proposal, I'm sure the
South African's could live with one bit and not two.....

my own opinions views etc...

--Calvin

---------------------* My opinions are mine *---------------------------
 Calvin Browne calvin at UniForum.org.za c at lvin.co.za
               Office phone: 080 314 0077        +27 11 314-0077
               http://orange-tree.alt.za Mobile: +27 83 303-0663
               Call me for Linux/Internet consulting
------------------------------------------------------------------------



From jlewis at lewis.org  Tue Sep 30 17:34:27 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291103460.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301726460.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>       On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Stucke wrote:
>     > In most of the 53 countries in Africa, ISPs don't
>     > have a choice of from whom they get service, nor how it is carried. They are
>     > obliged to use the monopoly incumbent, or go to jail. Some of those monopoly
>     > Telcos are VERY reluctant to assign IP addresses - e.g. Kenya.
> 
> This is an important factor for Americans to consider carefully before
> rushing to judgement in this issue.  One of the _really fundamental_
> assumptions Americans make, upon which the whole policy framework in
> America is founded, is that customers can vote with their feet.  That is,
> if a customer doesn't like the policies of an upstream provider
> ($500/month for an additional IP address, or whatever), they can simply
> switch providers, and give their money to someone more reasonable.  That
> logic is simply not applicable in the African regulatory context, and that
> fundamental difference informs this whole debate.  So, American ARIN

Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional 
IPs when their customers have used up what they have?  If it's simply to 
extort more money from them, is there any reason to believe giving them 
portable space is going to make a difference?  "oh...you want to do BGP 
now?...well, that's going to be an extra $X/month per IP you announce to 
us."

Now this sounds like a[n attempted] technical solution to a non-technical 
problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From calvin at orange-tree.alt.za  Tue Sep 30 17:44:34 2003
From: calvin at orange-tree.alt.za (Calvin Browne)
Date: 30 Sep 2003 23:44:34 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
	Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301726460.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301726460.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <1064958274.6833.13.camel@pear.orange-tree.alt.za>

On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:34, jlewis at lewis.org wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 
> >       On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Stucke wrote:
> >     > In most of the 53 countries in Africa, ISPs don't
> >     > have a choice of from whom they get service, nor how it is carried. They are
> >     > obliged to use the monopoly incumbent, or go to jail. Some of those monopoly
> >     > Telcos are VERY reluctant to assign IP addresses - e.g. Kenya.
> > 
> > This is an important factor for Americans to consider carefully before
> > rushing to judgement in this issue.  One of the _really fundamental_
> > assumptions Americans make, upon which the whole policy framework in
> > America is founded, is that customers can vote with their feet.  That is,
> > if a customer doesn't like the policies of an upstream provider
> > ($500/month for an additional IP address, or whatever), they can simply
> > switch providers, and give their money to someone more reasonable.  That
> > logic is simply not applicable in the African regulatory context, and that
> > fundamental difference informs this whole debate.  So, American ARIN
> 
> Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional 
> IPs when their customers have used up what they have?  If it's simply to

That's easy to answer - they normally compete with their clients.

>  
> extort more money from them, is there any reason to believe giving them 
> portable space is going to make a difference?  "oh...you want to do BGP 

This would have given me a hell of a lot more wiggle room when I was in
this position.

regards

--Calvin

---------------------* My opinions are mine *---------------------------
 Calvin Browne calvin at UniForum.org.za c at lvin.co.za
               Office phone: 080 314 0077        +27 11 314-0077
               http://orange-tree.alt.za Mobile: +27 83 303-0663
               Call me for Linux/Internet consulting
------------------------------------------------------------------------


From randy at psg.com  Tue Sep 30 17:44:35 2003
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:44:35 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291103460.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301726460.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <E1A4SIN-00089b-N7@ran.psg.com>

> Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign
> additional IPs when their customers have used up what they have?

techno-colonialist international upstreams and rapacious local
monopolists

if, perhaps, you meant s/are/should/, then the answer is no they
should not.  but they do.  and remember, that getting your own
block in bamako will do you little good if the monopoly carrier
will not announce the prefix.

it might be interesting to ask how rir policies could be used to
fix the problem from that end as opposed to at the leafs.  not a
real proposal, just a thought

  if investigation shows that many customers of an lir are not
  receiving allocations which are clearly justified and properly
  requested, then <damned if i know, and i have to get back to	
  work>.

randy



From owen at delong.com  Tue Sep 30 18:42:25 2003
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:42:25 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301103360.27677-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309301103360.27677-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <2147483647.1064936545@dhcp157-204.corp.tellme.com>



--On Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:06 -0700 Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 
wrote:

>       On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
>     > if it about was about SELF-governance, arin would not be asked to
>     > change policy would it?
>
> Uh, how is that different than American members of ARIN asking the rest of
> the ARIN members to vote on policy?  This is, after all, a consensus-based
> organization.
>
Because, when the rest of us ask ALL of the ARIN members to vote on
policy, we are asking ALL of the ARIN members to vote on a policy FOR
ALL of the ARIN members.

I'm sorry you think that my approach is punitive.  It is not intended as
such.  I think this policy is needed throughout the ARIN region.  I support
it if it applies to ALL of ARIN.  I don't support it if it is left
punitive to the majority of ARIN by giving special privileges to a
sub-set of ARIN membership.  I do support AfriNICs creation, and, any
policy brought to expedite that process in a reasonable and functional
manner would receive my support.  Once AfriNIC is actually operational,
they will be self governing.  Prior to that, you are not proposing
African self-governance, you are proposing that we vote the way we
think that some possible subsequent AfriNIC vote might likely go.

>     > and please stop saying "americans," as arin covers more than the
>     > united states.
>
> The distinction I was making was between the American members of ARIN,
> that is, those residing in the Americas, specifically North America, and
> those residing in Africa.  What does that have to do with the United
> States?
>
In the current vernacular, most people take the term American to refer
to someone from the united States of America.  Canadians generally do
not think of themselves as "Americans".  In fact, many of my Canadian
friends use terms like "You Americans".  As such, Randy's point has
some validity in that what you said did not convey what you meant to
some (much) of your audience.

Owen






From William at zanet.co.za  Tue Sep 30 19:02:52 2003
From: William at zanet.co.za (William Stucke)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:02:52 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <E1A4Rc3-0006vZ-DQ@ran.psg.com>
Message-ID: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAKEHPEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>

In response to: -

> Oh, very good.  Well done, Owen. Once AfriNIC is operating as an
> RIR, has RIR policies in place and has IANA blocks from which to
> allocate / assign, what will ARIN policy decisions have to do
> with anything in Africa?

Randy Bush said: -

> more and more, as the registries have seen the need for
> more and more inter-registry policy coordination.

Inter-RIR cooperation and coordination on generic policy issues is a far cry
from being subject to  the minutiae of the specific detailed policies of a
specific RIR, Randy.

Let's turn this around. AfriNIC held a policy discussion at iWeek in
Johannesburg on 17th September
(http://www.afrinic.org/meeting-jhb-17092003.shtml) Quite a few of the
people talking or lurking on this list were present. At that meeting, it was
unanimously agreed that AfriNIC would aim to reduce the size of blocks
allocated AND assigned from the current ARIN practice, to at least as small
as is currently offered by RIPE, and perhaps smaller, with the limit being
what is routable by others, rather than some externally defined norm.

In addition, a specifically ARIN oriented meeting was held on the same day.
I believe that the 203-15 proposal arose from this. Perhaps the ARIN
representatives who were present at that meeting would like to comment?

Adapted from
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rir-comp-matrix-rev.ht
ml

RIR		MIN SIZE	ELIGIBILITY
APNIC		/20		/22
RIPE		/20		/22
LACNIC	/20		/22
ARIN		/20		/20

In addition, in terms of "inter-registry policy coordination", RIPE
currently makes /22 allocations for their "Micro Members" and only requires
a demonstrated need for a /22, I believe. AfriNIC intends doing the same.
Why is ARIN out of step?


Regards,

William Stucke
ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
+27 11 465 0700
William at zanet.co.za

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24



From William at zanet.co.za  Tue Sep 30 19:12:26 2003
From: William at zanet.co.za (William Stucke)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:12:26 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309301726460.1335-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAEEIAEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>

Jon Lewis asked: -

> Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional
IPs when their customers have used up what they have?

I'm not a monopoly incumbent Telco, so I can't speak for them, but I can
take a guess: -

It's because they're MONOPOLY INCUMBENTS, and the mindset of this particular
animal simply doesn't understand the concept of competition.

1	They believe that giving an inch to their "customers" will allow the
latter to wriggle out of their sticky and blood-red claws.

2	Why shouldn't they be? They can do what they like ... and don't talk about
Regulators. There isn't a Government in Africa that I'm aware of that hasn't
made damned sure that their Regulator (if one even exists) is tightly bound
in terms of what it can and can't do. Telecommunications laws don't talk
about IP addresses, they just say "Thou shalt connect anywhere via the
incumbent, ONLY"

A number of very important concepts are diametrically opposed when
considering circuit-switched type telecommunications versus packet-switched
type IP networks. Indeed the mindsets are so different that many people have
difficulty grasping that a difference even exists .. but this is rather off
topic. The Telecommunications laws are all written based on the former, and
have real trouble dealing with the latter.

The number of times that I've heard Telkom SA people equate the terms "core
network / router" and "Telephone Exchange"  ...

Regards,

William Stucke
ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
+27 11 465 0700
William at zanet.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
jlewis at lewis.org
Sent: 30 September 2003 23:34
To: Bill Woodcock
Cc: William Stucke; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region


On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>       On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Stucke wrote:
>     > In most of the 53 countries in Africa, ISPs don't
>     > have a choice of from whom they get service, nor how it is carried.
They are
>     > obliged to use the monopoly incumbent, or go to jail. Some of those
monopoly
>     > Telcos are VERY reluctant to assign IP addresses - e.g. Kenya.
>
> This is an important factor for Americans to consider carefully before
> rushing to judgement in this issue.  One of the _really fundamental_
> assumptions Americans make, upon which the whole policy framework in
> America is founded, is that customers can vote with their feet.  That is,
> if a customer doesn't like the policies of an upstream provider
> ($500/month for an additional IP address, or whatever), they can simply
> switch providers, and give their money to someone more reasonable.  That
> logic is simply not applicable in the African regulatory context, and that
> fundamental difference informs this whole debate.  So, American ARIN

Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional
IPs when their customers have used up what they have?  If it's simply to
extort more money from them, is there any reason to believe giving them
portable space is going to make a difference?  "oh...you want to do BGP
now?...well, that's going to be an extra $X/month per IP you announce to
us."

Now this sounds like a[n attempted] technical solution to a non-technical
problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24



From William at zanet.co.za  Tue Sep 30 19:47:07 2003
From: William at zanet.co.za (William Stucke)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 01:47:07 +0200
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291103460.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBACEIBEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>

Bill Woodcock said: -

> Sorry, this is ARIN.  We don' set global policy.  We set policy for the
> United States, Canada, and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Or at least, currently we
> set policy for the United States and Canada, and expect Africans to shut
> up and live with the results, however inappropriate.

Well said, Bill. There has been much cavilling on this list about
"sub-regional specific policies" and how these are "A Bad Thing", for some
unexplained reason. What some people seem to forget / not know / refuse to
acknowledge is that ARIN administers IP & AS number allocation & assignment
for two VERY different regions: -

1	The North American continent
2	The sub-Saharan portion of the African continent.

These two regions are: -

A	Distinct
B	Non-overlapping
C	Non-contiguous
D	Non-competitive

In addition, there are enormous differences - orders of magnitude - of
scale, economics, infrastructure and politics between these two regions. In
my NSHO, it doesn't make sense at all to have the SAME policies for these
two vastly different regions.

Africans, and AfriNIC members, are unanimous in supporting 2003-15. I
haven't heard a single African refuse to support 2002-3. I'm happy to record
my support for 2002-3 hereby, but do rather wonder why it's taken so long to
get through the system. I haven't heard a convincing argument that
supporting one will harm the other. Why, oh why, do (some few vocal) North
Americans refuse to support 2003-15?

Regards,

William Stucke
ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
+27 11 465 0700
William at zanet.co.za

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Sep 30 20:55:59 2003
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:55:59 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBACEIBEHAA.William@zanet.co.za> <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAKEHPEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309291103460.8405-100000@paixhost.pch.net> <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBACEIBEHAA.William@zanet.co.za> <E1A4Rc3-0006vZ-DQ@ran.psg.com> <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAKEHPEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <20031001005559.GA88615@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:02:52AM +0200, William Stucke wrote:
> RIR		MIN SIZE	ELIGIBILITY
> APNIC		/20		/22
> RIPE		/20		/22
> LACNIC	/20		/22
> ARIN		/20		/20
> 
> In addition, in terms of "inter-registry policy coordination", RIPE
> currently makes /22 allocations for their "Micro Members" and only requires
> a demonstrated need for a /22, I believe. AfriNIC intends doing the same.
> Why is ARIN out of step?

I've never thought to ask the question before, but I agree 100% that
ARIN is out of step, and wonder why.

In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:47:07AM +0200, William Stucke wrote:
> Africans, and AfriNIC members, are unanimous in supporting 2003-15. I
> haven't heard a single African refuse to support 2002-3. I'm happy to record
> my support for 2002-3 hereby, but do rather wonder why it's taken so long to
> get through the system. I haven't heard a convincing argument that
> supporting one will harm the other. Why, oh why, do (some few vocal) North
> Americans refuse to support 2003-15?

I support 2002-3.  Actually, I supported several versions before
it, and to this day think it should be both allocation and assignment.
I believe you'll find a strong history of me supporting those
efforts.

Part of what bothers me here is that 6 or 12 months ago when 2002-3
discussion was going on I don't recall many (or any, really) of the
"Africa People" who have been supporting 2003-15 stepping up to
voice their support.  There were proposals for a policy that did
exactly what African's seem to want, and the 2002-3 proposal (which
seems to not include assignments and allocations as desired), and
yet no one came forward to help.

Now that we're getting some traction on 2002-3, we're sidetracked
by this Africa proposal.  At least two people have responded on
list when I asked them to support 2002-3 instead (or Owen asked,
as amended) that they felt 2003-15 had a better chance of passing,
so they just wanted the local policy.  My inference was that they
felt 2002-3 would be defeated because the "big bad backbones" in
the US would never let it happen here, but they might be indifferent
enough to let Africa get away with it.

Indeed, that is somewhat my worry as well.  It is possible that
2003-15 would pass, and that people would use it passing to support
defeating 2002-3.  I can think of a half dozen excuses (some of
which have already been posted on the list) that might be used to
support that line of thinking.

There is a real problem that having both proposals in the system
will split the vote.  I think the discussion here only supports
that conclusion.  Clearly people have strong opinions one way or
the other, and I see no clear majority.  The only way to win is to
not split the vote, joining up and outvoting the "big bad backbones".

Now, if we're going to join forces, it's going to be behind 2002-3,
or a new proposal that is global, and includes allocations and
assignments.  We're not going to join forces behind 2003-15, because
it applies only to Africa, so for the people who've been working
to get this in the US for some time now that would do absolutely
no good.

It is for this reason I would ask the African contingent to withdraw
2003-15, and either support 2002-3, or if having both types of
membership is important draft a new proposal that is global and has
both assignments and allocations.

As long as we have both we're going to get bogged down in the
global-vs-local us-vrs-africa big-bad-backbone-vrs-small-nice-guy
wars and never win.  There are some valid opinions and some invalid
opinions on both sides in each of those discussions, let's just avoid
them, work together, and get something that actually helps _all_
of us.

-- 
       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/20030930/3b53f9ed/attachment.sig>

From raul at lacnic.net  Tue Sep 30 21:28:44 2003
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:28:44 -0300
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAKEHPEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>
References: <E1A4Rc3-0006vZ-DQ@ran.psg.com>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030930221333.0231da68@200.40.228.66>

At 01:02 a.m. 01/10/2003 +0200, William Stucke wrote:

>Adapted from
>http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rir-comp-matrix-rev.ht
>ml
>
>RIR             MIN SIZE        ELIGIBILITY
>APNIC           /20             /22
>RIPE            /20             /22
>LACNIC  /20             /22
>ARIN            /20             /20


It is not necessary right.

This comparison is very incomplete. For example, you are comparing  the 
ARIN''s requirements for ISPs single homed (/20 from upstream) with the 
LACNIC's requirements for ISPs multihomed (/22)

If you take the same situation for both RIRs, you will have ARIN /20 and 
LACNIC /21 for single homed and ARIN /21, LACNIC /22 for multihomed.

There are other differences in the policies. For example, under ARIN's 
policies you don't have to renumber your network and under APNIC's policies 
and LACNIC's policies you have to do it.

All the information is in the document that you already referred 
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html


Raul Echeberria
LACNIC
CEO







From tme at multicasttech.com  Tue Sep 30 22:27:14 2003
From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:27:14 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
  the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <20031001005559.GA88615@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <web-1781374@multicasttech.com>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:55:59 -0400
 Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:02:52AM +0200, William Stucke
> wrote:
> > RIR		MIN SIZE	ELIGIBILITY
> > APNIC		/20		/22
> > RIPE		/20		/22
> > LACNIC	/20		/22
> > ARIN		/20		/20
> > 
> > In addition, in terms of "inter-registry policy coordination", RIPE
> > currently makes /22 allocations for their "Micro Members" and only requires
> > a demonstrated need for a /22, I believe. AfriNIC intends doing the same.
> > Why is ARIN out of step?
> 
> I've never thought to ask the question before, but I agree 100% that
> ARIN is out of step, and wonder why.
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:47:07AM +0200, William Stucke
> wrote:
> > Africans, and AfriNIC members, are unanimous in supporting 2003-15. I
> > haven't heard a single African refuse to support 2002-3. I'm happy to
> record
> > my support for 2002-3 hereby, but do rather wonder why it's taken so long
> to
> > get through the system. I haven't heard a convincing argument that
> > supporting one will harm the other. Why, oh why, do (some few vocal) North
> > Americans refuse to support 2003-15?
> 
> I support 2002-3.  Actually, I supported several versions before
> it, and to this day think it should be both allocation and assignment.
> I believe you'll find a strong history of me supporting those
> efforts.

Dear Leo;

I have over the last year or so of this process talked to a number of 
small ISP's and small
multi-homers about micro-assignments. All of them feel that not having 
their own allocation is a hinderance on their business, and all of them
were excited to hear about 2002-3. None of them (except for me) were at all
active in the Arin / IETF standards setting process. When I asked why, they
cited time and money constraints, but most were not aware of it, or
thought of it as something that wasn't really open to them, and therefore not
worth their extremely limited resources. In blunter words, they thought it
would be a waste of time. I do not agree with this opinion, but it certainly
exists. Adoptation of 2002-3 offers an opportunity to refute it, and to better
serve an ARIN community that does not regard itself as well served.

I have not seen what I regard as strong technical justifications to not
adopt 2002-3, and its adoption would certainly be viewed positively by
the small provider community. Looking at 2003-15, which relaxes the smallest
address blocks to /22 for singly homed and /23 for multiply homed networks in
Africa, I would argue that 2002-3 would make the multiply homed part of 2003-15
irrelevant and suggest that the singly homed part of 2003-15 should be submitted
separately, so that the adoption time line would become 2002-3 now, a revised
2003-15 in the cycle after that if possible, to be followed by
a possible relaxation of 2002-3 to a /23 in the cycle after that.

So, in conclusion, 2002-3 addresses a good chunk of the concerns of the African
providers, while 2003-15 addresses none of the concerns of small non-African
providers. I strongly supported the adoption of 2002-3 and am trying to
rearrange my schedule to be in Chicago. I can only support 2003-15 to the
extent that it does not interfere with the adoption of 2002-3.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

> 
> Part of what bothers me here is that 6 or 12 months ago when 2002-3
> discussion was going on I don't recall many (or any, really) of the
> "Africa People" who have been supporting 2003-15 stepping up to
> voice their support.  There were proposals for a policy that did
> exactly what African's seem to want, and the 2002-3 proposal (which
> seems to not include assignments and allocations as desired), and
> yet no one came forward to help.
> 
> Now that we're getting some traction on 2002-3, we're sidetracked
> by this Africa proposal.  At least two people have responded on
> list when I asked them to support 2002-3 instead (or Owen asked,
> as amended) that they felt 2003-15 had a better chance of passing,
> so they just wanted the local policy.  My inference was that they
> felt 2002-3 would be defeated because the "big bad backbones" in
> the US would never let it happen here, but they might be indifferent
> enough to let Africa get away with it.
> 
> Indeed, that is somewhat my worry as well.  It is possible that
> 2003-15 would pass, and that people would use it passing to support
> defeating 2002-3.  I can think of a half dozen excuses (some of
> which have already been posted on the list) that might be used to
> support that line of thinking.
> 
> There is a real problem that having both proposals in the system
> will split the vote.  I think the discussion here only supports
> that conclusion.  Clearly people have strong opinions one way or
> the other, and I see no clear majority.  The only way to win is to
> not split the vote, joining up and outvoting the "big bad backbones".
> 
> Now, if we're going to join forces, it's going to be behind 2002-3,
> or a new proposal that is global, and includes allocations and
> assignments.  We're not going to join forces behind 2003-15, because
> it applies only to Africa, so for the people who've been working
> to get this in the US for some time now that would do absolutely
> no good.
> 
> It is for this reason I would ask the African contingent to withdraw
> 2003-15, and either support 2002-3, or if having both types of
> membership is important draft a new proposal that is global and has
> both assignments and allocations.
> 
> As long as we have both we're going to get bogged down in the
> global-vs-local us-vrs-africa big-bad-backbone-vrs-small-nice-guy
> wars and never win.  There are some valid opinions and some invalid
> opinions on both sides in each of those discussions, let's just avoid
> them, work together, and get something that actually helps _all_
> of us.
> 
> -- 
>        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  Tue Sep 30 23:49:19 2003
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:49:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the
 Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
In-Reply-To: <LPENICNLCKCKPNDPFKBAEEIAEHAA.William@zanet.co.za>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309302334510.8137-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, William Stucke wrote:

> It's because they're MONOPOLY INCUMBENTS, and the mindset of this particular
> animal simply doesn't understand the concept of competition.

You skipped the more important second part of my question.

 Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional
 IPs when their customers have used up what they have?  

This part you answered...and it's not hard to guess that if they have a 
monopoly, they may just want to milk it for all they can.

 If it's simply to extort more money from them, is there any reason to
 believe giving them portable space is going to make a difference?  
 "oh...you want to do BGP now?...well, that's going to be an extra 
 $X/month per IP you announce to us."

So if the monopoly telco/Internet carrier is out to screw you and you 
have no other choices for Internet bandwidth (as implied by their 
monopoly status), how does all the portable IP space in the world help 
you?  Will the local government force them to do BGP and not extort you 
for doing so?

If the case is simply that they're being unreasonable with IP assignment /
reallocation, then I like the idea someone else suggested of there being
some mechanism for filing complaints with their upstream IR (whether thats
ARIN, or some ARIN member (or other RIRs...but this isn't the list for
other RIRs)) and for there to be some mechanism for the upstream IR to
lean on them and "make them be reasonable".  That should give people lots
to debate for quite a while. :)

How ridiculous would it be if a bunch of non-ARIN members started posting
to the list "Worldcon is the only provider in our rural locations and they
won't give us the IPs we need...we're being forced to run all our dial-up
ports and various other parts of our networks behind NAT because we just
don't have enough IP space.  How about you just make it so we qualify for
PI space?"
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________