From william at elan.net Thu Sep 9 00:15:34 2004 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] On doing jabber sessions with live meeting Message-ID: It appears that starting last meeting, ARIN is now multicasting entire meeting which allows those who are not present to hear and see exactly what is going on. That is very good advancement and opens up the meeting to everybody else in the public and not just those whose companies are willing to sponsor their trip. There is however one flow, in that one can listen but can not actually participate without being there. In similar situations, IETF has for a while had a system that in addition to live workgroup meeting, there is a parallel jabber session and somebody volunteers to actually type in summary of what is going on the meeting and somebody who is only present at jabber session can ask to have his questions read as well. I think it would be good if ARIN consider doing something like that. And it should not be too difficult to implement either, since already somebody maintains a written summary of what is going on the meeting (posted after the meeting) and since multicasting is also already done. All that is necessary is to connect creating function, with with jabber and also have somebody from arin staff who can "channel" questions coming from jabber participants. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william at elan.net From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Sep 9 08:46:11 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] On doing jabber sessions with live meeting Message-ID: Dear William, As it happens, ARIN is planning to conduct a remote participation trial at the ARIN meeting in October. A moderator will read messages from remote participants to the meeting so that their content can be shared by those in attendance, as well as those who are observing remotely. These messages will be included in the minutes of the public policy meeting. Full details will be announced prior to the meeting. Regards, Nate Davis Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Sep 9 10:40:44 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information Message-ID: Concerning the proposed policy, Privacy of Reassignment Information, which was posted to PPML on August 19, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_6.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information Author: Sanford George Policy Statement: ISPs may choose whether or not to designate reassignment information 'public'. Reassignment information that is not designated 'public' will be available only to ARIN, the entity that created it, and that entity's upstream organizations. The maintenance of the accuracy of the data that is submitted whether it is public or private is the responsibility of the submitting ISP. Rationale: Increasing concern about protection of private information on the Internet has been expressed by many parts of the community. There have been numerous policy proposals over the last several years attempting to protect various portions of the displayed information. Concern has been expressed specifically about the requirement to publicly register customer assignments, which are often regarded by ISPs and customers as private information. By publicly displaying reassignment information, the ISP is in some respects displaying its customer lists and other information that may be considered of a proprietary business interest. From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Sep 9 10:39:07 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-5: Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks Message-ID: Concerning the proposed policy, Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks, which was posted to PPML on August 19, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_5.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-5: Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks Author: Bill Darte Policy statement: Organizations with multiple discrete networks desiring to request new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet the following criteria: (1) The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium of smaller independent entities. (2) The organization must have compelling criteria for creating discrete networks. Examples of a discrete network might include: * Regulatory restrictions for data transmission, * Geographic distance and diversity between networks, * Autonomous multi-homed discrete networks. (3) The organization must keep detailed records on how it has allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation. (4) When applying for additional space from ARIN, the organization must show greater than 50% utilization for both the last block allocated by ARIN, and their allocations from ARIN as a whole. If an organization is unable to meet this 50% criteria, the organization must not have a /20 or shorter prefix available when requesting additional space. (5) The organization may not allocate additional address space to a location until each of that location's address blocks are 80% utilized. (6) The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request their desire to apply this policy to their account. This policy supersedes policy 2001-6. Rationale: a. Contradictions contained within policy 2001-6 have been removed and replaced with clear, concise text. b. Much of the procedural language contained in 2001-6 has been removed and replaced with policy language. c. 2001-6 made it difficult for smaller organizations to qualify as they were frequently unable to meet the 50% criteria before needing additional space for existing or new locations. The new policy utilization structure now allows both smaller and larger organizations to qualify. From memsvcs at arin.net Thu Sep 9 10:42:18 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:42:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy Message-ID: Concerning the proposed policy, Residential Customer Privacy Policy, which was posted to PPML on August 20, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_7.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy Author: William Leibzon Policy statement: An organization with downstream residential customer who is not engaged in business activities may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment must be less then or equal to 128 ips and have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for that block. Rationale: The intent of residential customer privacy was to allow private citizens to have privacy and safety in their personal life while being able to request and use more then 8 ip addresses with residenial dsl line. However soon after implementation it became clear that some of the ip blocks being designated as "Private customer" are being used for business purposes which is clearly seen by size of such reassignments as 69.111.160.0/22. While it is not unexpected that some people may run business (including internet businesses) from their home, the laws regard such activity as being similar to running business from small office and usually require such businesses to receive a license from appropriate local or state agency and to disclose the activity to the public, as such different privacy rules apply in these situations. This policy replaces current residential customer privacy 2003-3 and requires that ISPs only designate reassignment whois data as "Private Customer" if no business activity is involved with use of the ip block. The limit for the reassignment is set to 128 ips as larger number of computers in one residence is likely an indication of business activity (as an example currently telephone companies allow up to 4 residential telephone lines and if somebody needs larger number of telephone lines to his home, those must be purchased as business telephone lines). Additionally the amendment fixes small grammer error in current policy text that involves incorrect use of plural and singular tenses. From owen at delong.com Fri Sep 17 05:44:39 2004 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:44:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Solicitating nomination Message-ID: <2147483647.1095389079@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us> Apologies if this is in appropriate, but, I would like to run for ARIN AC. However, my original plan for getting nominated fell through due to a change in employment status. As such, I would appreciate it if someone who is an ARIN member in good standing would nominate me before 9/22. I have been an active ARIN public policy participant for the last 2 years and bring an understanding of the issues involved from a variety of perspectives. I have at various times been a small ISP, a large ISP, a moderately large direct end user, a small direct end user, and a provider assigned end user. I believe this experience makes me uniquely qualified to further the development of ARIN policy and help in balancing the needs of the diverse ARIN constituency. Thanks, Owen DeLong owen at delong.com -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From billd at cait.wustl.edu Fri Sep 17 07:19:54 2004 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:19:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Solicitating nomination Message-ID: <50C9C45A7E8DCE41A19F7A94715BABFD02A3D9@kronos.cait.wustl.edu> Owen, I would be happy to nominate you for the AC. I have your name and email, but will also need your phone # and current organization...if any. Bill Darte CAIT - Washington University & ARIN AC 314 935-7575 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net To: ppml at arin.net Sent: 9/17/04 4:44 AM Subject: [ppml] Solicitating nomination Apologies if this is in appropriate, but, I would like to run for ARIN AC. However, my original plan for getting nominated fell through due to a change in employment status. As such, I would appreciate it if someone who is an ARIN member in good standing would nominate me before 9/22. I have been an active ARIN public policy participant for the last 2 years and bring an understanding of the issues involved from a variety of perspectives. I have at various times been a small ISP, a large ISP, a moderately large direct end user, a small direct end user, and a provider assigned end user. I believe this experience makes me uniquely qualified to further the development of ARIN policy and help in balancing the needs of the diverse ARIN constituency. Thanks, Owen DeLong owen at delong.com -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 20 15:18:21 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries Message-ID: Concerning the proposed policy, Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries, which was posted to PPML on August 19, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries Author: John Sweeting Policy statement: 1. Minimum Allocation Size. The minimum size of any allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to an RIR is prefix length /12. If this address space is not sufficient to meet the needs of an RIR for a projected 18 month period, IANA shall allocate to that RIR the address space for which it can provide justification. 2. Reservation of Unicast Address space. 2.1 IANA. By RFC 3513 the IANA has been allocated the range of IPv6 addresses beginning at binary value 001 (prefix length /3) for its allocations of unicast address space. In order to support regional aggregation of IPv6 address space IANA shall establish a reservation of a prefix length of /6 from this space for each established RIR and for each emerging RIR. Allocations to each RIR will be from the appropriate reservation. 2.2. RIRs. Each RIR may apply its own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategy in order to meet the needs of its community and to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. Such reservations made by an RIR will be considered as being allocated by that RIR when that RIR applies for an allocation of address space from the IANA. 3. Initial Allocation. 3.1. Upon implementation of this policy IANA shall allocate to each established RIR a /12 from the reservation established for each particular RIR. 3.2. Upon recognition of an RIR by ICANN that RIR shall receive a /12 from the reservation set aside for that RIR. 4. Subsequent Allocation. An RIR shall be eligible for an allocation of at least a minimal allocation from the IANA when its current holdings are less than 50% of its 18 month requirement or when it has less than 180 days of holdings available. The IANA shall evaluate the requested allocation using a set of administrative procedures that are mutually agreed to by the IANA and the NRO. This set of procedures shall be enacted within 30 days of the implentation of this policy. 5. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs 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 IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V6 Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to only its own global announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be limited to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they have been allocated. Rationale: The current IANA allocation policy for IPv6 is an interim policy that was promulgated in 1999. Operational experience has demonstrated the current minimum allocation size is too small; that the built in reservation system that must be followed by the RIRs does not allow for efficient and effective management of the resource by the RIR; and does not provide for an well known evaluation criteria. This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements between the NRO and ICANN. From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Sep 20 15:28:47 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity - Revised Message-ID: This policy proposal was previously discussed on this mailing list and at the ARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting. Based on the feedback received from those discussions, the text of this policy proposal has been revised. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_3.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy statement: Private networks may obtain global addresses for private network usage. Hosts within the administrative control of a single organization should still use private address space in accordance with RFC-1918 and RFC-2050. Private networks may receive global IP's for private Interconnectivity if they have already used private IP space in accordance with RFC-1918 and RFC-2050 and any further use of private IP space would result in network conflicts. From memsvcs at arin.net Tue Sep 21 13:57:30 2004 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN XIV - Policy Proposals Message-ID: ARIN will hold its next Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia on October 20-21, 2004. Meeting and registration details can be found at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XIV/index.html Policy discussions at this meeting will be centered on policy proposals recently introduced on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and those carried over from the previous Public Policy Meeting. Policy Proposals recently introduced on PPML: 2004-5 Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks 2004-6 Privacy of Reassignment Information 2004-7 Residential Customer Privacy Policy 2004-8 Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries Policy Proposal carried over from the previous Public Policy Meeting: 2004-3 Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity Leading up to the meeting, policy proposals are open for discussion on PPML. Each of the policy proposals has been previously posted to this mailing list as an independent thread to facilitate discussion. Active policy proposals under discussion can be found 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. Mailing list subscription information can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed Sep 22 18:47:53 2004 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:47:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Spa ce by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional I nternet Registries Message-ID: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCAD3@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> I would like to submit the following changes to Policy Proposal 2004-8 due to my understanding that this policy proposal is being discussed by the communities of all of the RIRs in the interest of the NRO forwarding a global policy proposal to the ICANN ASO AC for consideration. In the interest of having a more consistent discussion across the regions, it is proposed we use the following text for discussion of this policy proposal. This text is nearly identical to what is being discussed in the APNIC region and soon at the RIPE NCC and LACNIC meetings. The allocation term to the RIRs is different in this text. A three year term was discussed at the APNIC meeting. The 18 month term that is part of the original text of this proposal is retained in this new draft for discussion in the ARIN region. ********** Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries This document describes the policy governing the allocation of IPv6 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 the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements among the RIRs and ICANN. 1. Allocation principles --------------------------- - The minimum and initial IPv6 allocation from IANA to an RIR in a /12; - The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv6 address space to each RIR to support its registration needs for at least a 18 month period; - The IANA will allow each RIR to apply its own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. 2. Initial allocations ------------------------- On inception of this policy, each current RIR shall be allocated a new /12 by the IANA. Also, a new RIR shall, on recognition by ICANN, be allocated a new /12 by the IANA. 3. Additional allocations --------------------------- 3.1 Eligibility for additional allocations A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv6 address space from the IANA when it has utilised (allocated or reserved) more than 50% of its total IPv6 address space holdings. 3.2 Size of additional allocations Each additional allocation to an RIR will be a number (one or more) of /12 blocks, sufficient to ensure that the RIR holds at least 18 months' supply of IPv6 address space. 4. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs -------------------------------------------------- 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 V6 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. -----Original Message----- From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:18 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries Concerning the proposed policy, Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries, which was posted to PPML on August 19, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_8.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries Author: John Sweeting Policy statement: 1. Minimum Allocation Size. The minimum size of any allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to an RIR is prefix length /12. If this address space is not sufficient to meet the needs of an RIR for a projected 18 month period, IANA shall allocate to that RIR the address space for which it can provide justification. 2. Reservation of Unicast Address space. 2.1 IANA. By RFC 3513 the IANA has been allocated the range of IPv6 addresses beginning at binary value 001 (prefix length /3) for its allocations of unicast address space. In order to support regional aggregation of IPv6 address space IANA shall establish a reservation of a prefix length of /6 from this space for each established RIR and for each emerging RIR. Allocations to each RIR will be from the appropriate reservation. 2.2. RIRs. Each RIR may apply its own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategy in order to meet the needs of its community and to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. Such reservations made by an RIR will be considered as being allocated by that RIR when that RIR applies for an allocation of address space from the IANA. 3. Initial Allocation. 3.1. Upon implementation of this policy IANA shall allocate to each established RIR a /12 from the reservation established for each particular RIR. 3.2. Upon recognition of an RIR by ICANN that RIR shall receive a /12 from the reservation set aside for that RIR. 4. Subsequent Allocation. An RIR shall be eligible for an allocation of at least a minimal allocation from the IANA when its current holdings are less than 50% of its 18 month requirement or when it has less than 180 days of holdings available. The IANA shall evaluate the requested allocation using a set of administrative procedures that are mutually agreed to by the IANA and the NRO. This set of procedures shall be enacted within 30 days of the implentation of this policy. 5. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs 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 IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V6 Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to only its own global announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be limited to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they have been allocated. Rationale: The current IANA allocation policy for IPv6 is an interim policy that was promulgated in 1999. Operational experience has demonstrated the current minimum allocation size is too small; that the built in reservation system that must be followed by the RIRs does not allow for efficient and effective management of the resource by the RIR; and does not provide for an well known evaluation criteria. This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate agreements between the NRO and ICANN. From marla_azinger at eli.net Wed Sep 22 19:13:30 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:13:30 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy P olicy Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D26278EC@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Reducing or should I say limiting the number makes perfect sense. However, doesnt a /25 still seem a little large of an assignment for residential use? How did you come up with this number? Even if someone was using one IP number per remote controlled device in their house...I still think 128 ip numbers would be slightly excessive wouldnt it? In general I support this proposal....I just question the quantity stated. Regards Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:42 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy Concerning the proposed policy, Residential Customer Privacy Policy, which was posted to PPML on August 20, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_7.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy Author: William Leibzon Policy statement: An organization with downstream residential customer who is not engaged in business activities may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment must be less then or equal to 128 ips and have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for that block. Rationale: The intent of residential customer privacy was to allow private citizens to have privacy and safety in their personal life while being able to request and use more then 8 ip addresses with residenial dsl line. However soon after implementation it became clear that some of the ip blocks being designated as "Private customer" are being used for business purposes which is clearly seen by size of such reassignments as 69.111.160.0/22. While it is not unexpected that some people may run business (including internet businesses) from their home, the laws regard such activity as being similar to running business from small office and usually require such businesses to receive a license from appropriate local or state agency and to disclose the activity to the public, as such different privacy rules apply in these situations. This policy replaces current residential customer privacy 2003-3 and requires that ISPs only designate reassignment whois data as "Private Customer" if no business activity is involved with use of the ip block. The limit for the reassignment is set to 128 ips as larger number of computers in one residence is likely an indication of business activity (as an example currently telephone companies allow up to 4 residential telephone lines and if somebody needs larger number of telephone lines to his home, those must be purchased as business telephone lines). Additionally the amendment fixes small grammer error in current policy text that involves incorrect use of plural and singular tenses. From marla_azinger at eli.net Wed Sep 22 19:50:11 2004 From: marla_azinger at eli.net (Azinger, Marla) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:50:11 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Inform ation Message-ID: <10ECB7F03C568F48B9213EF9E7F790D26278ED@wava00s2ke2k01.corp.pvt> The rational of this proposal is sound. However, I have reservations regarding what the "side effects" may be if this is approved. Concern number one: In truth, everyone these days wants to be anonamous either for security or to hide their company name from direct blame of the network damage they may be inflicting. For example company Z (who is a mass internet provider known throught out the USA) comes to company D and says they dont want anything available publicly showing that they are using IP's xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx or else they wont do business with company D. Company Z and company D both know the reason they dont want the IP's being linked directly to their name is because they know they allow spammers on their network and they dont want any bad publicity. Currently, company D does not feel pressure to trash their own network name and hide the identity of the true user because it is required by current policy to make the true user information known by any provider they choose to lease circuits from. However, if this policy is approved then there will be pressure to allow such things to happen because company Z will easily go to a competitor who is more than willing to "hide" who they are and not worry about trashing their network. I know many people will say that no one would do this because they dont want to trash their network. But it always comes down to the bottom line and that bottom line is that money talks. This could easily be a problem for smaller providers because they can not afford to either turn away business or trash their network with a spam hider. Either way in this scenario the smaller provider would lose out by losing a new potential customer or by losing an old customer that's irrated with the drop in quality of network provided. I'm not saying that larger companies are bullet proof to this but we all know the larger your network is....the bigger risk you can take. Concern number two: Should this be passed it will soon be a tool customers will use to bargain with what provider they will go with. There will be a large number of customers that will lease through the provider that hides their true user identity. If this occurs than just about every provider will be "influenced" into hiding true user information in order to keep new business coming in and retain the customers they have. This in turn would effect the number of people the Provider has working on their abuse team because abuse complaints would no longer first go directly to the abuser but to the provider instead. This could easily have a negative effect on small providers that do not have alot of money to create much larger abuse teams than they already have in place. Regards Marla Azinger Electric Lightwave -----Original Message----- From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:41 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information Concerning the proposed policy, Privacy of Reassignment Information, which was posted to PPML on August 19, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_6.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal 2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information Author: Sanford George Policy Statement: ISPs may choose whether or not to designate reassignment information 'public'. Reassignment information that is not designated 'public' will be available only to ARIN, the entity that created it, and that entity's upstream organizations. The maintenance of the accuracy of the data that is submitted whether it is public or private is the responsibility of the submitting ISP. Rationale: Increasing concern about protection of private information on the Internet has been expressed by many parts of the community. There have been numerous policy proposals over the last several years attempting to protect various portions of the displayed information. Concern has been expressed specifically about the requirement to publicly register customer assignments, which are often regarded by ISPs and customers as private information. By publicly displaying reassignment information, the ISP is in some respects displaying its customer lists and other information that may be considered of a proprietary business interest. From bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com Thu Sep 23 00:20:05 2004 From: bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:20:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy P olicy Message-ID: <200409230420.i8N4K5g1028634@host122.r-bonomi.com> > From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Sep 22 18:16:52 2004 > From: "Azinger, Marla" > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy P > olicy > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:13:30 -0700 > > Reducing or should I say limiting the number makes perfect sense. However, > doesnt a /25 still seem a little large of an assignment for residential use? > How did you come up with this number? Even if someone was using one IP > number per remote controlled device in their house...I still think 128 ip > numbers would be slightly excessive wouldnt it? > > In general I support this proposal....I just question the quantity stated. I concur entirely with the above sentiments. I can concieve how a residence with several co-habiting techies could possibly exhaust a /28 of _publicly_accessable_ addresses, *HOWEVER*,q I seriously question that 'personal-only' use could legitimitely need anything larger than a /27 in =public= address-space. Given the size of the RFC-1918 space available for use at _any_ residence -- and the number of million-dollar-plus- annual-revenues business that operate out of only a single /29 -- I utterly fail to concieve how 'stictly non-business use' could possibly _require_ a /25. I'd suggest that a /27 is a rational upper bound, and that even for a /27, that a _hard_look_ be taken at the 'justification' for requesting that large an address-space before 'private' status is authorized for said /27. "Wish-list" would include some guide-lines as to _some_ things which absolutely _disqualified_ a customer from being considered 'non-business'. e.g., services paid for by company check, or on a 'corporate' credit-card. > > Regards > Marla Azinger > Electric Lightwave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:42 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy > Policy > > > Concerning the proposed policy, Residential Customer Privacy Policy, which > was posted to PPML on August 20, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports > moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process. > > ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the > weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia > scheduled for October 20-21, 2004. > > According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the > Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy > Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public > Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation. > > Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be > found at: > > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html > > The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: > > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html > > ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at: > > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html > > The policy proposal text is below and can be found at: > > http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_7.html > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ### * ### > > > Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy > > Author: William Leibzon > > Policy statement: > > An organization with downstream residential customer who is not engaged in > business activities may substitute that organization's name for the > customer's name, e.g. 'Private customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's > street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream > residential reassignment must be less then or equal to 128 ips and have > accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for > that block. > > Rationale: > > The intent of residential customer privacy was to allow private citizens > to have privacy and safety in their personal life while being able to > request and use more then 8 ip addresses with residenial dsl line. > > However soon after implementation it became clear that some of the ip > blocks being designated as "Private customer" are being used for business > purposes which is clearly seen by size of such reassignments as > 69.111.160.0/22. While it is not unexpected that some people may run > business (including internet businesses) from their home, the laws regard > such activity as being similar to running business from small office and > usually require such businesses to receive a license from appropriate > local or state agency and to disclose the activity to the public, as such > different privacy rules apply in these situations. > > This policy replaces current residential customer privacy 2003-3 and > requires that ISPs only designate reassignment whois data as "Private > Customer" if no business activity is involved with use of the ip block. > The limit for the reassignment is set to 128 ips as larger number of > computers in one residence is likely an indication of business activity > (as an example currently telephone companies allow up to 4 residential > telephone lines and if somebody needs larger number of telephone lines to > his home, those must be purchased as business telephone lines). > Additionally the amendment fixes small grammer error in current policy > text that involves incorrect use of plural and singular tenses. > From richardj at arin.net Thu Sep 23 04:33:14 2004 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 04:33:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update Message-ID: <20040923083322.E4129CF3A8@mercury.arin.net> This forwarded message originally sent to NANOG from APNIC is submitted for your information. Policy Proposal 2004-6 is very similar to what is being implemented in the APNIC region. http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_6.html Richard Jimmerson Director of External Relations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of George Michaelson Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:19 AM To: nanog at merit.edu Subject: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update Dear colleagues, This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment records. The proposal document, presentation, minutes, and discussion are available at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-007-v001.html The APNIC Secretariat will be implementing this proposal on 30 September 2004. Please note that after this date, customer assignment objects will no longer be visible in the APNIC Whois Database, unless the APNIC account holder chooses to make public the customer records for their allocated address range. A set of Frequently Asked Questions about this project is now available at: http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html If you have any concerns or questions regarding this policy, please contact the APNIC helpdesk at: E-mail: helpdesk at apnic.net Phone: +617 3858 3188 Fax: +617 3858 3199 Regards ______________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 ______________________________________________________________________ From randy at psg.com Thu Sep 23 04:48:59 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:48:59 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Spa ce by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional I nternet Registries References: <1797AB680DD0D2118987009027178032132DCAD3@camtmms01.Teleglobe.CA> Message-ID: <16722.36347.199452.5103@roam.psg.com> > 1. Allocation principles > --------------------------- > > - The minimum and initial IPv6 allocation from IANA to an RIR in a /12; > > - The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv6 address space to each RIR to > support its registration needs for at least a 18 month period; > > - The IANA will allow each RIR to apply its own respective chosen > allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the > efficiency and efficacy of its work. make a lot more sense than the apnic/ripe formulations! > 2. Initial allocations > ------------------------- > > On inception of this policy, each current RIR shall be allocated a new > /12 by the IANA. Also, a new RIR shall, on recognition by ICANN, be > allocated a new /12 by the IANA. why is a new allocation needed before the current allocations are close to used? > 3. Additional allocations > --------------------------- > > 3.1 Eligibility for additional allocations > > A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv6 address space from the > IANA when it has utilised (allocated or reserved) more than 50% > of its total IPv6 address space holdings. how about a 6 month window at the current burn rate as opposed to a fixed 50% > 4. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs > -------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > V6 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. this seems intended to tell the iana not to announce. this seems restrictive to no useful end. the community should be told of any allocations by iana. if you want to be kind and reduce the amount of email i receive, then use the same message-id: when sending to afnog, apops, nanog, ... randy From gih at telstra.net Fri Sep 24 05:27:01 2004 From: gih at telstra.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:27:01 +1000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Spa ce by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional I nternet Registries Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040924192638.02131920@localhost> Hi, Some additional material on this policy was prepared for the most recent APNIC meeting, and this may be of interest to this list. The work behind this was to look at the proposition: "if the registries had been allocating IPv6 address blocks rather than IPv4 blocks for the past few years, and if one were to apply the IPv6 allocation policies to the inferred demand profile derived from the RIR's published IPv4 allocation transaction log, what block management technique and what block size would minimize the amount of fragmented allocations to ISPs and LIRs?" The APNIC presentation is at http://www.apnic.net/meetings/18/docs/sigs/policy/policy-pres-huston-ipv6-management.pdf Draft documentation that may be useful background reading is at http://www.potaroo.net/apnic/IPv6-Sparse-Allocation/Draft_IPv6_Alloc.pdf Thanks, Geoff Huston At 06:48 PM 23/09/2004, Randy Bush wrote: > > 1. Allocation principles > > --------------------------- > > > > - The minimum and initial IPv6 allocation from IANA to an RIR in a /12; > > > > - The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv6 address space to each RIR to > > support its registration needs for at least a 18 month period; > > > > - The IANA will allow each RIR to apply its own respective chosen > > allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the > > efficiency and efficacy of its work. > >make a lot more sense than the apnic/ripe formulations! > > > 2. Initial allocations > > ------------------------- > > > > On inception of this policy, each current RIR shall be allocated a new > > /12 by the IANA. Also, a new RIR shall, on recognition by ICANN, be > > allocated a new /12 by the IANA. > >why is a new allocation needed before the current allocations are close >to used? > > > 3. Additional allocations > > --------------------------- > > > > 3.1 Eligibility for additional allocations > > > > A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv6 address space from the > > IANA when it has utilised (allocated or reserved) more than 50% > > of its total IPv6 address space holdings. > >how about a 6 month window at the current burn rate as opposed to a >fixed 50% > > > 4. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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 > > V6 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. > >this seems intended to tell the iana not to announce. this seems >restrictive to no useful end. the community should be told of any >allocations by iana. if you want to be kind and reduce the amount >of email i receive, then use the same message-id: when sending to >afnog, apops, nanog, ... > >randy