ARIN-PPML Message

[ppml] ARIN member in good standing?

I think I have enough detail to understand what you're proposing.
This doesn't sound like a policy proposal, per se; you could submit
it through the suggestion process
http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
(there's a link to "Submit a Suggestion" on the top right of the
page, but read Part B first).

I would suppose that staff and legal analysis would be significant.
Then the Board would have to review, and it would probably go before 
the community, and I imagine it would require a member vote.

I think this would require the support of the relevant government 
agencies in every nation in our region, since ARIN can't adopt it
unilaterally.  http://www.arin.net/community/ARINcountries.html
I don't know that we could adopt fundamentally different structures 
in each nation.

You can contact the relevant agencies and see if they will support 
your model.  Or, after conensus is found to exist, ARIN could begin 
contacting those agencies.

This would be a significant change to the structure of ARIN, and
would require a lot of coordination, so I wouldn't expect it to
happen quickly.  There is a process to consider it, so if you're
serious about trying to effect change, I encourage you to try.

Lee


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Sherbin [mailto:pesherb at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:31 PM
> To: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
> 
> > I think you suggest having a database server at every hub,
> > gathering data for all circuits there, and transmitting
> > summaries hourly to a central server, followed by a purge.
> > You're still tracking millions of packets per second, 
> > hopefully without introducing latency, and rack space isn't
> > cheap.
> 
> By the same logic energy suppliers have counters at each 
> point of consumption. For
> the Internet it is reversed with counters at each point of 
> origination.
>   
> >  If your proposal requires Internet providers to bill in a certain
> > way, we don't have the authority to adopt it.
> 
> Providers will follow the model naturally when it is clearly defined. 
>   
> > > "Proper" means following the basic logic of a process.
> > 
> > I don't think that's what it means.
> 
> That's what it means in this context. E.g. on the Internet 
> someone who wants to
> distribute their data incurrs costs. 
>  
> > I have it on good authority that the Internet isn't trucks,
> > it's tubes.  
> 
> Sure, the facility fits the nature of the commodity it carries.
> 
> > Another difference: we don't push electrons.  Individual
> > electrons don't move very far at all.  Data have no mass.
> 
> Yes, data have no mass but the data carrier has it. How do 
> you move the data without
> burning some energy?
>  
> > The basic issue at hand, though, is why the trucking model
> > would be substantially better than the status quo.  
> 
> The model equips all participants with a guiding principle, 
> e.g. originator of the
> data pays for the volume / destination. It assumes that 
> market forces sort out the
> details. On the Internet there are at least two clear 
> destinations: within the AS
> and outside the AS.
> 
> > You say it's straightforward, but what are those criteria?
> 
> According to the Telecommunications Act of Canada:
> 
> "Canadian carrier'' means a telecommunications common carrier 
> that is subject to the
> legislative authority of Parliament;
> 
> "telecommunications common carrier'' means a person who owns 
> or operates a
> transmission facility used by that person or another person to provide
> telecommunications services to the public for compensation;
> 
> Apparently all you need is registering your business 
> indicating "telecommunications"
> among your activities. Consequently you become regulated by 
> the authorities.
> 
> > Does that mean that coffee shops need licenses?
> Only if they chose.
> 
> > If I set up private interconnects between my enterprise 
> network and four
> > of my vendors, do I need a license?
> Your choice. As long as all five run data within the private 
> network sharing costs
> and not profiting you are not a carrier and not a subject to 
> regulations / fees. At
> the same time you may well need a block of PI addresses.
>  
> > > suggested fees. 
> > How strong are the suggestions?
> It is up to the license office to decide.  It assumes that 
> the office wants to
> support the competitiveness of their economy.
> 
> > >For the start we may want to reserve more space and start 
> experimenting with
> > >less.
> > 
> > Do you have a proposal?
> 
> Enterprise market first. If autoconfiguration is a must then 
> /96. Otherwise /64.
> Reservation happens at /16.
>  
> > I think your proposal is to have the tax and licensing 
> > organizations provide ARIN a subscriber count.  ARIN needs
> > more information...  Do we ask the organization for
> > more information, or train the tax and licensing agenices to
> > collect network diagrams and virtual host counts?
> 
> From the office get only a number of licensees with the 
> subscriber count (for fee
> calculation). For all the rest use the current ARIN process.
> 
> > I still don't quite understand the threshold where a telecom
> > license is required.  The only telecom service I want to 
> > provide is to employees of my company.  Do I need a license
> > in your model?  Do I meet the criteria?  If the criteria 
> > include maintaining a billing database and providing wiretap
> > facilities, then I don't.  Would that mean my private WAN is
> > illegal?
> 
> You are not in violation as long as you are not profiting 
> from telecom services you
> provide.
> 
> > So we could easily have three non-aggregatable prefixes at
> > our house.  Every organization and every individual would
> > have a non-aggregatable prefix.  Do you foresee any routing
> > scalability problems with that?
> 
> Not really assuming that IPv6 prime practical benefit is for 
> private networks to
> track devices / automate processes.
>   
> > Fees would be variable between countries, and set by the
> > government, not by ARIN and its members.
> 
> That is probably practical in a world with different 
> economies where governments
> pursue local competitiveness. Global market forces would take 
> care of fees as long
> as all RIR adopt a common and "fair" PI address allocation policy.  
>  
> > You propose significant regulation of the Internet and what
> > look to me like significant additional costs for Internet
> > access providers, both of which may (depending on how well
> > I understand your proposal) reduce the number of providers
> > and the flexibility of enterprises to bypass them.  Who
> > benefits from this?
> > 
> > Or, put another way, I don't understand the problem
> 
> The model aims at identifying a fundamental cost driver on 
> the Internet, e.g. a
> certain amount of electrons carrying data from the 
> origination point to its
> destination. Subsequent arrangements will follow naturally 
> shaped by whichever local
> circumstances.
> 
> 
> --- "Howard, W. Lee" <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com> wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Sherbin [mailto:pesherb at yahoo.com] 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:06 AM
> > > To: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
> > > 
> > > > Can you describe the data capture mechanism?  I mentioned the
> > > > billing system that would be required.  Even if you discard
> > > > payload and only keep source and destination addresses 
> and packet
> > > > size, you're talking about increasing network load by a 
> > > > significant amount (30%?).  Billing data for an OC3 could be
> > > > 16TB per month.  Multiply hundreds of circuits times a 
> five-year 
> > > > record-retention policy, and I get a 97PB database.
> > > 
> > > Assumption: need to count sent volumes only. A sending 
> > > network or a node (SN) is
> > > identified by its source address (SA). SN is connected to 
> > > provider's distribution
> > > router (DR). DR counts the length of all packets sent from SA 
> > > and reports the total
> > > number of bits to a database server. 
> > 
> > Yes, that's the math I was doing.  I had inferred from 
> > something you said earlier that you might charge different
> > rates per destination.  Even if not, if you have a 128 bit 
> > address field and a 16 bit length field, at a million packets
> > per second, it's still a couple of terabytes per month.   
> > That's a good-sized database, and that's just one OC3.
> > 
> > I think you suggest having a database server at every hub,
> > gathering data for all circuits there, and transmitting
> > summaries hourly to a central server, followed by a purge.
> > You're still tracking millions of packets per second, 
> > hopefully without introducing latency, and rack space isn't
> > cheap.
> > 
> >  
> > > > I don't understand "unpaid volumes."  You bill your customers.
> > > 
> > > In some cases volume based billing is announced but it may 
> > > not necessarily be
> > > enforced. Billing works OK for burstable circuits. A regular 
> > > T1 would be provisioned
> > > to accommodate e.g. about 0.5Mbps at a busy hour. Three T1s 
> > > on a single DR may have
> > > different usage patterns. E.g. one transmits at 1.2Mbps 
> > > during 3hrs in the morning.
> > > Second sends at 1.1Mbps at night for 6hrs. The third sends at 
> > > 0.3Mbps 24hrs daily
> > > with occasional bursts up to 1.5Mbps. Each pays $1,200 but 
> > > over the month #1 have
> > > sent 49GB, #2 = 89GB, #3 = 110GB. Sometimes providers would 
> > > go after "abusers" who
> > > exceed average usage tens or hundreds times. "Abusers" can be 
> > > looked at as an
> > > opportunity assuming they have a need to move data and are 
> > > willing to pay for it.
> > 
> > Sorry for leading the topic this way.  How and what ARIN 
> > members charge for services is completely off-topic.  If
> > your proposal requires Internet providers to bill in a certain
> > way, we don't have the authority to adopt it.  
> >  
> > > > You keep saying "proper," as if to say that there is an 
> established
> > > > right way to do things.
> > > 
> > > "Proper" means following the basic logic of a process.
> > 
> > I don't think that's what it means.
> > 
> > >  E.g. in a world of a regular
> > > mail or cargo shipments a sender pays for moving a certain 
> > > number of molecules over
> > > distance. Energy wise how does moving electrons fundamentally 
> > > differ from moving
> > > molecules? If electrons are too many to count let's define a 
> > > countable network unit representing a fair amount of 
> > > electrons.
> > 
> > I have it on good authority that the Internet isn't trucks,
> > it's tubes.  
> > 
> > The fundamental difference is that there's no Internet
> > oligopoly.  In shipping, you have a single carrier end-to-end.
> > In telecom, you may have two or three carriers, but they look
> > the same, because of heredity and regulation.
> > 
> > Another difference: we don't push electrons.  Individual
> > electrons don't move very far at all.  Data have no mass.
> > 
> > The basic issue at hand, though, is why the trucking model
> > would be substantially better than the status quo.  
> > 
> > 
> > > > I am not familiar with telecommunications licensing, 
> but I do not
> > > > have the impression that licenses are available to anyone.  My
> > > > impression is that the "certain criteria" are high.  Does each
> > > > coffee shop and private interconnect have to get a license?
> > > 
> > > The process is straightforward, as long as you meet all 
> > > "high" criteria you will get
> > > the license. If network services are defined and regulated 
> > > then anyone who falls
> > > under that definition is a subject to a license.
> > 
> > You say it's straightforward, but what are those criteria?
> > Does that mean that coffee shops need licenses?  If I set up
> > private interconnects between my enterprise network and four
> > of my vendors, do I need a license?
> > 
> > 
> > > > So does this mean a new kind of governmental licensing agency, 
> > > > which works closely with the government tax collection agency, 
> > > > and the two agencies direct ARIN?
> > > 
> > > It is a matter of coordination between already established 
> > > agencies, e.g. Tax and
> > > FCC. Agencies feed ARIN with the number of subscribers by 
> > > provider as well as
> > > suggested fees. ARIN autonomously performs address allocation 
> > > practice. ARIN
> > > collects fees from all holders of licenses for network services. 
> > 
> > How strong are the suggestions?
> > 
> > > > I'm unclear on the taxpayer-node relationship.  Each taxpaying
> > > > individual with a tax ID gets an allocation?  What size?
> > > 
> > > Taxpayers are not homogeneous and need segmentation. How many 
> > > addresses is enough
> > > for a single individual? Assuming that at some point we will 
> > > start fixing genes and
> > > that human DNA consists of about 3 billion base pairs will 
> > > /96 be enough? For the
> > > start we may want to reserve more space and start 
> > > experimenting with less.
> > 
> > Do you have a proposal?
> > 
> > > > Each taxpaying organization with a tax ID get an allocation?
> > > > What size?  
> > > 
> > > Depending on what they can justify. Current ARIN approach 
> > > works well here.
> > 
> > I think your proposal is to have the tax and licensing 
> > organizations provide ARIN a subscriber count.  ARIN needs
> > more information than that.  Do we ask the organization for
> > more information, or train the tax and licensing agenices to
> > collect network diagrams and virtual host counts?
> > 
> > 
> > > > I was talking about IP address allocation.  Say my company has 
> > > > offices in 14 states and two provinces, with leased 
> lines between 
> > > > them, and three Internet connections.  Do I get three 
> assignments 
> > > > from my carriers, or 14?  Or since I have leased lines, 
> do I get a 
> > > > telecom license?
> > > 
> > > You will get your PI assignment directly from ARIN in the 
> > > amount you can justify.
> > > Whichever provider(s) serve your Internet connection(s) they 
> > > will report it to ARIN.
> > > You will get a telecom license if you meet all of the 
> > > criteria for it in your region
> > > and if you want to be engaged in a telecom business and if a 
> > > contract with your
> > > provider permits you to sub-lease lines.
> > 
> > I still don't quite understand the threshold where a telecom
> > license is required.  The only telecom service I want to 
> > provide is to employees of my company.  Do I need a license
> > in your model?  Do I meet the criteria?  If the criteria 
> > include maintaining a billing database and providing wiretap
> > facilities, then I don't.  Would that mean my private WAN is
> > illegal?
> > 
> > 
> > [redacted:  addresses for me, my wife, and her home business]
> > 
> > So we could easily have three non-aggregatable prefixes at
> > our house.  Every organization and every individual would
> > have a non-aggregatable prefix.  Do you foresee any routing
> > scalability problems with that?
> > 
> > >  
> > > > What's a top level licensee?
> > > E.g. FCC in the US or CRTC in Canada.
> > 
> > Fees would be variable between countries, and set by the
> > government, not by ARIN and its members.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You propose significant regulation of the Internet and what
> > look to me like significant additional costs for Internet
> > access providers, both of which may (depending on how well
> > I understand your proposal) reduce the number of providers
> > and the flexibility of enterprises to bypass them.  Who
> > benefits from this?
> > 
> > Or, put another way, I don't understand the problem we're
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>