From christopher.morrow at gmail.com  Sat Sep  2 21:54:39 2006
From: christopher.morrow at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:54:39 -0400
Subject: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608240759000.4743@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0608232014050.15110-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0608240759000.4743@netcore.fi>
Message-ID: <75cb24520609021854l4640c455u130b7477981ba502@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/24/06, Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi> wrote:

> Internal structure considerations also doesn't apply, as your
> neighbors and customers can static-route to your internal block unless
> you implement packet filtering at your borders.  Hence, I cannot see a
> scenario where packet filtering wouldn't be sufficient.

The 'solution' will never be 100% (not everyone has an edge capable of
filtering each interface at line rate, nor will they in the future),
this is irrelevant however to the discussion at hand.

The point of using some globally unique/registered space for your
network buildout and not advertising it to the global community is two
fold: 1) to avoid people X hops away from being able to cause you
problems (trim out a large portion of the problem, keep things clean
for your self and your infrastructure protection filtering needs), 2)
avoid having to fight it out with a 'customer' who wants/needs/is
using your internal space for their network.

Whether or not you can make a filter on an interface do the 'right'
thing isn't important, not having the problem in the first place (or
having far less of it) is important. Also, defense in depth is nice,
eh? So when monkey #12 removes/de-provisions an interface things don't
get opened up unnecessarily to the evils that are the network outside
your moat.

-Chris


From markk at verisignlabs.com  Fri Sep  8 13:55:04 2006
From: markk at verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:55:04 -0400
Subject: [ppml] SWIP & A trip down memory lane.
In-Reply-To: <OF97170B6B.7AD21782-ON802571CA.0036B5C4-802571CA.003792F8@btradianz.com>
References: <20060813225005.GA96593@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<OF97170B6B.7AD21782-ON802571CA.0036B5C4-802571CA.003792F8@btradianz.com>
Message-ID: <20060908175504.GF4040@verisignlabs.com>

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:06:24AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
> Have you seen this?
> http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9505/msg00087.html
> 
> I believe that is the document that was stored at:
> ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic-ip-1.txt 
> 
> However, this is earlier and provides the names of people
> who were involved at the time. If you recognize any of
> the names, you could direct your question to someone who
> was there ;-)
> http://ftp.univie.ac.at/netinfo/ietf/92jul/swip-minutes-92jul.txt

Wow, reading this was a stroll down memory lane..

The SWIP work came out of an attempt to reconcile data from RIPE and the 
DDN NIC back in the '92 period. It did not work out so well as the data 
models that RIPE used and what the DDN NIC used were pretty much different at 
the time. Reconciliation was difficult and very time consuming. The
format was something that I came up with that worked with lex and yacc as
well as the existing data parsers we had built for other stuff in the
DDN NIC.

As net use started to heat up, reassignment info was way to numerous to use 
templates and since we had the parser already, we used that to help isps
report back on their assignment info. 

Mark

-- 

Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com               VeriSign 


From info at arin.net  Wed Sep 13 12:03:31 2006
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:03:31 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ICANN Ratifies Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address
	Space
Message-ID: <45082BD3.7090300@arin.net>

On 7 September 2006, the ICANN Board ratified the Global Policy for 
Allocation of IPv6 Address Space. This policy provides for the 
allocation of IPv6 address space from ICANN to the Regional Internet 
Registries (RIRs).

The complete NRO announcement is available at:

http://www.nro.net/documents/nro40.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From jeroen at unfix.org  Thu Sep 14 16:15:40 2006
From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:15:40 +0200
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr data?
Message-ID: <4509B86C.5040605@unfix.org>

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question, but it 
seems to be the most appropriate place to ask this. I could not find a 
policy or any guidelines for this kind of request, if there is any 
please point me to it and otherwise it might be good to document it 
somewhere.

Currently when one queries whois.arin.net for an address with a 
prefixlength it will return that it doesn't support CIDR:

8<----------------------------------------
$ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::/48

CIDR queries are not accepted

No match found for 2620::/48.
---------------------------------------->8
It clearly detects I am asking for a CIDR block.

Simply stripping the /48 helps in this case:
8<----------------------------------------
$ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::

OrgName:    U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
OrgID:      USEC
...
---------------------------------------->8

The client can of course do this automatically for you, but that is not 
very useful, especially with IPv4 in mind where one can ask for 
192.0.2.0/26 while the that is actually inside a /25, you will get back 
that there are 2 possibilities. For tool writers this is not an optimal 
solution either, also one will have to do a second query, copying in the 
name of the network as a query. With IPv6 it will be even more fun, /32 
is doable, /48 is also doable, but can you strip it to a /33, /42 etc?
Next to that CIDR was introduced in 1993 (before I even had internet at 
home ;) which is already 13 years ago, thus it is definitely way over 
time that the ARIN whois starts supporting this.


Therefor, I would like to request if the whois query match can be made 
on the prefix including CIDR as that saves a lot of head troubles and is 
generally more convenient.


On a similar subject, there is a rr.arin.net which provides routing 
information. In RIPE/APNIC/AFRINIC/LACNIC land we are very used to 
simply querying whois.<registry> and getting back the information that 
is stored in rr.arin.net. The problem with rr.arin.net is though that it 
seems that not too many organisations are using it. Next to that, if one 
queries the RR for a block for which the inetnum/inet6num is known, but 
the route object isn't one gets back a 0::/0 answer, while it could 
easily return the information in whois.arin.net.

Thus, to possibly solve both problems in one go, could the ARIN staff 
populate rr.arin.net with the information that is currently contained in
whois.arin.net as a first step, and as a second step move whois.arin.net 
to whois-old.arin.net and propagate rr.arin.net as whois.arin.net ?


This will have one drawback, but from certain perspectives not a big 
one: the format of RPSL is quite different from the current format of 
the whois.arin.net output. Then again, the other RIR's are using RPSL 
format already and thus tools are already built to support both formats 
and should not have a problem with RPSL when that would appear as a 
response from their queries.

Greets,
  Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060914/f9f61fdd/attachment.sig>

From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com  Thu Sep 14 18:21:14 2006
From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:21:14 -0400
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
	data?
Message-ID: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A01A42C9B@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt>

Jeroen- This is actually a good question.  Are you going to be attending the next ARIN Conference in St Louis?  This would be a good subject to bring up at the BOF.

Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Jeroen Massar
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:16 PM
To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
data?


Hi,

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question, but it 
seems to be the most appropriate place to ask this. I could not find a 
policy or any guidelines for this kind of request, if there is any 
please point me to it and otherwise it might be good to document it 
somewhere.

Currently when one queries whois.arin.net for an address with a 
prefixlength it will return that it doesn't support CIDR:

8<----------------------------------------
$ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::/48

CIDR queries are not accepted

No match found for 2620::/48.
---------------------------------------->8
It clearly detects I am asking for a CIDR block.

Simply stripping the /48 helps in this case:
8<----------------------------------------
$ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::

OrgName:    U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
OrgID:      USEC
...
---------------------------------------->8

The client can of course do this automatically for you, but that is not 
very useful, especially with IPv4 in mind where one can ask for 
192.0.2.0/26 while the that is actually inside a /25, you will get back 
that there are 2 possibilities. For tool writers this is not an optimal 
solution either, also one will have to do a second query, copying in the 
name of the network as a query. With IPv6 it will be even more fun, /32 
is doable, /48 is also doable, but can you strip it to a /33, /42 etc?
Next to that CIDR was introduced in 1993 (before I even had internet at 
home ;) which is already 13 years ago, thus it is definitely way over 
time that the ARIN whois starts supporting this.


Therefor, I would like to request if the whois query match can be made 
on the prefix including CIDR as that saves a lot of head troubles and is 
generally more convenient.


On a similar subject, there is a rr.arin.net which provides routing 
information. In RIPE/APNIC/AFRINIC/LACNIC land we are very used to 
simply querying whois.<registry> and getting back the information that 
is stored in rr.arin.net. The problem with rr.arin.net is though that it 
seems that not too many organisations are using it. Next to that, if one 
queries the RR for a block for which the inetnum/inet6num is known, but 
the route object isn't one gets back a 0::/0 answer, while it could 
easily return the information in whois.arin.net.

Thus, to possibly solve both problems in one go, could the ARIN staff 
populate rr.arin.net with the information that is currently contained in
whois.arin.net as a first step, and as a second step move whois.arin.net 
to whois-old.arin.net and propagate rr.arin.net as whois.arin.net ?


This will have one drawback, but from certain perspectives not a big 
one: the format of RPSL is quite different from the current format of 
the whois.arin.net output. Then again, the other RIR's are using RPSL 
format already and thus tools are already built to support both formats 
and should not have a problem with RPSL when that would appear as a 
response from their queries.

Greets,
  Jeroen



From william at elan.net  Thu Sep 14 18:34:28 2006
From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
 data?
In-Reply-To: <4509B86C.5040605@unfix.org>
References: <4509B86C.5040605@unfix.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0609141527280.13135@sokol.elan.net>


Asking for CIDR is good - I tried doing it once before even when it was
"old" ARIN whois server, obviously it has not been implimented...

Regarding copy whois into RR - ARIN will probably not do it since RR
is running on different type of software (at least from what I know - 
somebody from ARIN can clarify), but possibly they could add an option
to sub-lookup in RR database together with ARIN's regular whois. My 
understanding however is that in US RRs are not quite as centric to RIR
as it is with RIPE/APNIC so data can well be in some other RR and ARIN 
does not want to provide such data with regular whois if it can not
trust it - again somebody from ARIN would have to clarify.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question, but it seems 
> to be the most appropriate place to ask this. I could not find a policy or 
> any guidelines for this kind of request, if there is any please point me to 
> it and otherwise it might be good to document it somewhere.
>
> Currently when one queries whois.arin.net for an address with a prefixlength 
> it will return that it doesn't support CIDR:
>
> 8<----------------------------------------
> $ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::/48
>
> CIDR queries are not accepted
>
> No match found for 2620::/48.
> ---------------------------------------->8
> It clearly detects I am asking for a CIDR block.
>
> Simply stripping the /48 helps in this case:
> 8<----------------------------------------
> $ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::
>
> OrgName:    U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
> OrgID:      USEC
> ...
> ---------------------------------------->8
>
> The client can of course do this automatically for you, but that is not very 
> useful, especially with IPv4 in mind where one can ask for 192.0.2.0/26 while 
> the that is actually inside a /25, you will get back that there are 2 
> possibilities. For tool writers this is not an optimal solution either, also 
> one will have to do a second query, copying in the name of the network as a 
> query. With IPv6 it will be even more fun, /32 is doable, /48 is also doable, 
> but can you strip it to a /33, /42 etc?
> Next to that CIDR was introduced in 1993 (before I even had internet at home 
> ;) which is already 13 years ago, thus it is definitely way over time that 
> the ARIN whois starts supporting this.
>
>
> Therefor, I would like to request if the whois query match can be made on the 
> prefix including CIDR as that saves a lot of head troubles and is generally 
> more convenient.
>
>
> On a similar subject, there is a rr.arin.net which provides routing 
> information. In RIPE/APNIC/AFRINIC/LACNIC land we are very used to simply 
> querying whois.<registry> and getting back the information that is stored in 
> rr.arin.net. The problem with rr.arin.net is though that it seems that not 
> too many organisations are using it. Next to that, if one queries the RR for 
> a block for which the inetnum/inet6num is known, but the route object isn't 
> one gets back a 0::/0 answer, while it could easily return the information in 
> whois.arin.net.
>
> Thus, to possibly solve both problems in one go, could the ARIN staff 
> populate rr.arin.net with the information that is currently contained in
> whois.arin.net as a first step, and as a second step move whois.arin.net to 
> whois-old.arin.net and propagate rr.arin.net as whois.arin.net ?
>
>
> This will have one drawback, but from certain perspectives not a big one: the 
> format of RPSL is quite different from the current format of the 
> whois.arin.net output. Then again, the other RIR's are using RPSL format 
> already and thus tools are already built to support both formats and should 
> not have a problem with RPSL when that would appear as a response from their 
> queries.
>
> Greets,
> Jeroen


From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep 14 18:57:43 2006
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:57:43 -0700
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
	data?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0609141527280.13135@sokol.elan.net>
References: <4509B86C.5040605@unfix.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0609141527280.13135@sokol.elan.net>
Message-ID: <37F8C206-D7AF-4845-8AAE-2227A7FF1BFB@delong.com>

The RR is a routing registry.
WHOIS is a contact directory.

The two serve very different purposes and are related only in that  
both contain
information about network blocks.  In database parlance, I would say  
that they
are two completely different tables linked by a single common key.

This is an oversimplification of the relationship, of course, because  
the RR
has ancillary contact information associated with maintainer records.

This was actually proposed at the Montreal meeting and met with fairly
strong opposition.  I think it would be detrimental to the purpose of  
the RR
to start populating it automatically.  A network without policy in  
the RR is
contrary to the intended purpose of the RR.  A network with incorrect
policy in the RR would be even worse.

Owen

On Sep 14, 2006, at 3:34 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:

>
> Asking for CIDR is good - I tried doing it once before even when it  
> was
> "old" ARIN whois server, obviously it has not been implimented...
>
> Regarding copy whois into RR - ARIN will probably not do it since RR
> is running on different type of software (at least from what I know -
> somebody from ARIN can clarify), but possibly they could add an option
> to sub-lookup in RR database together with ARIN's regular whois. My
> understanding however is that in US RRs are not quite as centric to  
> RIR
> as it is with RIPE/APNIC so data can well be in some other RR and ARIN
> does not want to provide such data with regular whois if it can not
> trust it - again somebody from ARIN would have to clarify.
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question,  
>> but it seems
>> to be the most appropriate place to ask this. I could not find a  
>> policy or
>> any guidelines for this kind of request, if there is any please  
>> point me to
>> it and otherwise it might be good to document it somewhere.
>>
>> Currently when one queries whois.arin.net for an address with a  
>> prefixlength
>> it will return that it doesn't support CIDR:
>>
>> 8<----------------------------------------
>> $ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::/48
>>
>> CIDR queries are not accepted
>>
>> No match found for 2620::/48.
>> ---------------------------------------->8
>> It clearly detects I am asking for a CIDR block.
>>
>> Simply stripping the /48 helps in this case:
>> 8<----------------------------------------
>> $ whois -h whois.arin.net 2620::
>>
>> OrgName:    U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
>> OrgID:      USEC
>> ...
>> ---------------------------------------->8
>>
>> The client can of course do this automatically for you, but that  
>> is not very
>> useful, especially with IPv4 in mind where one can ask for  
>> 192.0.2.0/26 while
>> the that is actually inside a /25, you will get back that there are 2
>> possibilities. For tool writers this is not an optimal solution  
>> either, also
>> one will have to do a second query, copying in the name of the  
>> network as a
>> query. With IPv6 it will be even more fun, /32 is doable, /48 is  
>> also doable,
>> but can you strip it to a /33, /42 etc?
>> Next to that CIDR was introduced in 1993 (before I even had  
>> internet at home
>> ;) which is already 13 years ago, thus it is definitely way over  
>> time that
>> the ARIN whois starts supporting this.
>>
>>
>> Therefor, I would like to request if the whois query match can be  
>> made on the
>> prefix including CIDR as that saves a lot of head troubles and is  
>> generally
>> more convenient.
>>
>>
>> On a similar subject, there is a rr.arin.net which provides routing
>> information. In RIPE/APNIC/AFRINIC/LACNIC land we are very used to  
>> simply
>> querying whois.<registry> and getting back the information that is  
>> stored in
>> rr.arin.net. The problem with rr.arin.net is though that it seems  
>> that not
>> too many organisations are using it. Next to that, if one queries  
>> the RR for
>> a block for which the inetnum/inet6num is known, but the route  
>> object isn't
>> one gets back a 0::/0 answer, while it could easily return the  
>> information in
>> whois.arin.net.
>>
>> Thus, to possibly solve both problems in one go, could the ARIN staff
>> populate rr.arin.net with the information that is currently  
>> contained in
>> whois.arin.net as a first step, and as a second step move  
>> whois.arin.net to
>> whois-old.arin.net and propagate rr.arin.net as whois.arin.net ?
>>
>>
>> This will have one drawback, but from certain perspectives not a  
>> big one: the
>> format of RPSL is quite different from the current format of the
>> whois.arin.net output. Then again, the other RIR's are using RPSL  
>> format
>> already and thus tools are already built to support both formats  
>> and should
>> not have a problem with RPSL when that would appear as a response  
>> from their
>> queries.
>>
>> Greets,
>> Jeroen
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060914/8265087e/attachment.sig>

From william at elan.net  Thu Sep 14 19:06:18 2006
From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
 data?
In-Reply-To: <37F8C206-D7AF-4845-8AAE-2227A7FF1BFB@delong.com>
References: <4509B86C.5040605@unfix.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0609141527280.13135@sokol.elan.net>
	<37F8C206-D7AF-4845-8AAE-2227A7FF1BFB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0609141601340.13135@sokol.elan.net>


On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:

> The RR is a routing registry.
> WHOIS is a contact directory.
>
> The two serve very different purposes and are related only in that both 
> contain
> information about network blocks.  In database parlance, I would say that 
> they are two completely different tables linked by a single common key.

Really, which key would that be? :)

Remember that routes can be smaller or larger then allocated ip blocks
as well as ip routes follow cidr and netblock allocations dont. The
common column is ip block netrange, however there is no 1-1 or many-1
or many-many relationship here and so they can not be said to be linked
by common keys in the database terms.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net


From info at arin.net  Thu Sep 14 20:21:39 2006
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:21:39 -0400
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
 data?
Message-ID: <4509F213.3010808@arin.net>

Hello Jeroen-

Thank you for your suggestions.  The ppml is generally used to provide 
community input into the ARIN policy process, but your question is 
certainly welcome.

(See http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html for further information on 
the ARIN policy development process).

You have essentially made a two fold request; modify the ARIN WHOIS so 
that it accepts queries by CIDR prefix and integrate the ARIN Routing 
Registry into the ARIN Internet number resource registry (WHOIS).

We plan to do an integration of the routing registry and WHOIS in 2007 
so that the appropriate number resource registration information is 
accurately produced when a query is made to the RR. Thus, queries to the 
WHOIS will return the registration information as it currently does, and 
queries to the RR will return routing policy information as it currently 
does. However, a query to the WHOIS will not return routing policy 
information and a query to the RR will not return all of the details of 
the number resource registration data.

With regard to changing the WHOIS so that it accepts queries by CIDR 
prefix, we will have to look into this and get back to you.

We thank you for your input.

Regards,

Leslie Nobile
Director, Registration Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From woody at pch.net  Fri Sep 15 00:37:16 2006
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
 data?
In-Reply-To: <37F8C206-D7AF-4845-8AAE-2227A7FF1BFB@delong.com>
References: <4509B86C.5040605@unfix.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0609141527280.13135@sokol.elan.net>
	<37F8C206-D7AF-4845-8AAE-2227A7FF1BFB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0609142133570.12212@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
    > The RR is a routing registry.
    > WHOIS is a contact directory.
    > The two serve very different purposes and are related only in that both
    > contain information about network blocks.

Another difference:

The RIR whois contains two sets of data: authoritative assignments and 
allocations, and non-authoritative SWIPped subdelegations.

The IRR whois contains only non-authoritative data, either submitted 
directly, submitted through third parties, mirrored from sites which 
received it directly, or mirrored from sites which received it from third 
parties.

If one's interested in the chain of responsibility backing up the veracity 
of the data, these things are of some interest.

                                -Bill



From sandy at tislabs.com  Fri Sep 15 08:12:36 2006
From: sandy at tislabs.com (sandy at tislabs.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] CIDR support for whois.arin.net / merging whois with rr
	data?
Message-ID: <200609151212.k8FCCauD009275@tislabs.com>

Bill Woodcock said:

>The IRR whois contains only non-authoritative data, either submitted
>directly, submitted through third parties, mirrored from sites which
>received it directly, or mirrored from sites which received it from third
>parties.
>
>If one's interested in the chain of responsibility backing up the veracity
>of the data, these things are of some interest.

Three somewhat orthogonal comments:

The directly submitted data for resources for which ARIN is authoritative
can be validated.  And as I understand it, ARIN *does* check for number
resource objects being registered to be sure that the registrant is
the same as the POC for the corresponding whois record.  So some
authorization is possible.

As I understand it, the route objects are not subjected to the same
validity check, although it should be possible for ARIN to check that the
registrant is the same as the POC for the corresponding whois record
for the address.  There's an RFC that talks about security for rpsl
databases and objects (RFC2725, RPSS) that says a route object should
be validated against BOTH the address and AS maintainers.  A I understand
it, RIPE implements this check in their database.

If ARIN does validate (some) submissions, but receives other submissions
from other sources, it seems worthwhile to flag that difference in
the object.  Something to say whether or not ARIN validated the source.

--Sandy


From woody at pch.net  Mon Sep 18 11:58:34 2006
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] RETRACTION OF Policy Proposal 2006-6: Bulk WHOIS agreement
	expiration
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0609180853380.4540@paixhost.pch.net>


Policy Proposal Name: Bulk WHOIS agreement expiration clarification
Author: Bill Woodcock

In light of the operational changes enacted today by the ARIN staff, this 
proposal need no longer exist within the ARIN policy proposal system.

I hereby retract it, with heartfelt thanks to the ARIN staffers who have 
worked diligently to not only correct the problems which prompted me to 
write it originally, but worked generously, creatively, and beyond the 
mere requirements of duty to improve the process further than my limited 
imagination had envisioned.

                                 -Bill



From sandy at tislabs.com  Mon Sep 18 14:24:36 2006
From: sandy at tislabs.com (sandy at tislabs.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] RETRACTION OF Policy Proposal 2006-6: Bulk WHOIS
	agreement expiration
Message-ID: <200609181824.k8IIOaAh008095@tislabs.com>

Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> said:

>In light of the operational changes enacted today by the ARIN staff, this
>proposal need no longer exist within the ARIN policy proposal system.

I see an announcement on the ARIN site about the new Consultation and
Suggestion Process (http://www.arin.net/announcements/20060918.html),
but that doesn't sound quite like an operational change.

Can you provide a pointer to what you are talking about?

--Sandy


From ipgoddess at gmail.com  Wed Sep 20 13:44:00 2006
From: ipgoddess at gmail.com (Stacy Taylor)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:44:00 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
References: <445B9208.9060700@arin.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605151408450.6940@lemon.samweiler.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <1c16a4870609201044i7142ddc1nf1d2cccb66c71d0c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sam,
If the AC deems an issue better handled by another path or process, it
is its responsibility to forward it on.

Stacy

On 9/19/06, Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:
> Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the
> grounds that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board
> of Trustees." [1] [2]
>
> I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they
> agree with that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely
> because there's a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than,
> for instance, because the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the
> public policy process).
>
> To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these
> particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is
> appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a
> better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they
> think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a
> "better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)
>
> Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy
> proposal merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the
> public policy process rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate"
> for the public policy process -- the public policy process should at
> least be available as a fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is
> unacceptable for some reason.
>
> -- Sam Weiler
>
> [1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
> [2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
> [3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
>


-- 
:):)
/S


From weiler at tislabs.com  Wed Sep 20 15:34:41 2006
From: weiler at tislabs.com (Sam Weiler)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:34:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>

[I originally sent this to the PPML last night, but ARIN's mail 
servers wouldn't deliver it because it had too many addresses on the 
CC line (to the ten AC candidates).  I'm now resending it without the 
CC's.  While I'm specifically asking the AC candidates to respond, I'd 
certainly welcome comments from others.]

Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the 
grounds that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board 
of Trustees." [1] [2]

I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they 
agree that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because 
there's a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for 
instance, because the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public 
policy process).

To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these 
particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is 
appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a 
better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they 
think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a 
"better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)

Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy 
proposal merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the 
public policy process rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" 
for the public policy process -- the public policy process should at 
least be available as a fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is 
unacceptable for some reason.

-- Sam Weiler

[1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
[2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
[3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html


From ipgoddess at gmail.com  Wed Sep 20 16:10:35 2006
From: ipgoddess at gmail.com (Stacy Taylor)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:10:35 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <1c16a4870609201310u26e3bb07ja37922fba2e74417@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sam,
If the AC deems an issue better handled by another path or process, it
is its responsibility to pass it on.
Thank you,
Stacy

On 9/20/06, Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:
> [I originally sent this to the PPML last night, but ARIN's mail
> servers wouldn't deliver it because it had too many addresses on the
> CC line (to the ten AC candidates).  I'm now resending it without the
> CC's.  While I'm specifically asking the AC candidates to respond, I'd
> certainly welcome comments from others.]
>
> Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the
> grounds that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board
> of Trustees." [1] [2]
>
> I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they
> agree that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because
> there's a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for
> instance, because the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public
> policy process).
>
> To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these
> particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is
> appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a
> better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they
> think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a
> "better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)
>
> Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy
> proposal merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the
> public policy process rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate"
> for the public policy process -- the public policy process should at
> least be available as a fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is
> unacceptable for some reason.
>
> -- Sam Weiler
>
> [1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
> [2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
> [3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>


-- 
:):)
/S


From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Wed Sep 20 17:56:02 2006
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E.Seastrom)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:56:02 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
 question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com> (Sam
	Weiler's message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:34:41 -0400 (EDT)")
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <87venidwy5.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


I agree with both Stacy and Andrew.  Micromanagement of operational
issues via the public policy process is not a desirable outcome;
unnecessarily constrains ARIN staff and if done too often will result
in the NRPM becoming huge and unwieldy.  The AC finding that something
"can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of Trustees" is completely
neutral on the proposal's merits, it's just a suggestion that it is
more operational than policy oriented.

The ACSP is a new thing, which should eliminate much of the need to
use the public policy process to get the attention of ARIN's ops side.
I think this represents a step towards goodness and applaud the
efforts of ARIN staffers to bring it to fruition.

As much as I'd like to put in a suggestion that at least one future
ARIN meeting per year ought to take place in an ARIN region country
other than the US and Canada, I suppose I'll restrain myself...

                                        ---Rob

Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> writes:

> [I originally sent this to the PPML last night, but ARIN's mail 
> servers wouldn't deliver it because it had too many addresses on the 
> CC line (to the ten AC candidates).  I'm now resending it without the 
> CC's.  While I'm specifically asking the AC candidates to respond, I'd 
> certainly welcome comments from others.]
>
> Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the 
> grounds that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board 
> of Trustees." [1] [2]
>
> I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they 
> agree that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because 
> there's a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for 
> instance, because the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public 
> policy process).
>
> To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these 
> particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is 
> appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a 
> better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they 
> think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a 
> "better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)
>
> Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy 
> proposal merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the 
> public policy process rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" 
> for the public policy process -- the public policy process should at 
> least be available as a fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is 
> unacceptable for some reason.
>
> -- Sam Weiler
>
> [1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
> [2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
> [3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


From weiler at tislabs.com  Wed Sep 20 14:36:54 2006
From: weiler at tislabs.com (Sam Weiler)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201433390.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>

[I'm originally sent this to the PPML last night, but ARIN's mail 
servers wouldn't deliver it because it had too many addresses on the 
CC line (to the ten AC candidates).  I'm now resending it without the 
CC's.  While I'm specifically asking the AC candidates to respond, I'd 
certainly welcome comments from others.]


Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the 
grounds that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board 
of Trustees." [1] [2]

I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they 
agree that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because 
there's a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for 
instance, because the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public 
policy process).

To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these 
particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is 
appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a 
better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they 
think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a 
"better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)

Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy 
proposal merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the 
public policy process rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" 
for the public policy process -- the public policy process should at 
least be available as a fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is 
unacceptable for some reason.

-- Sam Weiler

[1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
[2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
[3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html


From bicknell at ufp.org  Wed Sep 20 18:04:08 2006
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:04:08 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
References: <445B9208.9060700@arin.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605151408450.6940@lemon.samweiler.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <20060920220408.GB11986@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:20:06AM -0400, Sam Weiler wrote:
> I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they 
> agree with that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely 
> because there's a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, 
> for instance, because the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the 
> public policy process).

I think a large component of the AC's job is community education.
It's helping those who are not familiar with the process navigate
through it when necessary.  If the AC can help the proposer find a
better path to resolution I think that makes everyone happy.

I'll also point out that we have a petition process, documented in
http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html.  I hope the AC would always
be able to provide a path forward that satisfies the author, but
if not there is a mechanism to allow the author to move a proposal
forward.

--
       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/20060920/6094a852/attachment.sig>

From woody at pch.net  Wed Sep 20 18:26:04 2006
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
 question
In-Reply-To: <87venidwy5.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
	<87venidwy5.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0609201522230.2566@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
    > I agree with both Stacy and Andrew.  Micromanagement of operational
    > issues via the public policy process is not a desirable outcome;
    > unnecessarily constrains ARIN staff and if done too often will result
    > in the NRPM becoming huge and unwieldy.  The AC finding that something
    > "can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of Trustees" is completely
    > neutral on the proposal's merits, it's just a suggestion that it is
    > more operational than policy oriented.

For what it's worth, as the author of one of the two proposals which was 
referred to the board by the AC, I'm 100% happy with the outcome.  The 
outcome was far better, in fact, than I'd been imagining or hoping for.  
And the board just referred it to staff.  

So I think the issue is that sometimes there are things which the staff 
may need to do differently, or may even want to do differently, and they 
just need to be given the go-ahead to prioritize them more highly.  In my 
case, that process worked great, and the putting-up-a-policy-proposal-and-
routing-it-through-the-AC was, in fact, just time lost.

In retrospect, I should have used the "suggestion box" method, I was just 
being a little too hot-headed.  If I'd emailed in the suggestion, rather 
than posting a policy proposal, I probably would have gotten what I wanted 
a month earlier.

                                -Bill



From Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com  Thu Sep 21 04:53:03 2006
From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:53:03 +0100
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <OF87C58B6B.8FE8CC09-ON802571F0.00308AD3-802571F0.0030CD78@btradianz.com>

> Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy 
> proposal merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the 
> public policy process rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" 
> for the public policy process -- the public policy process should at 
> least be available as a fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is 
> unacceptable for some reason.

The public policy process *IS* still available as a fallback. I quote:

   If a policy proposal does not receive the support of the 
   Advisory Council, the author of the policy proposal may 
   elect to use the petition process to advance their proposal.

This is from http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html which explains
the ARIN Policy Evaluation Process. In fact, I once successfully
used a petition to advance a policy proposal. So it's not just
theory; it's in the process and it has been exercised.

--Michael Dillon



From markk at verisignlabs.com  Thu Sep 21 09:53:46 2006
From: markk at verisignlabs.com (Mark Kosters)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:53:46 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <20060921135346.GC4689@verisignlabs.com>

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:34:41PM -0400, Sam Weiler wrote:
> To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these 
> particular two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is 
> appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because they see a 
> better path to accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they 
> think the new Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a 
> "better" venue for the request than the full public policy process)

There are proposals that have come in recently that can be argued
that are not policy but more focused on new services or process
for ARIN operational matters. I've argued that there has been no
other way to go forward except through the policy process for things
that are member matters (hence my objection that is recorded
in section 6 of the Arin AC meeting of May 4):
  http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ac/ac2006_0504.html

I'm very encouraged that there is now an emerging set of processes for 
non policy matters that the members can bring to ARIN that is a more logical
path forward than using the policy process. As far as the the existing
process has been defined, I personally like to see the process to be setup 
more like the policy process with reasonable overrides if there is resistance 
by leadership within ARIN but wanted by its members.*

Regards,
Mark

*I'm not saying that ARIN's Board or CEO is like that today or have
behaved badly in the past. They as a group, they are very open to changes 
and I'm honored to have worked with both CEO/President's of ARIN and the 
various board instances over the past years.

-- 

Mark Kosters            markk at verisignlabs.com               VeriSign 


From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz  Thu Sep 21 10:28:36 2006
From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:28:36 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
 question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609201533510.18665@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <a06230900c1384c72552a@[10.151.96.167]>

As a non-AC member:

At 15:34 -0400 9/20/06, Sam Weiler wrote:

>Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the
>grounds that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board
>of Trustees." [1] [2]

And rightfully so.  Had they taken up consideration of the proposals, 
the AC would be committing "mission creep."

OTOH, there was confusion at the time over who was responsible for 
this kind of issue (that being a non-number-resource-policy) that I 
hope is cleaned up over time.   (I haven't had time yet myself to see 
of the Consultation thing is an answer.)

By the Consultation thing I am referring to this:
      http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.


From info at arin.net  Fri Sep 22 12:06:56 2006
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:06:56 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN XVIII - Policy Proposals
Message-ID: <45140A20.6040702@arin.net>

The following policy proposals have been under discussion on the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List.

2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates
2006-6: Bulk WHOIS Agreement Expiration Clarification

The full proposal text for each proposal can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html

Policy proposals 2006-1, 2006-2, and 2006-3 will be presented for
consideration at the upcoming ARIN XVIII Public Policy Meeting in St.
Louis on 11-12 October 2006.

Policy proposal 2006-6 will not be presented. It was withdrawn by the
author on 18 September 2006. The ARIN Advisory Council acknowledged this
at their meeting on 21 September 2006.

The following is a brief history of each of the proposals scheduled for
the St. Louis meeting:

2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
- Introduced on PPML on 26 January 2006
- Presented at ARIN XVII in Montreal
- ARIN Advisory Council found community consensus that the text should
be revised and for it to work with the author to revise the text
- Current Status: Not revised; the author did not desire to change the
text of the proposal

2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
- Introduced on PPML on 17 February 2006
- Presented at ARIN XVII in Montreal
- ARIN Advisory Council found community consensus that the text should
be revised and for it to work with the author to revise the text
- Current Status: Revised. The revision was posted to the PPML on 18
July 2006

2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates
- Introduced on PPML on 17 February 2006
- Presented at ARIN XVII in Montreal
- ARIN Advisory Council found community consensus that the text should
be revised and for it to work with the author to revise the text
- Current Status: Not revised; the author and AC shepherds have been
unable to produce a revised text

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From hannigan at renesys.com  Fri Sep 22 19:14:54 2006
From: hannigan at renesys.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:14:54 -0400
Subject: [ppml] 2006-1 Residential Privacy Policy
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060922191051.01d192b0@renesys.com>



At 12:06 PM 9/22/2006, Member Services wrote:
>The following policy proposals have been under discussion on the ARIN
>Public Policy Mailing List.
>
>2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy


[ SNIP ]



>2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
>- Introduced on PPML on 26 January 2006
>- Presented at ARIN XVII in Montreal
>- ARIN Advisory Council found community consensus that the text should
>be revised and for it to work with the author to revise the text
>- Current Status: Not revised; the author did not desire to change the
>text of the proposal

                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Ok. I'll bite. Why not? This seems obtuse considering
all of the feedback provided and the subsequent discussion.

I'm for a good privacy policy. The one in place now is
superior to this one for many reasons as compated to this
one, including it was reached by consensus.



Regards,


-M<









--
Martin Hannigan                                (c) 617-388-2663
Renesys Corporation                            (w) 617-395-8574
Member of Technical Staff                      Network Operations
                                                hannigan at renesys.com  



From schiller at uu.net  Tue Sep 26 17:20:50 2006
From: schiller at uu.net (Jason Schiller)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:20:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <20060825145647.GA10800@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609261419190.4350-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>

Would people be more infavor of 2006-2 if it has a sundown clause that
would require an orgization to return the internal microallocation once
there is a fully deployed suitable protocol alternative that alleviates
the need for an internal microallocation?

Or should the ARIN membership simply revoke this portion through the
public policy mechinism when that time comes? 

__Jason


==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.





From sleibrand at internap.com  Tue Sep 26 17:28:47 2006
From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:28:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609261419190.4350-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609261419190.4350-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0609261725510.31403@sleibrand-ibm.acs.internap.com>

I'm not convinced such a suitable protocol alternative (for all allowable
uses of the policy) will ever be developed, let alone fully deployed.  I'd
favor avoiding a sunset clause in favor of changing the policy later if
needed.

-Scott

On 09/26/06 at 5:20pm -0400, Jason Schiller <schiller at uu.net> wrote:

> Would people be more in favor of 2006-2 if it has a sundown clause that
> would require an organization to return the internal microallocation once
> there is a fully deployed suitable protocol alternative that alleviates
> the need for an internal microallocation?
>
> Or should the ARIN membership simply revoke this portion through the
> public policy mechanism when that time comes?
>
> __Jason
>
>
> ==========================================================================
> Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
> Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
> Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
> UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
>
> The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
> it increases traffic on the Internet.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>


From ipgoddess at gmail.com  Wed Sep 27 13:02:48 2006
From: ipgoddess at gmail.com (Stacy Taylor)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:02:48 -0700
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609271232060.1594@iscserv1>
References: <445B9208.9060700@arin.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605151408450.6940@lemon.samweiler.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0609271232060.1594@iscserv1>
Message-ID: <1c16a4870609271002y2c794d31qf1f3b703bbf826ce@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,
I believe a clarification of nomenclature is important here.  The AC
did not _reject_ the proposals we are referencing here.  The AC saw a
more appropriate path for action for the issues addressed by them, and
recommended that path.
Thanks,
Stacy


On 9/27/06, Aaron Dudek <adudek at sprint.net> wrote:
> It depends on what it proposal is and whether there is a precidence to
> follow. Issues on operational policies should be discussed during the
> membership meeting.
> If the policy falls into the public domain then I think that the AC should
> make a recommedation instead of rejecting it.
>
>
> Aaron Dudek
> (703) 689-6879
> Sprintlink Engineering
> adudek at sprint.net
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Sam Weiler wrote:
>
> > Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the grounds
> > that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of Trustees."
> > [1] [2]
> >
> > I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they agree
> > with that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because there's
> > a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for instance, because
> > the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public policy process).
> >
> > To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these particular
> > two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is appropriate to
> > reject a policy proposal merely because they see a better path to
> > accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they think the new
> > Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a "better" venue for the
> > request than the full public policy process)
> >
> > Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy proposal
> > merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the public policy process
> > rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" for the public policy
> > process -- the public policy process should at least be available as a
> > fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is unacceptable for some reason.
> >
> > -- Sam Weiler
> >
> > [1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
> > [2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
> > [3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
> >
>


-- 
:):)
/S


From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Wed Sep 27 21:37:14 2006
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E.Seastrom)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:37:14 -0400
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609261419190.4350-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
	(Jason
	Schiller's message of "Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:20:50 -0400 (EDT)")
References: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609261419190.4350-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <873bacpy9h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>


Jason Schiller <schiller at uu.net> writes:

> Would people be more infavor of 2006-2 if it has a sundown clause that
> would require an orgization to return the internal microallocation once
> there is a fully deployed suitable protocol alternative that alleviates
> the need for an internal microallocation?
>
> Or should the ARIN membership simply revoke this portion through the
> public policy mechinism when that time comes? 

I don't think we would have any better luck getting back internal
microallocations than we would getting back ostensibly publicly
routable microallocations.  Given the vastness of IPv6 space and the
fact that we're not taking up a slot in the global routing table, I'm
not sure why we would bother anyway.

The thing about which I wonder more though is why a codified sunset
for the allocation, which basically forces a migration upon the
adopters at such time as ARIN decides that you can stick a fork in the
technology because it's baked, would make the policy proposal more
(instead of radically less) palatable?  Am I missing something here?

                                        ---Rob



From Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com  Thu Sep 28 05:46:33 2006
From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:46:33 +0100
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <873bacpy9h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <OF2564575D.6DA0E849-ON802571F7.00356358-802571F7.0035B34C@btradianz.com>

> The thing about which I wonder more though is why a codified sunset
> for the allocation, which basically forces a migration upon the
> adopters at such time as ARIN decides that you can stick a fork in the
> technology because it's baked, would make the policy proposal more
> (instead of radically less) palatable?  Am I missing something here?

I think that any kind of sunset or expiry clause is
a bad idea. As long as ARIN maintains contact with
the organizations who receive the addresses, then 
there is the possibility of a future policy change
that involves returning those addresses. 

Today, we are completely ignorant of the situation
in three year's time so we can't show any good reason
for forcing the migration. But, in three years, ARIN
will have the facts at their disposal and all the affected
parties will be able to join in the decision making.
It is better to leave the decision to a later date
and remove any sundown provisions.

--Michael Dillon



From Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com  Thu Sep 28 10:44:48 2006
From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:44:48 +0100
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609280950150.1577@iscserv1>
Message-ID: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>

> What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have 
decided 
> to cut contact with ARIN?

Now you are asking a more general question unrelated
to 2006-2. If ARIN issues AS numbers or IP addresses
to an organization and that organization ceases to
pay ARIN subscription fees then that organization is
failing to fulfil its social contract with the ARIN
community. Many organizations which are run by members
have the concept of "member in good standing" and when
a member ceases to be in good standing, either by failing
to pay fees or for some other reason, the organization
removes membership benefits and eventual unilateraly
discharges the member.

Does the ARIN RSA make this social contract into
a legal contract? If not, then should it?

Quite frankly, I don't have the answers but I think
that before we can deal with the issue of organizations
losing contact, we need to be clear on what is the
social contract between individual numbering resource
users and the community of numbering resource users. 
I think ARIN fairly represents the community and therefore
if any social contract is cast into a legal contract,
ARIN should be the legal representative of the community.
But I don't believe that we have openly discussed this
issue in terms of a social contract before. Many people
believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
acquires some obligations along with them, but we have
not expressed this in a general and comprehensive way
before.

Today, the unspoken social contract is enforced in secret
largely because organizations know that they will likely
have to return to ARIN for numbering resources multiple 
times. After the migration to IPv6, most organizations
will not need additional numbering resources from ARIN and
unless the unspoken social contract becomes embodied in
legal contracts and written ARIN policies, there will be
no incentive to meet the obligations of the contract.

--Michael Dillon



From sleibrand at internap.com  Thu Sep 28 10:52:56 2006
From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:52:56 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
References: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
Message-ID: <451BE1C8.3070809@internap.com>

AFAIK, organizations who have received IP space directly from ARIN (not 
legacy allocations) and don't pay their membership dues get their 
allocations revoked and their whois record removed.  Of course that 
doesn't immediately stop them from using or routing the space, but it 
will prevent them from announcing it to new ISPs, and could eventually 
result in their existing ISPs no longer accepting the space.

I'll bet ARIN staff can comment on their actual policies on this...

-Scott

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have 
>>     
> decided 
>   
>> to cut contact with ARIN?
>>     
>
> Now you are asking a more general question unrelated
> to 2006-2. If ARIN issues AS numbers or IP addresses
> to an organization and that organization ceases to
> pay ARIN subscription fees then that organization is
> failing to fulfil its social contract with the ARIN
> community. Many organizations which are run by members
> have the concept of "member in good standing" and when
> a member ceases to be in good standing, either by failing
> to pay fees or for some other reason, the organization
> removes membership benefits and eventual unilateraly
> discharges the member.
>
> Does the ARIN RSA make this social contract into
> a legal contract? If not, then should it?
>
> Quite frankly, I don't have the answers but I think
> that before we can deal with the issue of organizations
> losing contact, we need to be clear on what is the
> social contract between individual numbering resource
> users and the community of numbering resource users. 
> I think ARIN fairly represents the community and therefore
> if any social contract is cast into a legal contract,
> ARIN should be the legal representative of the community.
> But I don't believe that we have openly discussed this
> issue in terms of a social contract before. Many people
> believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
> acquires some obligations along with them, but we have
> not expressed this in a general and comprehensive way
> before.
>
> Today, the unspoken social contract is enforced in secret
> largely because organizations know that they will likely
> have to return to ARIN for numbering resources multiple 
> times. After the migration to IPv6, most organizations
> will not need additional numbering resources from ARIN and
> unless the unspoken social contract becomes embodied in
> legal contracts and written ARIN policies, there will be
> no incentive to meet the obligations of the contract.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>   


From jlewis at lewis.org  Thu Sep 28 11:02:46 2006
From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <451BE1C8.3070809@internap.com>
References: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
	<451BE1C8.3070809@internap.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609281056530.2498@soloth.lewis.org>

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> AFAIK, organizations who have received IP space directly from ARIN (not
> legacy allocations) and don't pay their membership dues get their
> allocations revoked and their whois record removed.  Of course that
> doesn't immediately stop them from using or routing the space, but it
> will prevent them from announcing it to new ISPs, and could eventually
> result in their existing ISPs no longer accepting the space.

Do you have any direct experiences with this?  My experience (with an ARIN 
member network we acquired and with a former employer) is that if a member 
stops paying ARIN maintenance fees, nothing happens.  The member can't get 
more space from ARIN, and if bought, that member's "ARIN assets" are 
frozen (can't do transfers) until their account is brought current.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that a member can't get away with 
ignoring ARIN's bills if that member doesn't need anything new from ARIN.

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


From sleibrand at internap.com  Thu Sep 28 11:12:09 2006
From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:12:09 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609281056530.2498@soloth.lewis.org>
References: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
	<451BE1C8.3070809@internap.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0609281056530.2498@soloth.lewis.org>
Message-ID: <451BE649.8090203@internap.com>

Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, organizations who have received IP space directly from ARIN (not
>> legacy allocations) and don't pay their membership dues get their
>> allocations revoked and their whois record removed.  Of course that
>> doesn't immediately stop them from using or routing the space, but it
>> will prevent them from announcing it to new ISPs, and could eventually
>> result in their existing ISPs no longer accepting the space.
>
> Do you have any direct experiences with this?  My experience (with an 
> ARIN member network we acquired and with a former employer) is that if 
> a member stops paying ARIN maintenance fees, nothing happens.  The 
> member can't get more space from ARIN, and if bought, that member's 
> "ARIN assets" are frozen (can't do transfers) until their account is 
> brought current.
>
> I haven't seen anything to suggest that a member can't get away with 
> ignoring ARIN's bills if that member doesn't need anything new from ARIN.
>
My experience is fairly indirect and involves some (possibly incorrect) 
assumptions.  I think this is an excellent point for ARIN staff to chime in.

-Scott


From schiller at uu.net  Thu Sep 28 16:11:34 2006
From: schiller at uu.net (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <873bacpy9h.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609281603530.3183-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>

Rob,

I'm not sure that you are missing anything (or if you are maybe I am
missing it too)...  A few people have suggested that they would be
more likely to favor this proposal if there was a sunset clause.  So I
guess I just wanted to foat the idea, and see if this changed anyone's
opinion of the policy.  

So far it seems that people either don't care about the sunset (for the
reasons you state), or are specifically against it.

The reason we are even discussing this is that some people think this
problem should be solved in the protocol.  Unforunately that will take a
some time.  In the mean time we can solve it now with an addressing
policy.  I guess the basic though is maybe this addressing policy should
only be a stop gap measure untill it can be solved in the protocol and
fully implemented in the hardware.  That leads to the question, should we
sunset this policy?  

Rob, thank you for your thoughts on this question. 


___Jason


==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:37:14 -0400
> From: Robert E. Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com>
> To: Jason Schiller <jason.schiller at mci.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
> 
> 
> Jason Schiller <schiller at uu.net> writes:
> 
> > Would people be more infavor of 2006-2 if it has a sundown clause that
> > would require an orgization to return the internal microallocation once
> > there is a fully deployed suitable protocol alternative that alleviates
> > the need for an internal microallocation?
> >
> > Or should the ARIN membership simply revoke this portion through the
> > public policy mechinism when that time comes? 
> 
> I don't think we would have any better luck getting back internal
> microallocations than we would getting back ostensibly publicly
> routable microallocations.  Given the vastness of IPv6 space and the
> fact that we're not taking up a slot in the global routing table, I'm
> not sure why we would bother anyway.
> 
> The thing about which I wonder more though is why a codified sunset
> for the allocation, which basically forces a migration upon the
> adopters at such time as ARIN decides that you can stick a fork in the
> technology because it's baked, would make the policy proposal more
> (instead of radically less) palatable?  Am I missing something here?
> 
>                                         ---Rob
> 



From dsd at servervault.com  Thu Sep 28 16:53:12 2006
From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:53:12 -0400
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0609281603530.3183-100000@meno.corp.us.uu.net>
Message-ID: <F8B974E70BDE1745ABB27AF04788FA0002D2120B@mail1.dulles.sv.int>

Okay, I will chime in with my $.02

I seem to be missing what people find offensive about this policy
request.  It appears to me, a group has discovered a problem that it
wants to solve and feels the best way to do so requires internal micro
allocations.  I tend to be indifferent at worst and agree at best with
this proposal-- I do not have these issues or need v6 micro allocations.

The policy should not bloat the much feared v6 table-- I guess there is
concern with a swamp space?  The way I see it, like 3 organizations need
to use this policy, and for the sake of v6 working, I say let them have
it.

Just my unsolicited and uneducated opinion.

-dsd

David Divins
Principal Engineer
ServerVault Corp.
(703) 652-5955


From pesherb at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 28 16:58:25 2006
From: pesherb at yahoo.com (Peter Sherbin)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
Message-ID: <20060928205825.72188.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com>

>Many people believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
> acquires some obligations along with them

Many people believing something do not necessarily make that thing to be true. As a
user of a postal address I feel no obligations to the Postal Service. Contrary to
that I expect the postal service to deliver my prepaid message in a timely and
secure fashion.

The Internet is an electronic version of a global postal service. As such it should
move to a proper financial model where each delivery is paid for according to its
volume and destination.

Here is a proposed model:
PI addresses
RIR invoices every entity with telecommunications licence in the region a per
sibscriber fee to cover admin expenses
Regional issuer of telecom licenses determines the fee amount as well as makes such
fee a condition of the license (don't mean to regulate the Internet but please share
your comments)

Thanks,

Peter Sherbin


--- Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

> > What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have 
> decided 
> > to cut contact with ARIN?
> 
> Now you are asking a more general question unrelated
> to 2006-2. If ARIN issues AS numbers or IP addresses
> to an organization and that organization ceases to
> pay ARIN subscription fees then that organization is
> failing to fulfil its social contract with the ARIN
> community. Many organizations which are run by members
> have the concept of "member in good standing" and when
> a member ceases to be in good standing, either by failing
> to pay fees or for some other reason, the organization
> removes membership benefits and eventual unilateraly
> discharges the member.
> 
> Does the ARIN RSA make this social contract into
> a legal contract? If not, then should it?
> 
> Quite frankly, I don't have the answers but I think
> that before we can deal with the issue of organizations
> losing contact, we need to be clear on what is the
> social contract between individual numbering resource
> users and the community of numbering resource users. 
> I think ARIN fairly represents the community and therefore
> if any social contract is cast into a legal contract,
> ARIN should be the legal representative of the community.
> But I don't believe that we have openly discussed this
> issue in terms of a social contract before. Many people
> believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
> acquires some obligations along with them, but we have
> not expressed this in a general and comprehensive way
> before.
> 
> Today, the unspoken social contract is enforced in secret
> largely because organizations know that they will likely
> have to return to ARIN for numbering resources multiple 
> times. After the migration to IPv6, most organizations
> will not need additional numbering resources from ARIN and
> unless the unspoken social contract becomes embodied in
> legal contracts and written ARIN policies, there will be
> no incentive to meet the obligations of the contract.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Thu Sep 28 18:01:03 2006
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:01:03 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40365E9CC@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

 
 Peter Sherbin >
>
> The Internet is an electronic version of a global postal 
> service. As such it should
> move to a proper financial model where each delivery is paid 
> for according to its volume and destination.

That would be an exciting billing system!  Every packet would have to be
logged with source address, destination address, and size.  Another
table
to link IP address to billing address.  You would bill the packet 
originator, not the destination?  If the originator is not a customer, I

assume you would bill the peer network who sent the packet to you.  This
implies some significant changes to many network peering relationships, 
and you pretty quickly answer the question of which way payment goes.

You imply that the current model is improper, but I only see analogy to
support that implication.  How is your model better than what we have
now?

> Here is a proposed model:
> PI addresses

I don't understand whether you mean every organization should get a 
provider-independent address block and a telecommunications license, or
if you mean that only telcos should get PI address space, and everybody
else must accept assignments from telcos.

> RIR invoices every entity with telecommunications licence in 
> the region a per sibscriber fee to cover admin expenses
> Regional issuer of telecom licenses determines the fee amount 
> as well as makes such
> fee a condition of the license (don't mean to regulate the 
> Internet but please share your comments)

I'm not sure where you put large enterprise networks.  Distributed
offices,
multi-homed networks, multi-national presences.  I don't know which
telco
would aggregate them.  Similar questions for cable companies, CLECs, 
universities, and governments.

So only telcos would get IP addresses from ARIN?  In the U.S., would the

regional licenser be the state PUC or the FCC?  In your model, that
agency 
would annually count the number of Internet users (people, households, 
businesses, or hosts?) the telco has, multiply by some fee, and tell
ARIN 
how much to invoice.  If ARIN reported the telco for non-payment, the 
agency would revoke their license return the addresses to ARIN.

Can you flesh this out a little further?

Lee


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Peter Sherbin


From pesherb at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 29 09:48:24 2006
From: pesherb at yahoo.com (Peter Sherbin)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40365E9CC@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <20060929134825.42276.qmail@web54713.mail.yahoo.com>

> You would bill the packet originator, not the destination?

Yes, the originator of the packet pays to a transport provider

>you would bill the peer network who sent the packet to you

Peers cut the settlement based on volumes of packets they exchange. A bit is a
single common cost driver on the internet. Any HW or network design starts with
calculating bit volumes. Same should be extended to the internet financials.

> How is your model better than what we have now?

As a provider I support the infrastracture carrying unpaid volumes while I am
challenged with capturing that revenue. We have what we have. I guess this is a
constant search for doing things the proper way.

> I don't understand whether you mean every organization should get a 
> provider-independent address block and a telecommunications license, or
> if you mean that only telcos should get PI address space, and everybody
> else must accept assignments from telcos.

Every taxpayer (entity or individual) within RIR area is entitled to a certain
amount of IP (IPv6) address space. I assume a telecommunication license is available
to anyone who wants it and meets certain criteria. Assignment of the address space
goes directly from RIR to a taxpayer.

> I'm not sure where you put large enterprise networks.  Distributed
> offices, multi-homed networks, multi-national presences...

The entity always carries the cost of the transport network wether its own or leased
from whichever provider.
 
> So only telcos would get IP addresses from ARIN? 

Not only telcos but all taxpayers (individuals and entities)

> In the U.S., would the regional licenser be the state PUC or the FCC?

Licensers at all levels in all countries within ARIN region would need to provide to
ARIN subscriber counts from their licensees.

> In your model, that agency would annually count the number of Internet users
(people, households, businesses, or hosts?) the telco has, multiply by some fee, and
tell ARIN how much to invoice. 

That is correct. Providers who routinely report on their Internet subscribers
(connection users) will provide those numbers to ARIN. The exact fee amount in a
particular country is up to the local top level licensee. In a case where two
individuals have invested in a wire connecting their PCs accross the street they
will not be a subject to ARIN fee as long as their private network has no access to
the Internet (that assumes that IP addresses per se are not a sellable commodity,
they are a common resourse).

> If ARIN reported the telco for non-payment, the agency would revoke their license
return the addresses to ARIN.

Non-paying telco would be a subject to the current ARIN regulation, e.g. revokation
of the address space assigned to it. Revokation of the license would help even
better.


Thanks,

Peter


--- "Howard, W. Lee" <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com> wrote:

>  
>  Peter Sherbin >
> >
> > The Internet is an electronic version of a global postal 
> > service. As such it should
> > move to a proper financial model where each delivery is paid 
> > for according to its volume and destination.
> 
> That would be an exciting billing system!  Every packet would have to be
> logged with source address, destination address, and size.  Another
> table
> to link IP address to billing address.  You would bill the packet 
> originator, not the destination?  If the originator is not a customer, I
> 
> assume you would bill the peer network who sent the packet to you.  This
> implies some significant changes to many network peering relationships, 
> and you pretty quickly answer the question of which way payment goes.
> 
> You imply that the current model is improper, but I only see analogy to
> support that implication.  How is your model better than what we have
> now?
> 
> > Here is a proposed model:
> > PI addresses
> 
> I don't understand whether you mean every organization should get a 
> provider-independent address block and a telecommunications license, or
> if you mean that only telcos should get PI address space, and everybody
> else must accept assignments from telcos.
> 
> > RIR invoices every entity with telecommunications licence in 
> > the region a per sibscriber fee to cover admin expenses
> > Regional issuer of telecom licenses determines the fee amount 
> > as well as makes such
> > fee a condition of the license (don't mean to regulate the 
> > Internet but please share your comments)
> 
> I'm not sure where you put large enterprise networks.  Distributed
> offices,
> multi-homed networks, multi-national presences.  I don't know which
> telco
> would aggregate them.  Similar questions for cable companies, CLECs, 
> universities, and governments.
> 
> So only telcos would get IP addresses from ARIN?  In the U.S., would the
> 
> regional licenser be the state PUC or the FCC?  In your model, that
> agency 
> would annually count the number of Internet users (people, households, 
> businesses, or hosts?) the telco has, multiply by some fee, and tell
> ARIN 
> how much to invoice.  If ARIN reported the telco for non-payment, the 
> agency would revoke their license return the addresses to ARIN.
> 
> Can you flesh this out a little further?
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Peter Sherbin
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com  Fri Sep 29 10:11:26 2006
From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0100
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <20060929134825.42276.qmail@web54713.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <OFF4EF114A.883F4A50-ON802571F8.004D85F4-802571F8.004DF3C9@btradianz.com>

> > You would bill the packet originator, not the destination?
> 
> Yes, the originator of the packet pays to a transport provider

I don't know why you are discussing this here.
It has nothing to do with ARIN and certainly nothing
whatsoever to do with ARIN policies.

Given that we now know that similar billing practices
in the telco industries caused over 70% of all charges
to be spent on billing systems and billing support
systems such as data collection, we can estimate that
implementing such a policy would increase everyone's
Internet access charges by at least 3 times. Of course
the money would be spent on many things thereby increasing
employment nationwide, however, it seems to me that
a policy to create two job in every household belongs on 
some other list.

--Michael Dillon


From tvest at pch.net  Fri Sep 29 10:43:37 2006
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:43:37 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <20060929134825.42276.qmail@web54713.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060929134825.42276.qmail@web54713.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9FEC294D-DA13-40FC-B797-2C4E65446EA7@pch.net>


On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Peter Sherbin wrote:

>> You would bill the packet originator, not the destination?
>
> Yes, the originator of the packet pays to a transport provider

I won't burden PPML with any more on this topic (happy to elsewhere  
if there is interest), but I think you should remember that this  
arrangement ceased to be viable even in the switched telecom world c.  
early 1990s, as soon as it became possible to extend infrastructure  
and/or contractual arrangements across billing zones and so change  
the identification of "originator". Only way to counter that is to  
switch from a settlement-based to (flat) interconnection-based model  
(prob the more common adaptation strategy over the last decade), or  
close the borders and aggressively monitor/police all cross-border  
traffic (the apparent strategy of choice for the years to come).

TV


From pesherb at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 29 11:51:50 2006
From: pesherb at yahoo.com (Peter Sherbin)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <OFF4EF114A.883F4A50-ON802571F8.004D85F4-802571F8.004DF3C9@btradianz.com>
Message-ID: <20060929155150.16233.qmail@web54714.mail.yahoo.com>

A few months back there was a concern posted on this list that providers are not
vocal enough in defining ARIN policy. For us as a national provider uncounted
traffic is an issue, which you seem do not want to hear. Way to go for more
participation.

Peter

--- Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

> > > You would bill the packet originator, not the destination?
> > 
> > Yes, the originator of the packet pays to a transport provider
> 
> I don't know why you are discussing this here.
> It has nothing to do with ARIN and certainly nothing
> whatsoever to do with ARIN policies.
> 
> Given that we now know that similar billing practices
> in the telco industries caused over 70% of all charges
> to be spent on billing systems and billing support
> systems such as data collection, we can estimate that
> implementing such a policy would increase everyone's
> Internet access charges by at least 3 times. Of course
> the money would be spent on many things thereby increasing
> employment nationwide, however, it seems to me that
> a policy to create two job in every household belongs on 
> some other list.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Fri Sep 29 12:36:39 2006
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:36:39 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40365ED0A@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

I'm going to defend the topicality of this subject insofar as it
discusses allocation practice.  Interconnect charges are not 
directly on topic, but may be an important part of why a model will
or will not work. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Sherbin [mailto:pesherb at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 9:48 AM
> To: Howard, W. Lee; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
> 
> > You would bill the packet originator, not the destination?
> 
> Yes, the originator of the packet pays to a transport provider
> 
> >you would bill the peer network who sent the packet to you
> 
> Peers cut the settlement based on volumes of packets they 
> exchange. A bit is a
> single common cost driver on the internet. Any HW or network 
> design starts with
> calculating bit volumes. Same should be extended to the 
> internet financials.

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. 

> > How is your model better than what we have now?
> 
> As a provider I support the infrastracture carrying unpaid 
> volumes while I am
> challenged with capturing that revenue. We have what we have. 
> I guess this is a
> constant search for doing things the proper way.

I don't understand "unpaid volumes."  You bill your customers.

You keep saying "proper," as if to say that there is an established
right way to do things.


> > I don't understand whether you mean every organization should get a 
> > provider-independent address block and a telecommunications 
> license, or
> > if you mean that only telcos should get PI address space, 
> and everybody
> > else must accept assignments from telcos.
> 
> Every taxpayer (entity or individual) within RIR area is 
> entitled to a certain
> amount of IP (IPv6) address space. I assume a 
> telecommunication license is available
> to anyone who wants it and meets certain criteria. Assignment 
> of the address space
> goes directly from RIR to a taxpayer.

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?

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?

I'm unclear on the taxpayer-node relationship.  Each taxpaying
individual with a tax ID gets an allocation?  What size?
Each taxpaying organization with a tax ID get an allocation?
What size?  
Not to be pedantic, but are tax-exempt organizations eligible?
 
> > I'm not sure where you put large enterprise networks.  Distributed
> > offices, multi-homed networks, multi-national presences...
> 
> The entity always carries the cost of the transport network 
> wether its own or leased from whichever provider.

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?

> > So only telcos would get IP addresses from ARIN? 
> 
> Not only telcos but all taxpayers (individuals and entities)
> 
> > In the U.S., would the regional licenser be the state PUC 
> or the FCC?
> 
> Licensers at all levels in all countries within ARIN region 
> would need to provide to
> ARIN subscriber counts from their licensees.

This is all new, so forgive me while I try to put this together.

I pay taxes, so I'm entitled to a direct allocation from ARIN.
But I don't know how much until I go to my ISP and buy service.
They tell their licensing agency how many subscribers they have,
the licensing agency tells ARIN how many address to provide and
how much to allocate.  When do I get mine?  Do I pay ARIN or
the ISP?  How much do I pay?  Can I use those addresses with any
carrier?  

My wife pays taxes too.  Does she get a separate allocation?
She's a programmer for an office-less company.  Her company buys 
an Internet connection to our house.  Does her work PC get an IP 
address based on her company's tax ID number, or hers?

 
> > In your model, that agency would annually count the number 
> of Internet users
> (people, households, businesses, or hosts?) the telco has, 
> multiply by some fee, and
> tell ARIN how much to invoice. 
> 
> That is correct. Providers who routinely report on their 
> Internet subscribers
> (connection users) will provide those numbers to ARIN. The 
> exact fee amount in a
> particular country is up to the local top level licensee. 

What's a top level licensee?

> In a case where two
> individuals have invested in a wire connecting their PCs 
> accross the street they
> will not be a subject to ARIN fee as long as their private 
> network has no access to
> the Internet (that assumes that IP addresses per se are not a 
> sellable commodity, they are a common resourse).

What if one of them sets up community wireless?  

Keep going, I want to understand where this road leads.

Lee

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> --- "Howard, W. Lee" <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com> wrote:
> 
> >  
> >  Peter Sherbin >
> > >
> > > The Internet is an electronic version of a global postal 
> > > service. As such it should
> > > move to a proper financial model where each delivery is paid 
> > > for according to its volume and destination.
> > 
> > That would be an exciting billing system!  Every packet 
> would have to be
> > logged with source address, destination address, and size.  Another
> > table
> > to link IP address to billing address.  You would bill the packet 
> > originator, not the destination?  If the originator is not 
> a customer, I
> > 
> > assume you would bill the peer network who sent the packet 
> to you.  This
> > implies some significant changes to many network peering 
> relationships, 
> > and you pretty quickly answer the question of which way 
> payment goes.
> > 
> > You imply that the current model is improper, but I only 
> see analogy to
> > support that implication.  How is your model better than 
> what we have
> > now?
> > 
> > > Here is a proposed model:
> > > PI addresses
> > 
> > I don't understand whether you mean every organization should get a 
> > provider-independent address block and a telecommunications 
> license, or
> > if you mean that only telcos should get PI address space, 
> and everybody
> > else must accept assignments from telcos.
> > 
> > > RIR invoices every entity with telecommunications licence in 
> > > the region a per sibscriber fee to cover admin expenses
> > > Regional issuer of telecom licenses determines the fee amount 
> > > as well as makes such
> > > fee a condition of the license (don't mean to regulate the 
> > > Internet but please share your comments)
> > 
> > I'm not sure where you put large enterprise networks.  Distributed
> > offices,
> > multi-homed networks, multi-national presences.  I don't know which
> > telco
> > would aggregate them.  Similar questions for cable 
> companies, CLECs, 
> > universities, and governments.
> > 
> > So only telcos would get IP addresses from ARIN?  In the 
> U.S., would the
> > 
> > regional licenser be the state PUC or the FCC?  In your model, that
> > agency 
> > would annually count the number of Internet users (people, 
> households, 
> > businesses, or hosts?) the telco has, multiply by some fee, and tell
> > ARIN 
> > how much to invoice.  If ARIN reported the telco for 
> non-payment, the 
> > agency would revoke their license return the addresses to ARIN.
> > 
> > Can you flesh this out a little further?
> > 
> > Lee
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Peter Sherbin
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


From info at arin.net  Fri Sep 29 13:07:42 2006
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:07:42 -0400
Subject: [ppml] Sign-up for ARIN XVIII Open Policy Hour and Remote
	Participation
Message-ID: <002b01c6e3e9$c68c0cb0$5f8888c0@arin.net>

The Open Policy Hour
-------------------------------

Sign up today to be among the first to present ideas at The Open Policy 
Hour, Tuesday, 10 October 2006, from 6:00 - 7:00 PM (CDT) at ARIN XVIII 
in St. Louis.

If you have a policy proposal for which you would like to receive 
feedback prior to submitting it to the community on the PPML, here is 
your opportunity. Those who sign up by 6 October will be given the first 
opportunity to speak. Simply send an e-mail to policy at arin.net with your 
name, organization, and a general description of your policy subject 
that you wish to present in a short presentation. Everyone is invited to 
attend the session and raise ideas and suggestions. You do not need to 
have a formal presentation in order to participate. Signing up just 
guarantees you the opportunity to present.

Information on this and other sessions is available at:

	http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVIII/agenda.html


Remote Participation
------------------------------

To register for remote participation, please register through the 
Meeting Registration link available at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVIII/ 
and choose "Remote Participant - ARIN XVIII " from the drop-down. 
Registration for this will close by 11:59 PM (EDT), 9 October 2006. 

Comments received during the meeting from remote participants will be 
moderated and presented during normal question and answer periods. ARIN 
will use e-mail to provide the interactive portion of the remote 
participation effort. All remote participants are subject to the Remote 
Participation Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).

Additional information about remote participation, including the Remote 
Participation AUP, is available at:

	http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVIII/webcast.html

We look forward to your participation in ARIN XVIII. Meeting details are 
available at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVIII/.

Please contact Member Services at info at arin.net if you have any 
questions.

Regards,

Member Services Department
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From adudek at sprint.net  Wed Sep 27 12:51:59 2006
From: adudek at sprint.net (Aaron Dudek)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate
	question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
References: <445B9208.9060700@arin.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0605151408450.6940@lemon.samweiler.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0609191453430.31087@lemon.samweiler.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609271232060.1594@iscserv1>

It depends on what it proposal is and whether there is a precidence to 
follow. Issues on operational policies should be discussed during the 
membership meeting.
If the policy falls into the public domain then I think that the AC should 
make a recommedation instead of rejecting it.


Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek at sprint.net


On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Sam Weiler wrote:

> Earlier this year, the AC rejected two public policy proposals on the grounds 
> that the "matter ... can best be addressed by the ARIN Board of Trustees." 
> [1] [2]
>
> I'd like to hear from each of the ten AC candidates as to whether they agree 
> with that it's appropriate to reject a policy proposal merely because there's 
> a "better" path for resolving the matter (rather than, for instance, because 
> the matter is "clearly inappropriate" for the public policy process).
>
> To be clear, I'm not asking if the AC made the right call on these particular 
> two proposals -- I'm asking if the candidates think it is appropriate to 
> reject a policy proposal merely because they see a better path to 
> accomplishing its stated goals.  (e.g., because they think the new 
> Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) [3] is a "better" venue for the 
> request than the full public policy process)
>
> Personally, I'm disappointed that the AC would reject a policy proposal 
> merely because it would be "best" addressed outside the public policy process 
> rather than because it's "clearly inappropriate" for the public policy 
> process -- the public policy process should at least be available as a 
> fallback if the "best" path doesn't work or is unacceptable for some reason.
>
> -- Sam Weiler
>
> [1] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-May/005478.html
> [2] http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2006-June/005505.html
> [3] http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/acsp.html
>


From adudek at sprint.net  Thu Sep 28 09:51:13 2006
From: adudek at sprint.net (Aaron Dudek)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <OF2564575D.6DA0E849-ON802571F7.00356358-802571F7.0035B34C@btradianz.com>
References: <OF2564575D.6DA0E849-ON802571F7.00356358-802571F7.0035B34C@btradianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609280950150.1577@iscserv1>

What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have decided 
to cut contact with ARIN?

Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek at sprint.net


On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>> The thing about which I wonder more though is why a codified sunset
>> for the allocation, which basically forces a migration upon the
>> adopters at such time as ARIN decides that you can stick a fork in the
>> technology because it's baked, would make the policy proposal more
>> (instead of radically less) palatable?  Am I missing something here?
>
> I think that any kind of sunset or expiry clause is
> a bad idea. As long as ARIN maintains contact with
> the organizations who receive the addresses, then
> there is the possibility of a future policy change
> that involves returning those addresses.
>
> Today, we are completely ignorant of the situation
> in three year's time so we can't show any good reason
> for forcing the migration. But, in three years, ARIN
> will have the facts at their disposal and all the affected
> parties will be able to join in the decision making.
> It is better to leave the decision to a later date
> and remove any sundown provisions.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>


From adudek at sprint.net  Thu Sep 28 22:33:13 2006
From: adudek at sprint.net (Aaron Dudek)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
References: <OF658D0732.AC004D7E-ON802571F7.004FCA87-802571F7.00510198@btradianz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609282229090.27375@iscserv1>

ARIN cannot enforce routing policy to the ISPs. They can ask and hope the 
ISPs will comply. ARIN has no hold over any ISP who depends on another 
RIR.
>From what I understand, if a member falls out of good standing, then they 
can no longer get any services from ARIN including IPs, transfers, etc.
With IPv6, why would anyone need too?
I think I may have pulled this out of scope of the original discussion.

Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek at sprint.net


On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>> What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have
> decided
>> to cut contact with ARIN?
>
> Now you are asking a more general question unrelated
> to 2006-2. If ARIN issues AS numbers or IP addresses
> to an organization and that organization ceases to
> pay ARIN subscription fees then that organization is
> failing to fulfil its social contract with the ARIN
> community. Many organizations which are run by members
> have the concept of "member in good standing" and when
> a member ceases to be in good standing, either by failing
> to pay fees or for some other reason, the organization
> removes membership benefits and eventual unilateraly
> discharges the member.
>
> Does the ARIN RSA make this social contract into
> a legal contract? If not, then should it?
>
> Quite frankly, I don't have the answers but I think
> that before we can deal with the issue of organizations
> losing contact, we need to be clear on what is the
> social contract between individual numbering resource
> users and the community of numbering resource users.
> I think ARIN fairly represents the community and therefore
> if any social contract is cast into a legal contract,
> ARIN should be the legal representative of the community.
> But I don't believe that we have openly discussed this
> issue in terms of a social contract before. Many people
> believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
> acquires some obligations along with them, but we have
> not expressed this in a general and comprehensive way
> before.
>
> Today, the unspoken social contract is enforced in secret
> largely because organizations know that they will likely
> have to return to ARIN for numbering resources multiple
> times. After the migration to IPv6, most organizations
> will not need additional numbering resources from ARIN and
> unless the unspoken social contract becomes embodied in
> legal contracts and written ARIN policies, there will be
> no incentive to meet the obligations of the contract.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>


From adudek at sprint.net  Thu Sep 28 22:35:28 2006
From: adudek at sprint.net (Aaron Dudek)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:35:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <20060928205825.72188.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060928205825.72188.qmail@web54702.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609282233470.27375@iscserv1>

I don't think you need to have a licence to be an ISP.
Doesn't the proposed model charge an entity more than once if a subscriber 
is multihomed?

Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek at sprint.net


On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Peter Sherbin wrote:

>> Many people believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
>> acquires some obligations along with them
>
> Many people believing something do not necessarily make that thing to be true. As a
> user of a postal address I feel no obligations to the Postal Service. Contrary to
> that I expect the postal service to deliver my prepaid message in a timely and
> secure fashion.
>
> The Internet is an electronic version of a global postal service. As such it should
> move to a proper financial model where each delivery is paid for according to its
> volume and destination.
>
> Here is a proposed model:
> PI addresses
> RIR invoices every entity with telecommunications licence in the region a per
> sibscriber fee to cover admin expenses
> Regional issuer of telecom licenses determines the fee amount as well as makes such
> fee a condition of the license (don't mean to regulate the Internet but please share
> your comments)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter Sherbin
>
>
> --- Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>
>>> What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have
>> decided
>>> to cut contact with ARIN?
>>
>> Now you are asking a more general question unrelated
>> to 2006-2. If ARIN issues AS numbers or IP addresses
>> to an organization and that organization ceases to
>> pay ARIN subscription fees then that organization is
>> failing to fulfil its social contract with the ARIN
>> community. Many organizations which are run by members
>> have the concept of "member in good standing" and when
>> a member ceases to be in good standing, either by failing
>> to pay fees or for some other reason, the organization
>> removes membership benefits and eventual unilateraly
>> discharges the member.
>>
>> Does the ARIN RSA make this social contract into
>> a legal contract? If not, then should it?
>>
>> Quite frankly, I don't have the answers but I think
>> that before we can deal with the issue of organizations
>> losing contact, we need to be clear on what is the
>> social contract between individual numbering resource
>> users and the community of numbering resource users.
>> I think ARIN fairly represents the community and therefore
>> if any social contract is cast into a legal contract,
>> ARIN should be the legal representative of the community.
>> But I don't believe that we have openly discussed this
>> issue in terms of a social contract before. Many people
>> believe that the recipient of numbering resources also
>> acquires some obligations along with them, but we have
>> not expressed this in a general and comprehensive way
>> before.
>>
>> Today, the unspoken social contract is enforced in secret
>> largely because organizations know that they will likely
>> have to return to ARIN for numbering resources multiple
>> times. After the migration to IPv6, most organizations
>> will not need additional numbering resources from ARIN and
>> unless the unspoken social contract becomes embodied in
>> legal contracts and written ARIN policies, there will be
>> no incentive to meet the obligations of the contract.
>>
>> --Michael Dillon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>


From dsd at servervault.com  Fri Sep 29 13:58:57 2006
From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:58:57 -0400
Subject: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609280950150.1577@iscserv1>
Message-ID: <F8B974E70BDE1745ABB27AF04788FA0002D212B3@mail1.dulles.sv.int>

When I received my assignments from ARIN, I had to sign a document and
submit payment.  

I believe there is a legal contract between ARIN and the recipient.  I
would assume normal Contract Law applies if one party falls off the
earth for address reclamation.  This really should be a question for
ARIN's council, who should be at the meeting in St. Louis.

-dsd


David Divins
Principal Engineer
ServerVault Corp.
(703) 652-5955
-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Aaron Dudek
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:51 AM
To: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have
decided to cut contact with ARIN?

Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek at sprint.net


On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>> The thing about which I wonder more though is why a codified sunset 
>> for the allocation, which basically forces a migration upon the 
>> adopters at such time as ARIN decides that you can stick a fork in 
>> the technology because it's baked, would make the policy proposal 
>> more (instead of radically less) palatable?  Am I missing something
here?
>
> I think that any kind of sunset or expiry clause is a bad idea. As 
> long as ARIN maintains contact with the organizations who receive the 
> addresses, then there is the possibility of a future policy change 
> that involves returning those addresses.
>
> Today, we are completely ignorant of the situation in three year's 
> time so we can't show any good reason for forcing the migration. But, 
> in three years, ARIN will have the facts at their disposal and all the

> affected parties will be able to join in the decision making.
> It is better to leave the decision to a later date and remove any 
> sundown provisions.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


From dsd at servervault.com  Fri Sep 29 14:29:59 2006
From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:29:59 -0400
Subject: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609282229090.27375@iscserv1>
Message-ID: <F8B974E70BDE1745ABB27AF04788FA0002D212C3@mail1.dulles.sv.int>

 
I would hope a reclaimed block would be listed as a Bogon (by say,
Cymru) or unassigned by ARIN.

This should make it to enough filters to make the routing spotty.

-dsd

David Divins
Principal Engineer
ServerVault Corp.
(703) 652-5955
-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Aaron Dudek
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:33 PM
To: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN member in good standing?

ARIN cannot enforce routing policy to the ISPs. They can ask and hope
the ISPs will comply. ARIN has no hold over any ISP who depends on
another RIR.
>From what I understand, if a member falls out of good standing, then 
>they
can no longer get any services from ARIN including IPs, transfers, etc.
With IPv6, why would anyone need too?
I think I may have pulled this out of scope of the original discussion.

Aaron Dudek
(703) 689-6879
Sprintlink Engineering
adudek at sprint.net


On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>> What happens when ARIN can no longer contact them or if they have
> decided
>> to cut contact with ARIN?
>
> Now you are asking a more general question unrelated to 2006-2. If 
> ARIN issues AS numbers or IP addresses to an organization and that 
> organization ceases to pay ARIN subscription fees then that 
> organization is failing to fulfil its social contract with the ARIN 
> community. Many organizations which are run by members have the 
> concept of "member in good standing" and when a member ceases to be in

> good standing, either by failing to pay fees or for some other reason,

> the organization removes membership benefits and eventual unilateraly 
> discharges the member.
>
> Does the ARIN RSA make this social contract into a legal contract? If 
> not, then should it?
>
> Quite frankly, I don't have the answers but I think that before we can

> deal with the issue of organizations losing contact, we need to be 
> clear on what is the social contract between individual numbering 
> resource users and the community of numbering resource users.
> I think ARIN fairly represents the community and therefore if any 
> social contract is cast into a legal contract, ARIN should be the 
> legal representative of the community.
> But I don't believe that we have openly discussed this issue in terms 
> of a social contract before. Many people believe that the recipient of

> numbering resources also acquires some obligations along with them, 
> but we have not expressed this in a general and comprehensive way 
> before.
>
> Today, the unspoken social contract is enforced in secret largely 
> because organizations know that they will likely have to return to 
> ARIN for numbering resources multiple times. After the migration to 
> IPv6, most organizations will not need additional numbering resources 
> from ARIN and unless the unspoken social contract becomes embodied in 
> legal contracts and written ARIN policies, there will be no incentive 
> to meet the obligations of the contract.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml