From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Jul 1 07:38:34 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:38:34 +0100 Subject: [ppml] [GLOBAL-V6] How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <467BEC67.5080307@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <467BDA31.4030607@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com><200706221526.46024.aalain@trstech.net> <467BEC67.5080307@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: > I've sent it to all the RIR lists as it affects global policy > decisions: that a single RIR is acting in their own good > without even having asked their own membership about this situation. In general, when there are no explicit rules for appealing decisions of some group, the accepted appeal process is to begin by appealing directly to the group which made the disputed decision. The next step is to appeal to whichever body oversees that group. And so on. In this case, has an appeal been made to the AfriNIC hostmasters who made the allocation? Has an appeal already been made to the AfriNIC board of directors? Has an appeal been made to the AfriNIC membership? Has an appeal been made to the NRO directly? If not, then I don't see that this issue is relevant to ARIN or RIPE. Until the groups listed above have been given the opportunity to deal with the issue, ARIN and RIPE have no role in this. In addition, the appeal must be done sequentially, i.e. the person appealing the issue must allow a reasonable time for the issue to be considered before escalating the appeal to the next level. My sense is that none of this was done, and the appeal is being broadcast everywhere at once in an attempt to sling mud. This is not acceptable. And yes, Africa is a special case. It is a very large area in which the telecommunications structure is very complex, unlike Europe where the complainant lives. Wars and political disputes as well as hostile environments mean that all levels of the network from physical upwards, will have so-called "waste" which does not exist in Europe. That includes IP addressing. In this case AfriNIC is not conveniently located in one large well-connected city as in Europe or North America. Instead it is in 3 widely separated locations where you simply cannot connect by running three private lines. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Jul 1 07:44:45 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:44:45 +0100 Subject: [ppml] on PPML? - was Re: How to get ... In-Reply-To: <467BEE48.6050108@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <467BCF8B.4090308@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <200706221451.l5MEpIQP012336@ns1.afrinic.net> <467BE9A1.80008@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <467BEE48.6050108@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: > As an exercise, remind me again where Canada is, does this > fall in ARIN region or in the AfriNIC region? > > Then please try to explain me why I saw this recently: > 2001:42c8::/32 Canada TGB-V6-AFRICA Canada is not where you think it is. There is Canadian territory in many African countries. It is convention for foreign embassies to be treated as the territory of the foreign nation. In any case, you are pointing out something that has existed since day 1 in the IPv4 world. What is the point. Nobody has ever seen enough of an issue to make policy covering this situation. We are not engineers here, we are politicians. Politics is the art of making 80-20 decisions which means that inevitably, there is complex stuff that is not covered by policies. I wouldn't want to see bridges designed by politicians, but I also dislike the idea of engineers making policy in the same way that bridges are designed. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Jul 1 08:32:20 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:32:20 +0100 Subject: [ppml] RIR Shopping, Table Growth x5? In-Reply-To: <20070623171426.GA22425@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070623171426.GA22425@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > If you're a global company though, it would seem the current > policies in all of the regions lead us down a path to 5 > prefixes per ASN. > That is, each company would get a prefix from each RIR. As far as I am aware, there is no policy which requires a global network operator to get addresses from each of the regions where their network has a footprint. While some global network operators do indeed get blocks from multiple RIRs, others do not. My company operates a global network and we decided to get all our addresses worldwide from ARIN. At the time, the corporate head office was in the USA but that was a minor factor in the decision. We already had some ARIN addresses from an acquisition back in the early days of the Internet and it seemed easier to manage just one RIR relationship. The two major factors in dealing with only one RIR was that our network design was a central function (although the people sat outside the ARIN region) and that we did not want to deal with the internal route explosion (and related complexity) that Leo mentioned. Should there be a policy external to our company that required us to choose one way or the other? I don't think so. At this point in time, companies are free to follow the path that we did or the path that VSNL Teleglobe did based on their own internal technical, operational or management needs. This is a good thing even if it does allow some companies to do RIR shopping. I am not aware of any negative effects of RIR shopping that would justify a restrictive policy in this area. --Michael Dillon From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 2 03:01:43 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 00:01:43 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <46871609.9060508@internap.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> <480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com> <46871609.9060508@internap.com> Message-ID: <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> Yes... I thought that was the literal meaning of them rather than a between-the-lines interpretation, but, I am open to wordsmithing as well as substantive suggestions for improvement. Owen On Jun 30, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > I think what Owen meant was: > > 1. If the organization does not currently pay ARIN fees, their > remaining IPv4 resources shall remain fee exempt. > > and > > 4. All organizations returning space under this policy shall, > if they meet other eligibility requirements and so request, obtain > an appropriate IPv6 end-user assignment or ISP allocation as > applicable, with no fees for these IPv6 resources for the first 5 > years.... etc. > > I presume that the normal rules (that you pay the greater of your > IPv4 or IPv6 fees, not the sum) will still apply in such > situations, meaning that a legacy IPv4 holder who returns some of > their space and gets an IPv6 block will begin paying fees, based on > their IPv6 space, after 5 years. > > Owen, am I reading between the lines correctly? > > -Scott > > P.S. Aaron, you might want to update the From: line your mailer > generates. :-) > > heh heh wrote: >> Owen, >> Doesn't #1 and #4 conflict with each other or am I missing something? >> #1 says that they will remain exempt >> #4 says that anyone returning will be exempt for 5yrs >> So, if I return legacy space, which one do I fall under? >> >> Aaron >> >> On 6/28/07, *Owen DeLong* > > wrote: >> >> Here's an attempt to partially drain the swamp and create some >> incentives >> for legacy holders to both return available IPv4 space and >> start using >> IPv6. >> >> Comments welcome. >> >> Owen >> >> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 >> >> >> Policy Proposal Name: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation >> Author >> name: Owen DeLong >> email: owen at delong.com >> telephone: 408-921-6984 >> organization: JITTR Networks >> >> Proposal Version: 0.0.1 >> Submission Date: 2007 April 22 >> Proposal type: M >> new, modify, or delete. >> Policy term: permanent >> temporary, permanent, or renewable. >> Policy statement: >> Modify section 4.6 as follows: >> >> 4.6 Amnesty Requests >> ARIN will accept the return or relinquishment of >> any address space >> from any existing address holder. If the address >> holder wishes to >> aggregate into a single block, ARIN may work with >> the address holder >> to arrive at an allocation or assignment which is >> equal to or smaller >> than the sum of their existing blocks and which >> best meets the needs >> of the existing holder and the community. There >> shall be no fee for >> returning addresses under this policy. Further, >> organizations >> returning addresses under this policy shall >> receive the following >> benefits: >> >> 1. If the organization does not >> currently pay ARIN >> fees, they shall remain fee >> exempt. >> >> 2. If the organization currently >> pays >> ARIN fees, >> their fees shall be waived for >> two >> years for >> each /20 equivalent returned, >> with >> any fractional /20 >> equivalent resulting in a one- >> time >> single year waiver. >> >> 3. Any organization returning >> address >> space under >> this policy shall continue under >> their existing >> RSA or they may choose to sign >> the >> current RSA. >> For organizations which currently >> do not >> have an RSA, they may sign the >> current RSA, or, >> they may choose to remain without >> an RSA. >> >> 4. All organizations returning space >> under this >> policy shall, if they meet other >> eligibility >> requirements and so request, >> obtain an >> appropriate IPv6 end-user >> assignment >> or ISP allocation as applicable, >> with no fees >> for the first 5 >> years. Organizations electing >> to receive IPv6 >> allocation/assignment under >> this provision must sign a >> current >> RSA and >> must agree that all of their IPv4 >> resources are >> henceforth subject to the RSA. >> Organizations >> taking this election shall be >> subject to end-user >> fees for their IPv4 resources not >> previously >> under an ARIN RSA. If they are >> already an >> ARIN subscriber, then IPv4 >> resources >> affected by this process may, >> instead, be added to >> their existing subscriber >> agreement at the >> address holder's discretion. >> >> Rationale: >> >> The current amnesty policy does a nice job of >> facilitating >> aggregation, which was the intent when it was >> drafted. However, >> as we approach IPv4 free-space exhaustion, the >> community now >> has an additional need to facilitate address reclamation. >> >> A very high percentage of underutilized space is in the >> hands of >> legacy holders who currently have no benefit to joining >> the ARIN >> process. Further, there is an unfortunate perception >> that >> doing >> so will require force the legacy holder into certain >> future >> disadvantages. >> This proposal attempts to resolve both of those issues >> while also >> providing some incentive to legacy organizations to start >> using >> IPv6 resources and bring their IPv4 resources into the >> ARIN >> process. >> >> This policy attempts to provide some benefit and remove >> most of >> the costs of making partial IPv4 returns. It also >> attempts to >> provide an incentive for these IPv4 holders to join >> the ARIN >> process. >> >> Timetable for implementation: >> >> Immediate >> >> Meeting presenter: >> >> TBD, probably Owen DeLong >> >> END OF TEMPLATE >> _______________________________________________ >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy >> Mailing List >> (PPML at arin.net ). >> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >> (PPML at arin.net). >> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jul 2 07:49:14 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:49:14 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> Message-ID: > If the address > holder wishes to > aggregate into a single block, ARIN > may work with > the address holder > to arrive at an allocation or > assignment which is > equal to or smaller > than the sum of their existing blocks Why equal to or smaller? If the agreggate allocation is LARGER than the sum of the existing blocks and yet still is fully justified, what is wrong with that? Note that your wording means that an organization which is about to apply for additional addresses, needs to wait until after they have received their next allocation, then immediately return it back with all their old addresses to get an aggregate allocation. This is twice the hassle for both ARIN and the applicant organization. The key criteria must be that the allocation given to the org is fully justified. There is no need to pick nits and have a different requirement than a normal allocation. Since an org needs to do a complete review of their addressing situation before applying under this policy, it should allow, and perhaps even encourage orgs to apply for both an additional allocation and the aggregation process at the same time. As far as all the language about exemption, I strongly disagree. Every holder of IP address resources must sign the same RSA that we sign and pay fees according to the same fee schedule under which we pay fees. There must be a level playing field. If an organization can reduce the number of distinct route announcements into the public Internet by aggregating multiple allocations into one, then we should allow and encourage that. But not by creating a special class of address holder, the IP address nobility. There are parallels to this in regard to immigration status in the USA. Illegal immigrants live and work in the USA but pay no taxes. The government could either give these people citizenship and allow them to continue to be free from paying taxes, or the government could give them citizenship and require them to follow all the laws that other citizens follow, including paying income tax. In both cases, the illegal immigrants' past transgressions are being forgiven. The various US amnesty bills since 1986 have forgiven past transgressions but have not given special status in the future. --Michael Dillon From stephen at sprunk.org Mon Jul 2 09:55:27 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:55:27 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com><5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> Message-ID: <007c01c7bcb5$1f00b130$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake >> If the address holder wishes to aggregate into a single block, >> ARIN may work with the address holder to arrive at an >> allocation or assignment which is equal to or smaller >> than the sum of their existing blocks > > Why equal to or smaller? If the agreggate allocation is LARGER > than the sum of the existing blocks and yet still is fully justified, > what is wrong with that? There's already existing policy covering that, and there's no reason to give people incentive for something that benefits them (i.e. getting more addresses). This proposal gives people an incentive for something that benefits the community (i.e. returning addresses). > Note that your wording means that an organization which is about to > apply for additional addresses, needs to wait until after they have > received their next allocation, then immediately return it back with all > their old addresses to get an aggregate allocation. This is twice the > hassle for both ARIN and the applicant organization. I'm sure if an org wanted to submit requests for new space and aggregation at the same time, ARIN staff would be able to do that in a single step instead of how you describe. > The key criteria must be that the allocation given to the org is fully > justified. There is no need to pick nits and have a different > requirement than a normal allocation. The point of the proposal is to deal with orgs who have legacy space that _isn't_ justified. > If an organization can reduce the number of distinct route > announcements into the public Internet by aggregating multiple > allocations into one, then we should allow and encourage that. We already have an aggregation policy for that. > But not by creating a special class of address holder, the IP > address nobility. There already _is_ a special class: legacy holders. Counsel has indicated that all we can do is incent such folks into becoming part of the normal class, not force them into compliance, and this proposal attempts to use one of the few carrots ARIN has at its disposal. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 2 11:21:15 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:21:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:49 AM, wrote: > >> If the address >> holder wishes to >> aggregate into a single block, ARIN >> may work with >> the address holder >> to arrive at an allocation or >> assignment which is >> equal to or smaller >> than the sum of their existing blocks > > > Why equal to or smaller? If the agreggate allocation is LARGER than > the > sum of the existing blocks and yet still is fully justified, what is > wrong with that? > Existing policy already covers this. This policy does not remove that other policy. > Note that your wording means that an organization which is about to > apply for additional addresses, needs to wait until after they have > received their next allocation, then immediately return it back > with all > their old addresses to get an aggregate allocation. This is twice the > hassle for both ARIN and the applicant organization. > No, it doesn't. It means that an organization has to apply for their convergence under a different policy. Suggest you read NRPM 4.7 > The key criteria must be that the allocation given to the org is fully > justified. There is no need to pick nits and have a different > requirement than a normal allocation. > Except this policy is there specifically to allow an organization which has legacy space to retain as much of their space as they choose to while returning what they are willing to. In many cases, this may be more than they could actually justify under current policy, but, since the alternative would be forcing them to keep ALL of their space in order to avoid such a provision altogether, I think this is an improvement. > Since an org needs to do a complete review of their addressing > situation > before applying under this policy, it should allow, and perhaps even > encourage orgs to apply for both an additional allocation and the > aggregation process at the same time. > There are other policies that cover that situation. > As far as all the language about exemption, I strongly disagree. Every > holder of IP address resources must sign the same RSA that we sign and > pay fees according to the same fee schedule under which we pay fees. > There must be a level playing field. > OK, so, you'd rather force the holders that are not under RSAs to keep all of their space and return none of it in order to remain fee exempt? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm not exempting anyone who is already paying fees (except in the case where they return sizeable chunks of address space, and, in those cases, I think the exemptions are worth while in order to encourage the returns). > If an organization can reduce the number of distinct route > announcements > into the public Internet by aggregating multiple allocations into one, > then we should allow and encourage that. But not by creating a special > class of address holder, the IP address nobility. > See NRPM 4.7 It covers this quite well. This proposal does not change 4.7. It also doesn't target what you are describing. This proposal is targeted at LEGACY HOLDERS who are already a special class of address holder and attempts to find ways to make them less special. Hopefully this clarification allows you to see the proposal more clearly for what it is and the benefits it offers. > There are parallels to this in regard to immigration status in the > USA. > Illegal immigrants live and work in the USA but pay no taxes. The > government could either give these people citizenship and allow > them to > continue to be free from paying taxes, or the government could give > them > citizenship and require them to follow all the laws that other > citizens > follow, including paying income tax. In both cases, the illegal > immigrants' past transgressions are being forgiven. The various US > amnesty bills since 1986 have forgiven past transgressions but have > not > given special status in the future. > Except that there are some key differences: 1. Legacy holders are not here illegaly. 2. Legacy holders can't be deported. 3. Legacy holders can remain and continue not paying "taxes" without any risk because they haven't violated any law/rules. 4. Legacy holders are already exempt from ARIN contracts because they never signed one and ARIN is not a governmental organization, so, is unable to make "laws" which require actions or payments from entities with no contractual relationship. Owen From andrew.dul at quark.net Mon Jul 2 12:04:44 2007 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:04:44 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Message-ID: <20070702160445.29481.qmail@hoster908.com> In general I support the idea to provide a policy that would allow legacy holders to exchange or reduce their assignments easily. A few notes below. Andrew > > On 6/28/07, OWEN DELONG <[LINK: mailto:owen at delong.com] owen at delong.com> > > 1. If the organization does not currently pay > ARIN > fees, they shall remain fee exempt. I would support a fee waiver for a specific number of years (maybe 10?) not an indefinite waiver. > > 2. If the organization currently pays ARIN > fees, > their fees shall be waived for two years > for > each /20 equivalent returned, with any > fractional /20 > equivalent resulting in a one-time single > year waiver. Here I would like to see a cap on the maximum number of years they receive a fee waiver. > > 3. Any organization returning address space > under > this policy shall continue under their > existing > RSA or they may choose to sign the current > RSA. > For organizations which currently do not > have an RSA, they may sign the current > RSA, or, > they may choose to remain without an RSA. I personally believe that any action that an organization has with an RIR at this point should be done with a valid RSA in place. From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jul 2 14:00:46 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:00:46 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <007c01c7bcb5$1f00b130$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com><5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> <007c01c7bcb5$1f00b130$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: > There already _is_ a special class: legacy holders. Counsel > has indicated that all we can do is incent such folks into > becoming part of the normal class, not force them into > compliance, and this proposal attempts to use one of the few > carrots ARIN has at its disposal. Who said anything about forcing them? In my view, there is *NO* special class of address holders. Those legacy holders are not a special class, they are either ignorant of the rules or they are blatantly flouting the rules. In either case, they are *NOT* a special class and have no special rights. If it ever came to it in the courts, the likelihood is that the courts will once again rule that legacy address holders must comply with the ARIN rules and policies which all other address holders comply with. The playing field must be made as level as we can without extraordinary effort. That's why we don't actively take legacy holders to court and try to force them to sign the RSA and pay their fare share of the fees. To do that would be extraordinary effort. But at the same time we must not in any way actively provide benefits to those who flout the rules and leech off the rest of us. If these organizations are going to continue to flout the rules, I would rather leave them in exactly the same state they are today, not provide the benefit of an aggregate allocation. Also, note that an organization must exert considerable effort to renumber into a new allocation, and the only real reason to do that is to be a good network citizen. But if they want to be a good network citizen, then they can simply sign the RSA, start paying membership fees, and turn back any extra addresses that they may have. This is all possible today with no change in policy. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jul 2 14:26:15 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:26:15 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> Message-ID: > 1. Legacy holders are not here illegaly. Legacy holders are violating the rules that the industry has collectively agreed upon. The legacy holders are not playing fair. There are obviously shades of grey here but the legacy holders are closer to being here illegally than those who sign the RSA and pay their membership fees. > 2. Legacy holders can't be deported. They could be deported, i.e. the legacy resources could be taken away from them by suing them in court. I wouldn't recommend doing that at this time, but it may be that the industry collectively will decide to begin doing that as IPv4 resources become scarcer. > 3. Legacy holders can remain and continue not > paying "taxes" > without any risk because they haven't violated > any law/rules. This is not true. They are in violation of ARIN rules and they run several risks. First, they may be seen to be acting unfairly and thus lose business. Secondly they may have their addresses reclaimed either through operational actions (filtering announcements) or through court action. I believe that these risks will increase as IPv4 addresses get close to exhaustion. > 4. Legacy holders are already exempt from ARIN contracts > because they never signed one and ARIN is not a > governmental > organization, so, is unable to make "laws" > which require actions > or payments from entities with no contractual > relationship. The law is not that simple. There are such things as common law and case law. At least one court has already ruled that an organization must sign ARIN's RSA and follow ARIN's rules and policies in order to transfer an address allocation from another organization. Unless there are U.S. laws that specifically address IP address allocations, it is not clear which other laws, existing or new ones, might apply to IP address allocations and the ARIN relationships. That kind of thing gets settled in court cases which is why it is called case law. I believe that if ARIN did implement any policy granting special waivers and benefits to organizations in violation of ARIN's rules and policies, that would weaken ARIN's case-law position. That is why I will not support any such policy. In fact, given the unlikeliness of an organization going through the pain of renumbering to be a good network citizen, I suspect that this policy was introduced as an attempt to weaken ARIN's case-law position. --Michael Dillon From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 2 14:26:33 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:26:33 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com><5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> <007c01c7bcb5$1f00b130$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <46E36065-3BF7-4889-9EAB-C251AF991E25@delong.com> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, wrote: >> There already _is_ a special class: legacy holders. Counsel >> has indicated that all we can do is incent such folks into >> becoming part of the normal class, not force them into >> compliance, and this proposal attempts to use one of the few >> carrots ARIN has at its disposal. > > Who said anything about forcing them? > In my mind, you did. > In my view, there is *NO* special class of address holders. Those > legacy > holders are not a special class, they are either ignorant of the rules > or they are blatantly flouting the rules. In either case, they are > *NOT* > a special class and have no special rights. If it ever came to it > in the > courts, the likelihood is that the courts will once again rule that > legacy address holders must comply with the ARIN rules and policies > which all other address holders comply with. > Um, not exactly. They are NOT SUBJECT to the rules. They have no contractual relationship with the RIRs and no reason to believe they need one. The courts have never ruled that. I don't know what makes you think they would rule that way again given that they never have. Steve Ryan has stated that we don't likely have any such case against legacy address holders and that we would likely loose. When it comes to a legal opinion on this subject, I tend to believe Steve before I would believe you. > The playing field must be made as level as we can without > extraordinary > effort. That's why we don't actively take legacy holders to court and > try to force them to sign the RSA and pay their fare share of the > fees. Actually, I believe the reasons are: 1. There isn't enough money in the fees to justify the effort. 2. We wouldn't be likely to win even if we did (at least according to Steve Ryan). 3. It would be very expensive and time consuming. 4. It would also probably create some fairly massive publicity that would be negative to both sides. > To do that would be extraordinary effort. But at the same time we must > not in any way actively provide benefits to those who flout the rules > and leech off the rest of us. If these organizations are going to > continue to flout the rules, I would rather leave them in exactly the > same state they are today, not provide the benefit of an aggregate > allocation. > I hate to break it to you, but, existing policy provides that benefit already. This proposal doesn't seek to change that fact. Instead, it seeks to provide them some benefit and encouragement to RETURN addresses which will benefit the community. Please try to look at the issues the policy attempts to address instead of continuing down this rathole of other existing policies that are already on the books. Please re-read the existing NRPM 4.6 and 4.7 and then let's discuss this in terms of the changes being proposed instead of how much you dislike what is already on the books. > Also, note that an organization must exert considerable effort to > renumber into a new allocation, and the only real reason to do that is > to be a good network citizen. But if they want to be a good network > citizen, then they can simply sign the RSA, start paying membership > fees, and turn back any extra addresses that they may have. This is > all > possible today with no change in policy. > True, but, obviously, there are reasons it's not happening. I know that there are legacy holders with contiguous chunks of unused address space. I believe that this policy would facilitate them returning more space than current policy. As such, I think this policy would put us in a better place than we are today. I agree it is not a complete solution, but, my measure of good policy change is "Does it put us in a better place than we are today?", rather than "Does it solve all problems in one fell swoop?" Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 2 14:38:17 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:38:17 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com><46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> Message-ID: <4DD72BCA-F856-407C-9EC2-3152936F55C4@delong.com> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:26 AM, wrote: > >> 1. Legacy holders are not here illegaly. > > Legacy holders are violating the rules that the industry has > collectively agreed upon. The legacy holders are not playing fair. > There > are obviously shades of grey here but the legacy holders are closer to > being here illegally than those who sign the RSA and pay their > membership fees. > No. They are not. The industry has, generally collectively agreed that legacy holders are grandfathered under a different set of rules. The fact that you don't like this collective decision is another matter. >> 2. Legacy holders can't be deported. > > They could be deported, i.e. the legacy resources could be taken away > from them by suing them in court. I wouldn't recommend doing that at > this time, but it may be that the industry collectively will decide to > begin doing that as IPv4 resources become scarcer. > Well... According to ARIN's lawyer, we probably wouldn't win on that one, so, I'm not inclined to believe your statement over that of Steve Ryan. >> 3. Legacy holders can remain and continue not >> paying "taxes" >> without any risk because they haven't violated >> any law/rules. > > This is not true. They are in violation of ARIN rules and they run > several risks. First, they may be seen to be acting unfairly and thus > lose business. Secondly they may have their addresses reclaimed either > through operational actions (filtering announcements) or through court > action. I believe that these risks will increase as IPv4 addresses get > close to exhaustion. > They aren't subject to ARIN rules. They have no contractual relationship with ARIN and there is no legal basis for claiming that they should be subject to ARIN rules. ARIN has no force of law other than the contractual relationships they have with the recipients of ARIN resources. So far, nobody seems to be boycotting Harvard or MIT because of their legacy address space. I don't think such a thing is likely in the future. I don't know of any organization who is losing business because of their possession of legacy addresses. Do you? Secondly, I think operationally, such actions against the larger holders of legacy addresses (i.e. the ones that matter in terms of this policy) would be unlikely because, generally, ISPs don't want to piss-off large clients. Court action has been deemed unlikely to succeed by someone I am convinced knows way more about it than you do, so, I think you're wrong on that as well. As to the risks increasing, well, perhaps, but, I don't think they will ever increase to meaningful proportions. >> 4. Legacy holders are already exempt from ARIN contracts >> because they never signed one and ARIN is not a >> governmental >> organization, so, is unable to make "laws" >> which require actions >> or payments from entities with no contractual >> relationship. > > The law is not that simple. There are such things as common law and > case > law. At least one court has already ruled that an organization must > sign > ARIN's RSA and follow ARIN's rules and policies in order to > transfer an > address allocation from another organization. Unless there are U.S. > laws > that specifically address IP address allocations, it is not clear > which > other laws, existing or new ones, might apply to IP address > allocations > and the ARIN relationships. That kind of thing gets settled in court > cases which is why it is called case law. > While you sort of have that right, you've missed some key points of the situation... The ruling was that ARIN was not required to take action outside of ARINs documented processes and procedures. That ARIN could not be required to transfer the block unless the recipient organization complied with ARINS policies and procedures. That is a far cry from implementing ARIN policies on an existing holder of resources. I believe the legal term for such an action would be a "law of ex post facto". Correct me if I am wrong, but, I believe there is a constitutional prohibition of such things... Yep... Article 1 section 9... Section 9. ... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ... (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) > I believe that if ARIN did implement any policy granting special > waivers > and benefits to organizations in violation of ARIN's rules and > policies, > that would weaken ARIN's case-law position. That is why I will not > support any such policy. > Perhaps. I'm discussing that matter with Steve Ryan off-list. We're working on finding a way to address the issues in question without such consequences. > In fact, given the unlikeliness of an organization going through the > pain of renumbering to be a good network citizen, I suspect that this > policy was introduced as an attempt to weaken ARIN's case-law > position. > You can suspect all you want, but, I can tell you that I am pretty sure I know better than you the intent of the introduction of this policy. The intent is to remove some of the barriers to address space reclamation and to encourage legacy holders to begin using IPv6 and join the ARIN community and process. Frankly, I find your accusation baseless and offensive. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 2 15:49:15 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:49:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <4DD72BCA-F856-407C-9EC2-3152936F55C4@delong.com> Message-ID: >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Owen DeLong >>On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:26 AM, wrote: Owen, it's bad form to post HTML mail pleast stop it. We all aren't running non-complaint mail clients and it makes quoting difficult. >> but the legacy holders are closer to >>being here illegally than those who sign the RSA and pay their >>membership fees. >No. They are not. The industry has, generally collectively agreed that >legacy holders are grandfathered under a different set of rules. The fact >that you don't like this collective decision is another matter. The industry has grandfathered the legacy holders into the system because it is to the industries benefit, NOT to the legacy holders benefit. Because the Internet is IPv4 now, we need to know who the legacy holders are. Thus it benefits us to keep an eye on them. Once we switch to IPv6 there will be less and less incentive for the rest of us who have switched to IPv6 to worry about IPv4 numbered sites that don't want to play by the rules. Thus there will be a huge incentive to boot the non-paying legacy holders out the door. I would push for ALL records for commercial legacy holders to be stripped from the RIR's after IPv4 exhaustion, and for non-profits to be stripped 2 years later, unless that is they sign RSA's and start paying money to the RIR's. Those IPv4 addresses can then be available for reassignment. If I'm an ISP that desperately needs IPv4 addresses post-IPv4 exhaustion, and ARIN tells me "we don't got any clean addresses for you, but we will assign you addresses that a legacy holder is currently using and has no right to use on a temporary basis" then you bet your ass that I will start advertising those addresses. The legacy holder can then go bitch to his interconnects, I will sit tight with my allocations, and all of the intermediate networks will see that I have a right to those numbers (because I'm in the whois) and the legacy does not (since they are in nothing) and who do you think is going to "win" I may not be able to use those new IPv4 addresses for a year, perhaps, but during that year things will be extremely difficult for the lgacy holder, their users will be screaming at them because of being unable to get to various websites and so on, and that will provide incentive enough for the lgacy holder to sign an RSA and start paying. Or to vacate the addresses. >>They could be deported, i.e. the legacy resources could be taken away >>from them by suing them in court. >Well... According to ARIN's lawyer, we probably wouldn't win on that >one, so, I'm not inclined to believe your statement over that of Steve >Ryan. I don't see the need to sue anyone. If the lgacy holders who refuse to give up their IPv4 allocations and switch to IPv6 want to go off and form their own little IPv4 Internet with their own RIR then more power to them. It will be the right of any IPv6 site to block IPv4 access from the rogues that don't want to play fair. Extremely large legacy organizations are not going to give up access to customers on IPv6 networks, that serves as enough incentive for them to switch over. >They aren't subject to ARIN rules. They have no contractual relationship >with ARIN and there is no legal basis for claiming that they should be >subject to ARIN rules. ARIN has no force of law other than the contractual >relationships they have with the recipients of ARIN resources. >So far, nobody seems to be boycotting Harvard or MIT because of their >legacy address space. I don't think such a thing is likely in the future. >I don't know of any organization who is losing business because of their >possession of legacy addresses. Do you? That isn't the issue. The issue is that Harvard and MIT have students that will want to go to websites that will eventually switch over to IPv6, (because IPv4 will not be available) and if those sites are boycotting legacy holders, then Harvard's own students will start agitating for Harvard to fix things. And all it takes is one angry man with the force of law behind him. If ARIN withdraws sponsorship of Harvards' ARIN whois records, and assigns the IP subnets that, lets' say, Harvard's nameservers are on to Mr Michael Dillion, just how long do you think that Harvard will have a viable Internet connection? Harvard and MIT may be big and powerful compared to you or me, but they are nothing compared to the rest of the Internet. >Secondly, I think operationally, such actions against the larger holders >of legacy addresses (i.e. the ones that matter in terms of this policy) >would be unlikely because, generally, ISPs don't want to piss-off >large clients. What is your definition of an ISP? I hae read about a single individual in the past who gamed the system and now has something like a /18 and has no more ISP to his name than Burger King does. >Court action has been deemed unlikely to succeed by >someone I am convinced knows way more about it than you do, so, >I think you're wrong on that as well. Ah, yes, I'd love to see this one: Harvard Plaintiff: "Your Honor, Defendant is wilfully disrupting our Internet service to thousands of students and costing us millions of dollars by using the IP addresses that we were assigned" Judge: "Assigned by who?" Plaintiff: "well they were assigned by these dead guys out of a spiral notebook sometime about 40 years ago" Judge: "Is this how IP addresses are assigned in this industry?" Plantiff: "Uh, well, no not really" Judge: "Baliff, please throw these people out of the court, suit has no grounds to be filed" >>In fact, given the unlikeliness of an organization going through the >>pain of renumbering to be a good network citizen, I suspect that this >>policy was introduced as an attempt to weaken ARIN's case-law position. Interesting. Do you apply such a litmus test to all ARIN proposals, Michael? >You can suspect all you want, but, I can tell you that I am pretty sure >I know better than you the intent of the introduction of this policy. >The intent is to remove some of the barriers to address space reclamation >and to encourage legacy holders to begin using IPv6 and join >the ARIN community and process. I completely disagree with the idea of giving away more free stuff to legacy holders. I also completely disagree with the idea that the legacy holders should get away without signing an RSA. ARIN and the RIR's have a big giant stick they can use with the legacy holders, the threat of withdrawing whois records for legacy holders. I believe the first step needs to be to tell the legacy holders that by the time IPv4 runout occurs they MUST HAVE SIGNED an RSA that committs them to paying ARIN for IP assignment. If you want to carrot and stick them, then tell the legacy holders that runout is planned for year 2012, and for every year they delay signing an RSA they will lose a year of fee deferrment. In other words, if they sign right now, 5 years in advance of planned runout, they will get 5 years of fee exemptions POST runout. (ie: fees will be exempted until 2017) If they sign next year, 4 years in advance of planned runout, they get only 4 years of fee exemption post runout, (ie: no fees until 2016) If they sign 3 years they only exempt until 2015. And so on. If they do not sign at all then on planned runout, 2012, their records will be struck from WHOIS and their IP numbers will be allocated to new requestors post actual runout. The only way that a controlled transition will EVER happen from IPv4 to IPv6 is to get EVERY holder onto RSA's then start jacking up fees to retain IPv6, with exemptions to organizations that have dual-stacked. As the years go by the fees for single-stacking on IPv4 will get higher and higher and the discounts for dual-stacking on IPv4 and IPv6 will get higher, and IPv6-only sites will get the steepest discounts. I simply do not believe an orderly transition can happen if a large percentage of IPv4 holders are not under RSA. Ted From kkargel at polartel.com Mon Jul 2 16:04:12 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:04:12 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <46E36065-3BF7-4889-9EAB-C251AF991E25@delong.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A0631410667070F3@mail> Just a thought, but while it is true that the legacy holders have no obligation to ARIN (or any other RIR), so ARIN has no obligation to them. If their IP's were treated as bogon it would certainly change the status quo. > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 1:27 PM > To: michael.dillon at bt.com > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives > > > On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, wrote: > > >> There already _is_ a special class: legacy holders. Counsel has > >> indicated that all we can do is incent such folks into > becoming part > >> of the normal class, not force them into compliance, and this > >> proposal attempts to use one of the few carrots ARIN has at its > >> disposal. > > > > Who said anything about forcing them? > > > In my mind, you did. > > > In my view, there is *NO* special class of address holders. Those > > legacy holders are not a special class, they are either ignorant of > > the rules or they are blatantly flouting the rules. In either case, > > they are > > *NOT* > > a special class and have no special rights. If it ever came > to it in > > the courts, the likelihood is that the courts will once again rule > > that legacy address holders must comply with the ARIN rules and > > policies which all other address holders comply with. > > > Um, not exactly. They are NOT SUBJECT to the rules. They > have no contractual relationship with the RIRs and no reason > to believe they need one. The courts have never ruled that. > I don't know what makes you think they would rule that way > again given that they never have. > > Steve Ryan has stated that we don't likely have any such case > against legacy address holders and that we would likely > loose. When it comes to a legal opinion on this subject, I > tend to believe Steve before I would believe you. > > The playing field must be made as level as we can without > > extraordinary effort. That's why we don't actively take > legacy holders > > to court and try to force them to sign the RSA and pay their fare > > share of the fees. > > Actually, I believe the reasons are: > 1. There isn't enough money in the fees to justify > the effort. > 2. We wouldn't be likely to win even if we did (at > least according > to Steve Ryan). > 3. It would be very expensive and time consuming. > 4. It would also probably create some fairly > massive publicity > that would be negative to both sides. > > > To do that would be extraordinary effort. But at the same > time we must > > not in any way actively provide benefits to those who flout > the rules > > and leech off the rest of us. If these organizations are going to > > continue to flout the rules, I would rather leave them in > exactly the > > same state they are today, not provide the benefit of an aggregate > > allocation. > > > I hate to break it to you, but, existing policy provides that > benefit already. > This proposal doesn't seek to change that fact. Instead, it > seeks to provide them some benefit and encouragement to > RETURN addresses which will benefit the community. Please > try to look at the issues the policy attempts to address > instead of continuing down this rathole of other existing > policies that are already on the books. Please re-read the > existing NRPM 4.6 and 4.7 and then let's discuss this in > terms of the changes being proposed instead of how much you > dislike what is already on the books. > > > Also, note that an organization must exert considerable effort to > > renumber into a new allocation, and the only real reason to > do that is > > to be a good network citizen. But if they want to be a good network > > citizen, then they can simply sign the RSA, start paying membership > > fees, and turn back any extra addresses that they may have. This is > > all possible today with no change in policy. > > > True, but, obviously, there are reasons it's not happening. > I know that there are legacy holders with contiguous chunks > of unused address space. I believe that this policy would > facilitate them returning more space than current policy. As > such, I think this policy would put us in a better place than > we are today. I agree it is not a complete solution, but, my > measure of good policy change is "Does it put us in a better > place than we are today?", rather than "Does it solve all > problems in one fell swoop?" > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From stephen at sprunk.org Mon Jul 2 16:28:57 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:28:57 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A0631410667070F3@mail> Message-ID: <022e01c7bce8$4ab292c0$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> All, In the interests of saving everyone time (and post-mortem equestrian abuse), I'd like to remind folks of the legacy space panel discussion from the recent meeting in San Juan. The presentation, summary, and transcript are all available online at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_notes.html#anchor_13 After reading that, it'd also be beneficial to review the existing policy that Owen's proposal is attempting to modify: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four6 The question at hand is not whether we like legacy address space or amnesty requests, but whether we like Owen's version of amnesty more or less than the existing policy's. For some of you, that may come down to a decision as to which is "less bad" rather than which is "better", though hopefully if that's your position then you'll submit a competing proposal for the community to consider. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon Jul 2 16:36:21 2007 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:36:21 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A0631410667070F3@mail> References: <46E36065-3BF7-4889-9EAB-C251AF991E25@delong.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A0631410667070F3@mail> Message-ID: <20070702203621.GA12016@vacation.karoshi.com.> actually, i beleive that ARIN, as a condition in its charter, is to ensure that those who received addresses prior to ARINs existance are treated fairly (and fair is open to debate)... The upshot is that ARIN does have an obligation to these address holders... the long/lean of the argument is that they received their addresses under certain terms and conditions... and forcing changes on those t&c's in a unilateral manner might be problematic. Just like folks who signed up under RSA #5... one might argue that RSA #9 is what holds sway, but the truth is, they signed up to RSA #5 and have not upgraded yet. --bill On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote: > Just a thought, but while it is true that the legacy holders have no > obligation to ARIN (or any other RIR), so ARIN has no obligation to > them. If their IP's were treated as bogon it would certainly change the > status quo. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 1:27 PM > > To: michael.dillon at bt.com > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, wrote: > > > > >> There already _is_ a special class: legacy holders. Counsel has > > >> indicated that all we can do is incent such folks into > > becoming part > > >> of the normal class, not force them into compliance, and this > > >> proposal attempts to use one of the few carrots ARIN has at its > > >> disposal. > > > > > > Who said anything about forcing them? > > > > > In my mind, you did. > > > > > In my view, there is *NO* special class of address holders. Those > > > legacy holders are not a special class, they are either ignorant of > > > the rules or they are blatantly flouting the rules. In either case, > > > they are > > > *NOT* > > > a special class and have no special rights. If it ever came > > to it in > > > the courts, the likelihood is that the courts will once again rule > > > that legacy address holders must comply with the ARIN rules and > > > policies which all other address holders comply with. > > > > > Um, not exactly. They are NOT SUBJECT to the rules. They > > have no contractual relationship with the RIRs and no reason > > to believe they need one. The courts have never ruled that. > > I don't know what makes you think they would rule that way > > again given that they never have. > > > > Steve Ryan has stated that we don't likely have any such case > > against legacy address holders and that we would likely > > loose. When it comes to a legal opinion on this subject, I > > tend to believe Steve before I would believe you. > > > The playing field must be made as level as we can without > > > extraordinary effort. That's why we don't actively take > > legacy holders > > > to court and try to force them to sign the RSA and pay their fare > > > share of the fees. > > > > Actually, I believe the reasons are: > > 1. There isn't enough money in the fees to justify > > the effort. > > 2. We wouldn't be likely to win even if we did (at > > least according > > to Steve Ryan). > > 3. It would be very expensive and time consuming. > > 4. It would also probably create some fairly > > massive publicity > > that would be negative to both sides. > > > > > To do that would be extraordinary effort. But at the same > > time we must > > > not in any way actively provide benefits to those who flout > > the rules > > > and leech off the rest of us. If these organizations are going to > > > continue to flout the rules, I would rather leave them in > > exactly the > > > same state they are today, not provide the benefit of an aggregate > > > allocation. > > > > > I hate to break it to you, but, existing policy provides that > > benefit already. > > This proposal doesn't seek to change that fact. Instead, it > > seeks to provide them some benefit and encouragement to > > RETURN addresses which will benefit the community. Please > > try to look at the issues the policy attempts to address > > instead of continuing down this rathole of other existing > > policies that are already on the books. Please re-read the > > existing NRPM 4.6 and 4.7 and then let's discuss this in > > terms of the changes being proposed instead of how much you > > dislike what is already on the books. > > > > > Also, note that an organization must exert considerable effort to > > > renumber into a new allocation, and the only real reason to > > do that is > > > to be a good network citizen. But if they want to be a good network > > > citizen, then they can simply sign the RSA, start paying membership > > > fees, and turn back any extra addresses that they may have. This is > > > all possible today with no change in policy. > > > > > True, but, obviously, there are reasons it's not happening. > > I know that there are legacy holders with contiguous chunks > > of unused address space. I believe that this policy would > > facilitate them returning more space than current policy. As > > such, I think this policy would put us in a better place than > > we are today. I agree it is not a complete solution, but, my > > measure of good policy change is "Does it put us in a better > > place than we are today?", rather than "Does it solve all > > problems in one fell swoop?" > > > > Owen > > > > _______________________________________________ > > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy > > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From arin-contact at dirtside.com Mon Jul 2 16:45:58 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:45:58 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <4DD72BCA-F856-407C-9EC2-3152936F55C4@delong.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> <480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com> <46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> <4DD72BCA-F856-407C-9EC2-3152936F55C4@delong.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0707021345m72030a5ev2c09bad3134fd531@mail.gmail.com> On 7/2/07, Owen DeLong wrote: > That is a far cry from implementing ARIN policies on an existing holder > of resources. I believe the legal term for such an action would be a > "law of ex post facto". Correct me if I am wrong, but, I believe there is > a constitutional prohibition of such things... > > [...] > > No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Owen, That likely isn't relevant. Ex post facto means ARIN can't make a policy saying, "All holders must now pay dues. All legacy holders must pay back dues or lose their space." when no policy was previously in place requiring those dues. It says nothing about whether ARIN must continue to service the implied contracts legacy holders entered with Network Solutions those many years ago. IP addresses are not and have never been understood to be property. All were assigned under a contract, even before the RIR's implemented RSAs. Before the RSA's the contract was implied rather than expressed: give us this form and we agree to provide you with reverse DNS and to generally discourage anyone else from using the respective addresses. One thing to remember about contracts is that all contracts end. No enforceable contract exists in perpetuity. There is always either a specific end date or a specific way for either side to end it. That's no less true of implied contracts than it is of written ones. The lack of specified end conditions for those early contracts does not mean there are none. Usually a failure to specify end conditions means that either side can terminate a contract at will. That being said, ARIN should tread lightly. Consider the following scenario: ARIN scours its records and composes a list of assigned IP addresses under its management which have not signed an RSA and for which no BGP4 route exists in the default-free zone (DFZ). ARIN posts this list prominantly on its web site and asks any registrant who wishes to assert that particular addresses on the list are still in use to fill out a contact update form or lose the addresses. It also sends email and postal mail to the last known addresses for each affected registrant. After 6 months, ARIN ends the registrations and reverse DNS for all listed blocks which haven't submitted a contact update. They publish a last-chance list indicating that the blocks will be reassigned in 6 more months if no contact update is received. Finally, 12 months after the start, ARIN returns the listed legacy addresses to the assignment pool and begins assigning them. They've successfully reclaimed all the IPv4 blocks under their management which are truly defunct. Does this get ARIN in trouble legally? I'm not a lawyer to say for sure, but I'm pretty confident ARIN gets through such a scenario smoothly. I'd also bet that ARIN can get a written opinion from a US DOC attorney that its okay for them to proceed with such a plan. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 2 16:56:44 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:56:44 -1000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0707021345m72030a5ev2c09bad3134fd531@mail.gmail.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> <480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com> <46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> <4DD72BCA-F856-407C-9EC2-3152936F55C4@delong.com> <3c3e3fca0707021345m72030a5ev2c09bad3134fd531@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4689668C.3040502@psg.com> William Herrin wrote: > It says nothing about whether ARIN must continue to service the > implied contracts legacy holders entered with Network Solutions those > many years ago. see last bullet on slide 9 of , the promise arin made to usg and the community on formation randy From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Jul 2 16:59:20 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:59:20 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <20070702203621.GA12016@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <46E36065-3BF7-4889-9EAB-C251AF991E25@delong.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A0631410667070F3@mail> <20070702203621.GA12016@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20070702205920.GA14067@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:36:21PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > ARIN does have an obligation to these address holders... the long/lean of > the argument is that they received their addresses under certain > terms and conditions... and forcing changes on those t&c's in a > unilateral manner might be problematic. Just like folks who signed Or not. Some of us registered our domain names back at a time when they were free. At some point NSF/NSI decided we should pay a yearly fee, and simply started charging it. There was no revolt. APNIC passed a policy (prop-018) that required all legacy space holders in that region to sign a service agreement and cryptographically protect their resource records. There was no revolt. Let's put the cards on the table. If ARIN were to pass a policy "All legacy holders must sign an RSA by December 31, 2008 or their entries will be removed from whois and in-addr.arpa." who would sue? And yes, I mean sue because I'm sure a number of people would complain that they had to do it, but who thinks they have a strong enough case, and that it's worth spending $200k on court costs rather than agreeing to a $100 per year fee? Legacy holders WILL NEVER like being brought into the system. If I had a legacy assignment I would hold out as long as possible, and throw up every bit of FUD I could find. But at the end of the day I'd know I should be part of the system, and that it's far cheaper and easier to be a part of the system then to rebel. I am in support of Owens polcy in general, with the one issue being the one I've already posted -- nothing new from ARIN without a signed RSA. However this carrot, such as it is, should be followed up with a stick, weilded as gently as possible. -- 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: From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Jul 2 17:15:00 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:15:00 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <4689668C.3040502@psg.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> <480dad640706301938geaf4152k9bd9b44163a6abca@mail.gmail.com> <46871609.9060508@internap.com> <5D70BD2F-6117-407E-81D4-6454AE22353A@delong.com> <4DD72BCA-F856-407C-9EC2-3152936F55C4@delong.com> <3c3e3fca0707021345m72030a5ev2c09bad3134fd531@mail.gmail.com> <4689668C.3040502@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070702211500.GB14067@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:56:44AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > see last bullet on slide 9 of > , the promise arin made to > usg and the community on formation The bullet Randy is talking about is: * Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy changes I think we've all had it drilled into our heads enough by the ARIN Board and Staff that "Fees are not policy", and "The RSA is not policy." I don't believe making them sign an RSA or pay a fee would violate this bullet point. This might have impact on other things, like reclaiming addresses. -- 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: From Keith at jcc.com Mon Jul 2 17:50:46 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:50:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Message-ID: <57000a053a533846807a83ab7f7c84aa46897342@jcc.com> As one of "them", I think Leo Bicknell is probably correct. My company would probably not make a big stink about paying a small annual fee for our legacy IPv4 /24, as long as signing the current RSA didn't impact our IPv4 /24. While Owen DeLong's proposed changes to the Resource Reclamation policy are unlikely to directly affect my company, his approach and attitude are more likely to convince me to join the ARIN process then the "legacy holders are evil" attitude I've seen in other messages. Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:15 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In a message written on Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:56:44AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > see last bullet on slide 9 of > , the promise arin made to > usg and the community on formation The bullet Randy is talking about is: * Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy changes I think we've all had it drilled into our heads enough by the ARIN Board and Staff that "Fees are not policy", and "The RSA is not policy." I don't believe making them sign an RSA or pay a fee would violate this bullet point. This might have impact on other things, like reclaiming addresses. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Jul 3 10:07:06 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:07:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Message-ID: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: Leo Bicknell To: PPML at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:59:20 -0400 > In a message written on Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 08:36:21PM > > +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: ARIN does > have an obligation to these address holders... the > > long/lean of the argument is that they received their > > addresses under certain terms and conditions... and > > forcing changes on those t&c's in a unilateral manner > might be problematic. Just like folks who signed > > Or not. > > Some of us registered our domain names back at a time when > they were free. At some point NSF/NSI decided we should > pay a yearly fee, and simply started charging it. There > was no revolt. There was no pending shortage either, and I seem to recall an outcry when NSI implemented fees. I had to dig for $5. We are magnitudes more users at this time so if domain names were free today and the same thing happened, there would be a riot. It's fair to say we had the equivalent riot back then. [ clip ] > Let's put the cards on the table. If ARIN were to pass a > policy "All legacy holders must sign an RSA by December 31 > , 2008 or their entries will be removed from whois and > in-addr.arpa." who would sue? AT&T? Ford? Level(3)? Apple? Haliburton? > And yes, I mean sue because > I'm sure a number of people would complain that they had > to do it, but who thinks they have a strong enough case, > and that it's worth spending $200k on court costs rather > than agreeing to a $100 per year fee? I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment as to whether anyone has a case or not, but I can say that I believe that legacy IP address space is property in some instances. That is the issue isn't it? It's not about signing the RSA, it's about giving up rights. You sign the RSA, you give up rights. It's not about $100.00 Let's look at a few: 014/8 Jun 91 IANA - Public Data Network IANA is working on this one, it's a public x.25 network, from what I understand. 034/8 Mar 93 Halliburton Company Good luck with making them sign an RSA. 035/8 Apr 94 MERIT Computer Network NANOG, take this one 'just because'. 038/8 Sep 94 Performance Systems International Cogent. Blood. Stone. 045/8 Jan 95 Interop Show Network Now here's one to go after. Now we have "two" low hangers. Reclamation is not as simple as it looks. *I don't support Owen's policy*, but I support the intent. Amnesty is a one shot deal, not a stop at the drive through convenience store dropping off a token /20 for a bottle deposit refund every now and then. We could consider creating a class of reclamation around 'inherited' space and start there. We are far less likely to be tied down by entities who have taken space from defunct companies or through slipping into their domain name. Let's start with the people who have obviously gotten space nefariously, regardless of whether it's in use or not. Components of an amnesty I would support: - time limited - "as is" - by class inherited - less lenient, but case by case legacy /8 - much more liberal other - to be defined -M< From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Jul 3 10:39:44 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:39:44 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:07:06AM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > AT&T? Ford? Level(3)? Apple? Haliburton? Two of three already have signed RSA's (I assume). AT&T and Level(3) both have a large number of blocks they got by buying companies that formed post-ARIN, and so they got the RSA's with them. If you in herit an RSA, does it cover your legacy space as well? > I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment as to whether anyone has > a case or not, but I can say that I believe that legacy IP > address space is property in some instances. That is the > issue isn't it? It's not about signing the RSA, it's about > giving up rights. You sign the RSA, you give up rights. It's > not about $100.00 I haven't seen anyone make a formal argument it's property. Legacy owners seem concerned about two things: - Fees. - That they not be subjected to the policy requirements for the space. That is, 80%, 50%, or whatever utilization numbers. - Specifically, that their space cannot be revoked for failing to use it. Note, if you want to transfer your block to someone legally (via ARIN), the transfer guidelines page clearly states that the new owner must sign the RSA and abide by all policies. That is, if there is an implied contract with legacy space it's non-transferable. > Reclamation is not as simple as it looks. *I don't support > Owen's policy*, but I support the intent. Amnesty is a one > shot deal, not a stop at the drive through convenience store > dropping off a token /20 for a bottle deposit refund every > now and then. While Owen's policy has "Reclamation" in the title, it doesn't appear to me it actually encourages reclamation that much. Sure, it allows it to happen, but we already have an amnesty program that allows it to happen. Rather, it appears to me he has three intents: - Entice people into the RIR system by giving them more favorable terms. (Sign an RSA, pay fees.)w - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks for one large, aggregateable netblock. - Returning address space reduces your fees to provide some incentive. So if I have 16 disjoint /24's in the swamp taking up 16 routing slots I can turn them back in for a /20 and take up one routing slot. Sure, there's a carrot in there to reclaim space, but I can't imagine anyone thinks this will get someone to return a /8. Rather than call it the "Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation" policy I think it might be better termed the "Legacy Outreach and Aggregation" policy. -- 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: From kloch at kl.net Tue Jul 3 11:01:19 2007 From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:01:19 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net> Martin Hannigan wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Leo Bicknell >> Some of us registered our domain names back at a time when >> they were free. At some point NSF/NSI decided we should >> pay a yearly fee, and simply started charging it. There >> was no revolt. > > There was no pending shortage either, and I seem to recall > an outcry when NSI implemented fees. I had to dig for $5. We > are magnitudes more users at this time so if domain names > were free today and the same thing happened, there would be > a riot. It's fair to say we had the equivalent riot back > then. > It stuck because they had the full support of the US Govt to do it. A $1/yr per address block, or other similar low flat rate fee would shake out the 'ghost' registrants and would be beneficial to everyone. Anything aimed at reclaiming inefficiently used legacy space would be going against the promise to maintain the status quo. - Kevin From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jul 3 11:06:09 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:06:09 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > - Specifically, that their space cannot be revoked for > failing to use > it. That is going to be intractable as we get closer to IPv4 exhaustion. When ISP X is facing losses of millions of dollars due to the fact that ARIN has no more addresses to give, and it is known that ISP Y has an unused hoard, then what happens. Perhaps ISP X simply "borrows" ISP Y's hoard. Will Y go to court and argue that X can't do that because ARIN's whois shows that these are Y's addresses? Will X argue that Y has no right to addresses because they are not an ARIN member and have no contract with ARIN, therefore no expectation of service from ARIN? Will the court revoke all of Y's addresses? Will the court order Y to return unused addresses to ARIN because they are, by proxy, causing ARIN to materially damage X's business? The complexity makes your head spin. In general, courts are supposed to be a last resort after the parties have sat down, discussed the issue, and tried to hammer out an agreement. Can Y really be said to have done this if Y has not joined ARIN, signed the RSA, returned excessive unused addresses and made and honest attempt to comply with ARIN policy? ARIN is not just a 3rd party here; ARIN is the forum in which all parties come together and hammer out the mutual agreement to shared these limited resources. Organizations which do not enagage with each other in ARIN are the rogues who refuse to negotiate. It's hard to predict the legal outcomes but one thing is certain, any organizations which persist in refusing to join ARIN will suffer the consequences of a lot of negative publicity as we get closer to IPv4 exhaustion. Even if they don't don the black hat and get involved in a court case, these organizations will be tarred with a nasty brush. In particular the larger ones with class A and B allocations because one would expect them to have the most capability for implementing IPv6 and reducing their consumption of IPv4 addresses. > - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks for > one large, aggregateable netblock. Hmmm... Thought experiment. Entity A has acquired 300 class C address blocks. None of these are used at all, just acquired. Entity A goes to ARIN and turns in their 300 class C's in return for a /16 which is 256 /24 equivalents, therefore it is less than their original hoard. Now Entity A markets itself to organizations who are concerned about the pending IPv4 shortage. They manage to rake in 6 figures for their shell company and the buyer gets a /16 to use. Sale is timed to close shortly after the buyer gets their next ARIN allocation. Obviously this could only occur if Entity A does not have to fully justify their space. Currently the wording of the policy does allow for this loophole. I can't help but think that we would make better policy if we started out with use-cases and requirements rather than diving straight into the specific text of a policy. --Michael Dillon From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 3 11:07:08 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:07:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:07:06AM -0400, > Martin Hannigan wrote: >> AT&T? Ford? Level(3)? Apple? Haliburton? > > Two of three already have signed RSA's (I assume). AT&T and Level(3) > both have a large number of blocks they got by buying companies > that formed post-ARIN, and so they got the RSA's with them. If you > in herit an RSA, does it cover your legacy space as well? > Even if an organization has signed an RSA covering other resources, I'm not sure that means they would be willing to bring their legacy space under that agreement. There is a difference between an organization being willing to sign an RSA for new resources and an organization being willing to give up perceived rights in resources they have held since before ARIN existed. > I haven't seen anyone make a formal argument it's property. Legacy > owners seem concerned about two things: > > - Fees. > - That they not be subjected to the policy requirements for the space. > That is, 80%, 50%, or whatever utilization numbers. > - Specifically, that their space cannot be revoked for failing to > use > it. > While nobody has made that argument formally (except Martin at this point), it might not be as easily dismissed as we would hope. I don't agree with Martin on the property status (it's hard for me to imagine a law which provides for the ownership of integers), but, it's not hard for me to imagine lawyers convincing a judge that IP addresses are property. I think that for most legacy holders, the "Fees" issue is a matter of principle or a minor issue. I think that the real issues from the legacy holder perspective are: - I don't get any benefit from signing an RSA - It subjects me to policies that could force me to renumber - It subjects me to policies that could change at any time - It potentially limits my options in terms of what I can do with my address space - It costs me money GIven the first bullet point, any one of the latter bullet points is pretty much a no-brainer to say no to the existing RSA. We really don't have a way to change the first bullet point, so, all we can do is work on reducing or eliminating the negativity of the others. > Note, if you want to transfer your block to someone legally (via > ARIN), the transfer guidelines page clearly states that the new > owner must sign the RSA and abide by all policies. That is, if > there is an implied contract with legacy space it's non-transferable. > Right... I fully agree with this. >> Reclamation is not as simple as it looks. *I don't support >> Owen's policy*, but I support the intent. Amnesty is a one >> shot deal, not a stop at the drive through convenience store >> dropping off a token /20 for a bottle deposit refund every >> now and then. > > While Owen's policy has "Reclamation" in the title, it doesn't > appear to me it actually encourages reclamation that much. Sure, > it allows it to happen, but we already have an amnesty program that > allows it to happen. Rather, it appears to me he has three intents: > I think it provides some encouragement towards reclamation. I think that gentle reclamation efforts allowing people to return address space in whatever size chunks they are willing to and on whatever timetable they are willing to is more likely to result in reclamation than policies which attempt to force the issue. While I can understand Martin's desire to have reclamation happen as a one-shot deal, I don't think that as many organizations will sign on for it under those terms. For the ones that would, my policy doesn't really provide any advantage to returning things a /20 at a time. If you return 10 /20s day 1, you get 20 years of fee waivers (if you are subject to fees). If you return a /20 every other year, then, if the policy doesn't get changed for 10 years, you get the same result, but, you face the risk that the policy could change along the way. > - Entice people into the RIR system by giving them more favorable > terms. (Sign an RSA, pay fees.) Yes. > - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks for > one large, aggregateable netblock. Sort of. My policy allows this, but, for the most part, these situations would fall under existing 4.7. My policy only applies in cases where the new aggregate netblock is smaller than the sum of the existing netblocks being turned in. > - Returning address space reduces your fees to provide some incentive. > Correct. > So if I have 16 disjoint /24's in the swamp taking up 16 routing > slots I can turn them back in for a /20 and take up one routing > slot. > That would fall more under 4.7 than my policy. If you had 20 disjoint /24s, then, replacing them with a /20 would fall under this policy and get you 1 year of fee waivers. > Sure, there's a carrot in there to reclaim space, but I can't imagine > anyone thinks this will get someone to return a /8. > I don't think it will get someone to return a /8. I do think it might get some /8 holders to return a /12 or a few /16s or some /20s, etc. > Rather than call it the "Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation" > policy I think it might be better termed the "Legacy Outreach and > Aggregation" policy. > I think Aggregation is more the purview of 4.7. I did want to maximize aggregation as part of my policy, but, it is not a primary goal. Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 3 11:20:11 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:20:11 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <964FA559-B941-4ED0-9CB5-682D799CA63D@delong.com> > >> - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks for >> one large, aggregateable netblock. > > Hmmm... Thought experiment. > Entity A has acquired 300 class C address blocks. None of these are > used > at all, just acquired. Entity A goes to ARIN and turns in their 300 > class C's in return for a /16 which is 256 /24 equivalents, > therefore it > is less than their original hoard. Now Entity A markets itself to > organizations who are concerned about the pending IPv4 shortage. They > manage to rake in 6 figures for their shell company and the buyer > gets a > /16 to use. Sale is timed to close shortly after the buyer gets their > next ARIN allocation. > Obviously this could only occur if Entity A does not have to fully > justify their space. Currently the wording of the policy does allow > for > this loophole. > While it's true that my proposal does not close this loophole, I'll point out that the existing 4.6 and 4.7 actually allow this person to get a /15 to sell instead of a /16, so, I still think that the proposal is an improvement over the current state. Not one of your arguments against my proposal has mentioned a flaw that is not already present in existing policy. As such, I think that my proposal is still an improvement over existing policy. Owen From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Jul 3 11:25:32 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:25:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Message-ID: <468a6a6c.de.4dfc.22519@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: Leo Bicknell To: Martin Hannigan Cc: PPML at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:39:44 -0400 > In a message written on Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:07:06AM > > -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: [ I dont feel like arguing legal points, nothing personal ] > > Reclamation is not as simple as it looks. *I don't > > support Owen's policy*, but I support the intent. > > Amnesty is a one shot deal, not a stop at the drive > > through convenience store dropping off a token /20 for a > > bottle deposit refund every now and then. > > While Owen's policy has "Reclamation" in the title, it > doesn't appear to me it actually encourages reclamation > that much. Sure, it allows it to happen, but we already > have an amnesty program that allows it to happen. Rather, > it appears to me he has three intents: His policy is amnesty as well since it uses fees as the proverbial carrot, IMHO. > > - Entice people into the RIR system by giving them more > favorable > terms. (Sign an RSA, pay fees.)w I agree with paying fees. I think the problem is the penalization. Without an RSA, there are no terms so entering into one causes a penalty. Softening that penalty doesn't make it any better, but that takes us back in the lawyer arguments surrounding property. > - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks > for > one large, aggregateable netblock. This is good. > - Returning address space reduces your fees to provide > some incentive. I think this is ineffective. > So if I have 16 disjoint /24's in the swamp taking up 16 > routing slots I can turn them back in for a /20 and take > up one routing slot. > > Sure, there's a carrot in there to reclaim space, but I > can't imagine anyone thinks this will get someone to > return a /8. Call that a reality. I would suggest removing anything associated with the IANA registry from the policy to make it better. > > Rather than call it the "Legacy Outreach and Partial > Reclamation" policy I think it might be better termed the > "Legacy Outreach and Aggregation" policy. Sounds better. -M< From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Jul 3 11:53:11 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net> Message-ID: <014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Kevin Loch" > A $1/yr per address block, or other similar low flat rate fee > would shake out the 'ghost' registrants and would be beneficial > to everyone. As would a policy that directed ARIN to attempt to determine the "liveness" of legacy blocks by checking the BGP tables and making reasonable attempts to reach the last known holder (~50% of which haven't been updated since ARIN's formation). > Anything aimed at reclaiming inefficiently used legacy space > would be going against the promise to maintain the status quo. If you restrict that claim to revocation of legacy space still in use (whether justified or not), I completely agree. I do not believe that asking people to voluntarily return what they're not using is a violation of that promise. One can debate whether reclaiming blocks that aren't "live" (see above) is a violation. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From sethm at rollernet.us Tue Jul 3 12:23:48 2007 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:23:48 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net> <014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <468A7814.3090301@rollernet.us> Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Kevin Loch" >> A $1/yr per address block, or other similar low flat rate fee >> would shake out the 'ghost' registrants and would be beneficial >> to everyone. > > As would a policy that directed ARIN to attempt to determine the "liveness" > of legacy blocks by checking the BGP tables and making reasonable attempts > to reach the last known holder (~50% of which haven't been updated since > ARIN's formation). > Except not all of it is behind a public AS. People usually put more stock in a notice when there's a bill attached. ~Seth From dean at av8.com Tue Jul 3 12:40:45 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Or not. > > > > Some of us registered our domain names back at a time when > > they were free. At some point NSF/NSI decided we should > > pay a yearly fee, and simply started charging it. There > > was no revolt. > > There was no pending shortage either, and I seem to recall > an outcry when NSI implemented fees. Funny how people forget history. Before the internet was commercialized, it was a government funded research project: Not only was commercial use of the government research network forbidden, but you had to state a research purpose to just to get a connection. In 1989 and 1991, I worked at companies that filled out this paperwork. And it was all paper. If the internet were still a government-funded non-commercial research program, it would still be "free" to register domains, but there would be no commercial use: no spam, no ISPs, no web companies, no google, no nothing; just government research. The NSF/NSI didn't just 'decide' to charge a yearly fee. The Internet was commercialized at the joint agreement of industry and the US government. Commercialization means the Internet wasn't going to be government-funded anymore. Even most idiots realize that Registry services can't be free, so one has to pay for domains, etc. People (the same people it seems) also conveniently "forget" that Usenet, was always commercial, and it was always 'spammed' in the form of announcements of commercial products and services. Indeed, the "UU" in UUnet refers to 'UUCP'. UUnet was a commercial UUCP/Usenet operator before the Internet. UUnet was able to be one of the first ISPs because it was previously a commercial usenet operator. Many other companies like Compuserve were online providers who also pre-dated the internet. These people conveniently "forget" that that thing with the Immigration spam in 1994 was a cancel/repost war between the immigration lawyers and some idiots who tried to impose their own mistaken ideas on Usenet. The immigration lawyers didn't post 5000 messages to annoy people, nor to get people to read their spam 5000 times, as anti-spammer zealots describe the incident. Rather, the immigration lawyers posted 5000 times to override 4999 improper cancels. It was indeed annoying to get 5000 messages (especially tedious at many sites that had already prevented untrusted cancels), but the true fault of that problem was the people who improperly posted the cancels: they had no right to say what was appropriate or not appropriate on usenet. The lawyers who posted the announcment of immigration services had every right to use the commercial usenet network to announce their services; certainly they had as much right to use it as DEC and other companies that announced new products and services on Usenet, because usenet was always commercial. So one wonders how people (junior people, generally) became so confused about both Usenet and the Internet, that they would zealously post such cancels. It makes more sense when you investigate the senior people who were misleading the junior people, and prompting their misbehavior. This subject was just discussed on the DJB dns list, concerning open-rsc.org, which is an alternate root server site. The message below is not written to be responsive to the history issue, but its still relevant to the 'outcry' over NSI, and other dirty tricks of the time. --------------------------- But, I'm a bit dubious about this site. The website is hosted by UltraDNS. You probably already know UltraDNS is one of the Rodney Joffe & Paul Vixie "BIND companies". Joffe is also the guy who runs the spam operation called Whitehat.com. There is some background to this: You've all probably heard of Sanford Wallace (the proto-spammer). Not so well-known is that Sanford Wallace also sold anti-spam software. Wallace created the nuisance and also sold the cure. Most anti-spammer sites just talk about the nuisance side of Wallace, and leave out the anti-spam software he sold. In 1996 or so, Vixie and Joffe just stole Wallace's business plan, founding a blacklist (MAPS) and founding a Spam company (Whitehat), and keeping a very low profile on the connection between them. Joffe is a founder (or board member) of UltraDNS. Vixie, John Levine (now chair of ASRG anti-spam-research-group), and Ray Everett-Church were on the board of Whitehat. Joffe connects Vixie to UltraDNS, but I think there are other connections, too. In January 1998, in an attempted squeeze-out of network solutions for "spamming" NetSol domain contacts with NetSol added services (not something we'd call unsolicited today), Postel, with Vixie and 8 other server operators, tried to take control of the roots. They tried to force out NetSol on the Machiavellian principle of "if you can destroy something, you control it". By taking over the roots, they could destabilize the internet, and forcibly remove NetSol. The government stepped in, and they lost. There is a good book on this episode, entitled "Who Controls the Internet" subtitled "Illusions of a borderless world" by Goldsmith and Wu. Prophetically, open-rsc was formed 18-Dec-1997. A month _before_ Postel tried to take over with Vixie and co. Interested yet? Open-rsc.org is currently seviced by: open-rsc.org. 172800 IN NS mejac.palo-alto.ca.us. open-rsc.org. 172800 IN NS ns1.quasar.net. open-rsc.org. 172800 IN NS ns1.vrx.net. Richard Sexton and Brian Reid founded open-rsc.org. Sexton is VRX.net, and a frequent Nanog poster/Vixie crony. Brian Reid is: NetRange: 192.147.236.0 - 192.147.236.255 CIDR: 192.147.236.0/24 NetName: BKR-HOME-NET NetHandle: NET-192-147-236-0-1 Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: MEJAC.PALO-ALTO.CA.US NameServer: UUCP-GW-1.PA.DEC.COM NameServer: UUCP-GW-2.PA.DEC.COM Comment: RegDate: 1992-02-20 Updated: 1997-06-09 PA.DEC.COM used to be run by Vixie. MEJAC.PALO-ALTO.CA.US is currently hosted by ISC. I think we can say Reid is a Vixie crony, too. And since Vixie is operator of the ICANN F-root, one wonders why Vixie/UltraDNS and co. would be involved in opposing ICANN. Seems to be a bit heretical for the ICANN-approved operator to be doing this. (I can't help but think of the StarWars Count Dooku/Chancellor Palpatine thing). I'll just say there is a long history of various dirty tricks that weren't in anyone's interests but the people selling spam/anti-spam/ancasted-roots. Indeed, makes one wonder if we might know who runs the botnets. There is unquestionably a rich seam of dubious antics for soap-opera and conspiracy writers to write about. That isn't my point, here though. My point is this: the public interest has certainly not been well-served by these antics, nor by the clowns performing the antics. But.... The time may have come for alternate root servers, though. Because on the otherhand, since ICANN allows anycasting DNS roots, breaking TCP and ENDSO replies (in spite of the need to support TCP in the roots), an alternate (and non-anycasted) set of root servers may be a good idea. [The Anycasting of roots was also at Vixie's urging. It allows Vixie and others can sell copies to ISPs for thousands per month. 37+ copies for ISC, 70+ for Verisign, and RIPE doesn't report the number. Last I heard, 6 of 13 root operators are anycasting or planning to do so.] Scalability of the roots would be enhanced by a larger number of non-anycast roots. Anycasted roots (and non-roots) are more vulnerable to DDOS attack, because as one falls over, and the path is withdrawn, more load automatically falls on the remaining servers. If the path isn't withdrawn, the legit users of that server still lose. Anycast is vulnerable to a domino effect. Such a domino effect doesn't occur with hundreds of unique IPs (using the same number of servers). Anycast makes DDoS easier and more effective for the DDoS'r. Anycast works well for that 'we can destroy, so we control' thing they tried in 1998. There is also no need to have optional authority information in the root response. This also allows more than 13 root servers in a standard non-ednso response for the nameservers for "." But this query is usually only run by humans. Autoconfiguration using this query is rare, I think. The hints and caches are not populated this way. In fact, one can have hundreds is unique root servers without putting them all in the hints/cache configuration. All that is necessary is to have a distribution system for the current list, and then select from that for the cache files. I'd say a news server, as DJB suggests, with signed root zone messages would be a good idea. Then root servers just have to be configured to give back a limited number for queries to "." for type NS. If this is done, anyone can run a root server, just by looking at the message with the proper (signed) root zone contents, and telling their customers to put the server in their root hints configuration. This makes the root DNS service invulnerable to DDoS attack. And that, I think, well serves the public interest. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Jul 3 13:36:55 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:36:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net><014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A7814.3090301@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <03f501c7bd9a$c080aca0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Seth Mattinen" > Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Thus spake "Kevin Loch" >>> A $1/yr per address block, or other similar low flat rate fee >>> would shake out the 'ghost' registrants and would be beneficial >>> to everyone. >> >> As would a policy that directed ARIN to attempt to determine >> the "liveness" of legacy blocks by checking the BGP tables >> and making reasonable attempts to reach the last known >> holder (~50% of which haven't been updated since ARIN's >> formation). > > Except not all of it is behind a public AS. People usually put more > stock in a notice when there's a bill attached. If no portion of the block appears in the DFZ, then ARIN would attempt to contact the last known holder (and any likely successors in interest) to ask if the block was in private use. If they were unable to get any response, or if the response was negative, then it would be assumed to be dead and subject to reclamation. If the response were positive, ARIN could suggest they update their contact information to keep WHOIS current. There is no need to send a bill, and I am doubtful that people will respond more positively to a bill than to a polite email or telephone call. I would expect a bill appearing out of nowhere to get stuck in the accounting and/or legal departments -- not IT, which is who we really want to hear from. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From dean at av8.com Tue Jul 3 13:55:44 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Owen DeLong wrote: > I don't agree with Martin on the property status (it's hard > for me to imagine a law which provides for the ownership of > integers), but, it's not hard for me to imagine lawyers convincing > a judge that IP addresses are property. It's not the integers that would be owned, but what the integers represent. Perhaps you think you own a house. Specifically, you own a piece of paper (a deed) which has some numbers (property coordinates). The deed gives you some legal rights to do things at a place identified by the numbers on the deed. That is what ownership means. Ownership of IPs would simply give you rights to do certain things on the public internet. However, I'm not saying I support this. I'm just saying that arguments that somehow the notion is invalid don't stand up. Presently, one has essentially a lease to IP addresses. The question of ownership of IP's is similar to the question of ownership of land. I suspect the question could be addressed by a comparision between land (or deeded property) and IP addresses. Registration. For both, one needs to fund a registry. (taxes on land or fees on IP addresses) Maintenance. Land requires maintenance. Ownership of land promotes improvements based on pride in ownership. IP addresses don't require maintenance. Economic development. Land sales promote economic development. Banks loan money to buy land. IP sales won't promote economic development. Banks probably won't loan money to buy IP addresses. The main issue is orderly use of IP addresses. A central registry is required for this order, and is all that is required. So, I'm thinking that the current method of leasing is basically sufficient. I'm a little concerned about cases like Kremen, and that the Registries may think they aren't subject to the law. The Kremen case is pretty simple: Cohen had a favorable contract with ARIN. A contract is an asset. Cohen lost a substantial suit to Kremen, and, as compensation, the court awarded Cohen's favorable contract to Kremen. This remedy is no different from Goldman getting O.J. Simpson's assets: the rights to O.J.'s book, etc. There is no reason that ARIN can't perform for Kremen the exactly same as it peformed for Cohen. Performance for ARIN is just changing a record of assignment. Performance is done by a database change and appropriate paperwork. So ARIN's opposition to that doing that performance seems most unreasonable. ARIN has already had opportunity to claim that it cannot perform, and the court has already rejected that claim, yet ARIN still refuses to perform the court order. There seems to be no justification for that refusal. So I can't blame a court that throws the book at ARIN, and I have to wonder about ARIN management. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 3 14:00:16 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:00:16 -1000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <03f501c7bd9a$c080aca0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net><014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A7814.3090301@rollernet.us> <03f501c7bd9a$c080aca0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> > If no portion of the block appears in the DFZ, then ARIN would attempt to > contact the last known holder (and any likely successors in interest) to ask > if the block was in private use. If they were unable to get any response, > or if the response was negative, then it would be assumed to be dead and > subject to reclamation. and three years later, the holder decides to announce and it becomes lawyerville. there is a root problem. rightly or wrongly, folk were given space with what we would consider today to be insufficient constraints on contact, fees. justification of need, ... that was a contract, whether we like it or not. the world has changed. we would like to change those contracts. well, we're gonna have to *negotiate* that. and acting unilaterally or arbitrarily will only polarize and make a mess we just don't need. randy From kloch at kl.net Tue Jul 3 16:45:50 2007 From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:45:50 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net><014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A7814.3090301@rollernet.us> <03f501c7bd9a$c080aca0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> Message-ID: <468AB57E.1010907@kl.net> Randy Bush wrote: > and three years later, the holder decides to announce and it becomes > lawyerville. > > there is a root problem. rightly or wrongly, folk were given space with > what we would consider today to be insufficient constraints on contact, > fees. justification of need, ... that was a contract, whether we like > it or not. > > the world has changed. we would like to change those contracts. well, > we're gonna have to *negotiate* that. and acting unilaterally or > arbitrarily will only polarize and make a mess we just don't need. Legacy domain names were also free and free from any annual renewal requirement. That was changed without any negotiation that I can remember. Couldn't that same political process be used to convert legacy address registrations to an annual renewal system? Maybe they lawyers could answer this: What IS the legal difference between legacy address space and legacy domain names? - Kevin From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 3 17:18:01 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:18:01 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468AB57E.1010907@kl.net> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net><014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A7814.3090301@rollernet.us> <03f501c7bd9a$c080aca0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> <468AB57E.1010907@kl.net> Message-ID: > > Legacy domain names were also free and free from any annual > renewal requirement. That was changed without any negotiation > that I can remember. Couldn't that same political process > be used to convert legacy address registrations to an annual > renewal system? > Here's the thing... Domain names don't function without DNS. IP Assignments function reasonably well without DNS although not having reverse DNS can be an inconvenience. Usually it is not inconvenient to the address holder for the most part, however. > Maybe they lawyers could answer this: What IS the legal difference > between legacy address space and legacy domain names? > I don't know about the legal difference, but, operationally, I would say dependencies and the agreements/statements made at the time the RIRs were created. Owen > - Kevin > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jul 3 17:28:08 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:28:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Dean Anderson > >There is no reason that ARIN can't perform for Kremen the exactly same >as it peformed for Cohen. Performance for ARIN is just changing a record >of assignment. Performance is done by a database change and appropriate >paperwork. So ARIN's opposition to that doing that performance seems >most unreasonable. ARIN has already had opportunity to claim that it >cannot perform, and the court has already rejected that claim, yet ARIN >still refuses to perform the court order. There seems to be no >justification for that refusal. So I can't blame a court that throws >the book at ARIN, and I have to wonder about ARIN management. I don't. What ARIN is doing is not national-specific and lawsuits regarding it properly belong in the World Court, which is a body created to address these international legal problems. There are MANY national courts that make rulings against people and companies, that are regularly ignored by those companies and people. Everything from what's-his-name being considered a criminal in India for publically kissing a girl, to Iran ruling that some other guy be put to death for some book he published. And shall I get into the rulings out of Germany that make it illegal to talk about Hitler and Naziism? Which are ignored in the US routinely? A US court has no jurisdiction over North America. ARIN is not assigning IP numbers for the US, they are assigning them for North America. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jul 3 17:28:34 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:28:34 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Randy Bush > >there is a root problem. rightly or wrongly, folk were given space with >what we would consider today to be insufficient constraints on contact, >fees. justification of need, ... that was a contract, whether we like >it or not. > >the world has changed. we would like to change those contracts. well, >we're gonna have to *negotiate* that. and acting unilaterally or >arbitrarily will only polarize and make a mess we just don't need. > I don't oppose negotiation. But the idea to give the legacy holders new IP addressing in perpetuity for free, without signing an RSA, is not negotiation. It's merely taking a bad situation of questionable legality and codifying it. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jul 3 17:37:52 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:37:52 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal Message-ID: Hi All, What do you all think of the following proposal idea: 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall review IP utilization yearly and shall determine when more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for Grabs" No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording assignments of it except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, except for that provided for in #2 Ted Mittelstaedt From william at elan.net Tue Jul 3 18:52:48 2007 From: william at elan.net (william(at)elan.net) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lets not make a wildwest show in ip routing of IPv4 space please! On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Hi All, > > What do you all think of the following proposal idea: > > 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall review IP > utilization yearly and shall determine when > more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 > > 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all > whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to > organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space > > Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and > gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR > > 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for Grabs" > No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording assignments of it > except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. > > 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing > IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation > between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, > except for that provided for in #2 > > > Ted Mittelstaedt > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com Tue Jul 3 18:06:47 2007 From: heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:06:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can't tell if you are just eliciting feedback on an idea, or you want to make this into a formal policy proposal? Policy proposals should be submitted to policy at arin.net - there is a template designed in a way to help to capture the answers to important questions about why the policy should be considered/implemented http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep_template.html After a policy proposal is submitted it is posted to ppml and passed to the AC. There is a whole process (http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html) but if you would like some help with a policy proposal, I or any member of the AC would be glad to help. If you just want some feedback.. I can do that too: 1) What is the goal of this policy? 2) Policy term? temporary, permanent, renewable? (would be hard to undo, if people start using it..) WRT the goal of the policy - this seems to reclaim some legacy space to create more 'private' address space, that is, address space that is not globally unique. If the goal is to be able to recover legacy address space, because of impending IPv4 depletion, and to be able to extend the life of IPv4 - this isn't going to get you far. If the space is 'up for grabs and usable by any organization' - you are essentially creating more RFC1918 like space. The point of having registered address space, is so that you know who is using it, and it remains globally unique, which is often important when you start connecting networks together, and most commonly when you want to route it in the "global internet" If OTOH, you want to create more RFC1918/IANA reserved address space, my question to you would be, do we need it? If OTOH, you want to scare legacy folks into signing an RSA.. again my question would be why? and there might be better ways to go about this. --Heather On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Hi All, > > What do you all think of the following proposal idea: > > 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall review IP > utilization yearly and shall determine when > more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 > > 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all > whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to > organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space > > Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and > gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR > > 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for Grabs" > No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording assignments of it > except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. > > 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing > IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation > between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, > except for that provided for in #2 > > > Ted Mittelstaedt > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jul 3 20:03:46 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:03:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Heather Schiller [mailto:heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:07 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > > >I can't tell if you are just eliciting feedback on an idea, Sorry, I thought the phrase: "What do you all think of the following proposal idea" made that clear. >or you want to >make this into a formal policy proposal? There is no point if there's no will among members to grapple with this issue. As we all know there's been much discussion on this list for the last year or so (probably much longer) about what to do about the upcoming IPv4 runout. It appears to me that one of the fundamental dichotomies is that everyone on this list gives tremendous lip service to the idea that they want everyone to transition to IPv6. IPv6 is the answer I keep reading. Yet, whenever someone proposes anything that might kick-start the transition (because frankly to argue that the transition is happening now is rediculous, at least in the global routing table) they water it down to be worse than useless. And the few who propose anything with real teeth get shouted down. Everyone wants to transition to IPv6 but... nobody is willing to force any IPv4 holders to give up anything nobody is willing to raise fees to make it cost effective to transition to IPv6 nobody is willing to tell anyone they cannot buy-and-sell IPv4 assignments in a kind of huge ebay sale nobody is willing to give the boot to a bunch of freeloading legacy holders that haven't contributed a dime in fees to keep the entire assignment mechanism going - including funding for this very mailing list I might add. and on and on and on. So I thought, why don't I propose a proposal that would ONLY TAKE EFFECT AFTER IPv6 TRANSITION HAS HAPPENED. In other words, I'll make it as easy to follow and as least controversial as possible You cannot argue against it because it only codifies what is going to happen AFTER THE MESS IS OVER. Kind of like saying let's schedule the Kumbiya song around the campfire once every nation has given up war. My feeling is that if the community CANNOT EVEN AGREE WHAT THE POST IPV6 INTERNET IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, then screw everyone. Because we are all just kidding ourselves that we are ever going to get any kind of policy other than an endless series of useless resolutions exhorting everyone that it Would Be A Real Good Thing To Switch. How can you find out how to get there if you don't even know where you want to get to? > > > If you just want some feedback.. I can do that too: > >1) What is the goal of this policy? > Since nobody can agree how to get TO an IPv6 world, let's stand the problem on it's head. Go as far forward as you want and work BACKWARDS. >2) Policy term? temporary, permanent, renewable? (would be hard to undo, >if people start using it..) > Permanent >WRT the goal of the policy - this seems to reclaim some legacy space to >create more 'private' address space, that is, address space that is not >globally unique. > No, not at all 'Reclamation' ASSUMES THE IP SPACE WILL BE REUSED. I am saying this, why can't we agree that when IPv4 is OVER that the RIR's will GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF KEEPING TRACK OF IT. The obvious place to start is with the people who aren't even paying for the RIR's to track it to begin with! What do we owe them once the rest of us are in the IPv6 world? Are you arguing that in a post-IPv4 world that we STILL WANT TO BE ASSIGNING IPv4? WHAT IS THE POINT to transitioning to IPv6 IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO ASSIGN IPv4? I might as well ask if I'm an ISP in year 2010 when IPv4 runout has happened, and I need IP addresses, why BOTHER GETTING IPv6? I might as well just wait for a bit until some IPv4 is reclaimed - then get that? I won't have to change my network as much - save quite a bit of money there. >If the goal is to be able to recover legacy address space, because of >impending IPv4 depletion, and to be able to extend the life of IPv4 - this >isn't going to get you far. NO. The OPPOSITE The RIR's have NO authority to dictate what people broadcast into the global BGP table. 20 years from now when IPv4 is over and done with, NOTHING THE RIR's can do can stop someone somewhere from advertising IPv4. So, what are we as a community to do? Let's say that in year 2030, 100% of the original IPv4 organizations are now dual-stacked with both IPv4 and IPv6 advertisements. Some of them are forward looking and are starting to abandon their IPv4 network, they tell ARIN "we aren't paying fees on that anymore, you can reclaim it" What are we going to do with THAT space? Make it available for reassignment to the few slow-as-slug organizations that want to KEEP USING IPv4 and want MORE of it EVEN THEN? are the RIR's going to get into a situation where FOREVER they are going to track IPv4 usage? Forever and ever? If you don't agree with this then put your money where your mouth is and name a date. Just like the bride said to the reluctant groom - if you want to get married, name a date. Or, name some CONCRETE things that are going to happen before we do it. So, OK, maybe 20% is too harsh. Maybe we should wait until 50% of the Internet has switched over to IPv6 before throwing the freeloaders out the door. If you won't agree to a number, or you won't agree to a date, then your just giving lip service to the idea that we are ever going to switchover to IPv6. >If the space is 'up for grabs and usable by >any organization' - you are essentially creating more RFC1918 like space. Exactly. >The point of having registered address space, is so that you know who is >using it, and it remains globally unique, which is often important when >you start connecting networks together, and most commonly when you want to >route it in the "global internet" > >If OTOH, you want to create more RFC1918/IANA reserved address space, my >question to you would be, do we need it? > >If OTOH, you want to scare legacy folks into signing an RSA.. again my >question would be why? and there might be better ways to go about this. > Heather, I'll answer those 3 questions from you with a question of my own to you: WHEN will the RIR's STOP keeping track of IPv4 allocations? When 100% of the Internet is switched over to IPv6? If so, then why not change that to when 90% of the Internet is switched over to IPv6 - to convince the remaining 10% that they need to drop IPv4. And if you agree with this, then why not when 80% is switched over - to convince the remaining 20% to switch over. And if you agree with that, what about when 70% are switched over? and so on? I think you get my drift? What percentage of people have to leave the IPv4 building before your comfortable turning off the lights and saying the IPv4 party is over? Because I will tell you a great secret. we will NEVER REACH that 100% UNTIL YOU HAVE TURNED OUT THE LIGHTS. As long as the RIR's are tracking IPv4 utilization - people will use it on the Internet. And as long as people are using it, there will not be much incentive to STOP using it. And IPv6 transition will be STALLED. Classic catch-22. How do you think it's ever going to be broken? Ted >--Heather > >On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> Hi All, >> >> What do you all think of the following proposal idea: >> >> 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall >review IP >> utilization yearly and shall determine when >> more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 >> >> 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all >> whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to >> organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space >> >> Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and >> gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR >> >> 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for Grabs" >> No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording >assignments of it >> except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. >> >> 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing >> IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation >> between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, >> except for that provided for in #2 >> >> >> Ted Mittelstaedt >> _______________________________________________ >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >> (PPML at arin.net). >> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> > From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 3 20:33:01 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:33:01 -1000 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <468AEABD.7030408@psg.com> > Everyone wants to transition to IPv6 but... > > nobody is willing to force any IPv4 holders to give up anything and these are related how? > nobody is willing to raise fees to make it cost effective to > transition to IPv6 possibly a more convincing approach would be to lower the cost barriers to transitioning to ipv6? and i mean the operational ones, not some artificial address space rental prices. > nobody is willing to tell anyone they cannot buy-and-sell IPv4 > assignments in a kind of huge ebay sale what good would it do and what would it accomplish? > nobody is willing to give the boot to a bunch of freeloading legacy > holders that haven't contributed a dime in fees to keep the entire > assignment mechanism going - including funding for this very mailing > list I might add. and no one is willing to kick out the loudmouth but no brains johnny come latelies freeloading off the decades of work the legacy folk did. and this is productive how? at about age five (some decades ago), my son came back from moving cows from one pasture to the other. he reported "you know, it is easier to lead them from in front with a can of grain than from behind with a stick." there seem to be a lot of supposed grown-ups who have not learned that lesson. randy From owen at delong.com Tue Jul 3 22:27:13 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 19:27:13 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it is a phenomenally bad idea. First, once there's a 20% adoption rate on IPv6, there's enough momentum to make most of the other issues around IPv4 a "short-term problem". Given the amount of time we have lived with the status quo, I don't see any advantage to taking action to change it at that point. Item 3 is especially bad because you've basically encouraged vigilante routing as a denial of service attack against legacy holders who choose to boycott the RSA. Encouraging others to such an action (which would in most of North America be considered a violation of law) would subject ARIN not only to very likely civil liability, but, could even subject the corporation to criminal prosecution under some circumstances. IANAL, but, I'm betting Steve Ryan would shoot this policy dead in a heart beat on the legal ramifications alone. Owen On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Hi All, > > What do you all think of the following proposal idea: > > 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall > review IP > utilization yearly and shall determine when > more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 > > 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all > whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to > organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space > > Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and > gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR > > 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for > Grabs" > No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording > assignments of it > except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. > > 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing > IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation > between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, > except for that provided for in #2 > > > Ted Mittelstaedt > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Jul 3 23:55:30 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:55:30 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Message-ID: <468b1a32.9c.5fd6.2376@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Dean Anderson" , "Owen DeLong" Cc: PPML at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:28:08 -0700 > > A US court has no jurisdiction over North America. ARIN > is not assigning IP numbers for the US, they are assigning > them for North America. > Archimedes Plutonium? -M< From JOHN at egh.com Wed Jul 4 00:52:17 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 00:52:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1070704004435.10161C-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > - Specifically, that their space cannot be revoked for > > failing to use > > it. > > That is going to be intractable as we get closer to IPv4 exhaustion. > When ISP X is facing losses of millions of dollars due to the fact that > ARIN has no more addresses to give, and it is known that ISP Y has an > unused hoard, then what happens. Define "used" and "unused". > > Perhaps ISP X simply "borrows" ISP Y's hoard. Will Y go to court and > argue that X can't do that because ARIN's whois shows that these are Y's > addresses? Will X argue that Y has no right to addresses because they > are not an ARIN member and have no contract with ARIN, therefore no > expectation of service from ARIN? Will the court revoke all of Y's > addresses? Will the court order Y to return unused addresses to ARIN > because they are, by proxy, causing ARIN to materially damage X's > business? What if Exxon wants to drill for oil in my back yard because, hey, I'm not doing it. Am I materially damaging Exxon's profits by not allowing them to drill? > > The complexity makes your head spin. In general, courts are supposed to > be a last resort after the parties have sat down, discussed the issue, > and tried to hammer out an agreement. Can Y really be said to have done > this if Y has not joined ARIN, signed the RSA, returned excessive unused > addresses and made and honest attempt to comply with ARIN policy? ARIN > is not just a 3rd party here; ARIN is the forum in which all parties > come together and hammer out the mutual agreement to shared these > limited resources. Y got its IP addresses according to the rules, before ARIN existed. ARIN can't just arbitrarily change the rules on them, whatever you want it to do. > > Organizations which do not enagage with each other in ARIN are the > rogues who refuse to negotiate. No, in Y's view, ARIN is the rogue that is trying to change the rules out from under it. > > It's hard to predict the legal outcomes but one thing is certain, any > organizations which persist in refusing to join ARIN will suffer the > consequences of a lot of negative publicity as we get closer to IPv4 > exhaustion. Even if they don't don the black hat and get involved in a > court case, these organizations will be tarred with a nasty brush. In > particular the larger ones with class A and B allocations because one > would expect them to have the most capability for implementing IPv6 and > reducing their consumption of IPv4 addresses. Actually, ARIN's lawyer apparently has predicted the legal outcome, and his prediction is that ARIN would lose... > > > - Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks for > > one large, aggregateable netblock. > > Hmmm... Thought experiment. > Entity A has acquired 300 class C address blocks. None of these are used Define "used"... > at all, just acquired. Entity A goes to ARIN and turns in their 300 > class C's in return for a /16 which is 256 /24 equivalents, therefore it > is less than their original hoard. Now Entity A markets itself to > organizations who are concerned about the pending IPv4 shortage. They > manage to rake in 6 figures for their shell company and the buyer gets a > /16 to use. Sale is timed to close shortly after the buyer gets their > next ARIN allocation. > > Obviously this could only occur if Entity A does not have to fully > justify their space. Currently the wording of the policy does allow for > this loophole. > > I can't help but think that we would make better policy if we started > out with use-cases and requirements rather than diving straight into the > specific text of a policy. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 4 05:47:53 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:47:53 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs><20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > I think that for most legacy holders, the "Fees" issue is a > matter of principle or a minor issue. I think that the real > issues from the legacy holder perspective are: > > - I don't get any benefit from signing an RSA You become a legitimate holder of IPv4 address allocations. > - It subjects me to policies that could force me > to renumber It frees you from being forced to renumber when some other company decides to "borrow" your addresses due to IPv4 address shortages. > - It subjects me to policies that could change at any time It gives you a formal vote in ARIN policies and since you are now a legitimate holder of address resources, other ARIN members are more likely to listen to your point of view. > - It potentially limits my options in terms of > what I can do > with my address space The only option I can see that disappears is the option to sell the addresses and this is pretty marginal if they are not legitimately registered with ARIN. > - It costs me money Money is not an issue here. The sums are nominal. It can cost a lot more in lawyers fees or forced renumbering when (not if) someone takes your addresses as we reach the point of IPv4 exhaustion. > I think it provides some encouragement towards reclamation. > I think that gentle reclamation efforts allowing people to > return address space in whatever size chunks they are willing > to and on whatever timetable they are willing to is more > likely to result in reclamation than policies which attempt > to force the issue. You seem to be presenting "reclamation" as a positive thing which we should bend over backwards to encourage and entice. I take a different view. Reclamation is an obligation under ARIN policies which require companies to *JUSTIFY* their address allocations. When that justification disappears, likely due to IPv6 migration, companies have an obligation to return the addresses to ARIN. It is not too late for a controlled migration combined with reclamation to prevent IPv4 exhaustion entirely. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 4 05:59:51 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:59:51 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs> <468A64BF.6040402@kl.net><014001c7bd8d$e716fbb0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A7814.3090301@rollernet.us><03f501c7bd9a$c080aca0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <468A8EB0.1040405@psg.com> Message-ID: > the world has changed. we would like to change those > contracts. well, we're gonna have to *negotiate* that. and > acting unilaterally or arbitrarily will only polarize and > make a mess we just don't need. We have been negotiating. Many legacy holders have turned in addresses or signed the RSA. Stanford University is one place that did the work of renumbering to return addresses. In any case, at some point we have to say enough is enough. We give people the opportunity to play ball but when they refuse to come on board, we have to act unilaterally. I believe that we are now at the point, due to IPv4 exhaustion being so near, where we have to give people ONE LAST CHANCE, and after that act unilaterally. We won't be acting arbitrarily because ARIN is an open organization and any actions will be discussed openly until we come to a consenus. This is our strength and I believe that when ARIN finally does act, it won't polarize anthing and will not create a mess. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 4 06:05:13 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:05:13 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > What do you all think of the following proposal idea: First of all let me congratulate you for putting the horse before the cart. In order to give legacy holders one last chance, I think we need a frank and open discussion before we decide on the specifics of a policy proposal. Once we get to a rough consensus on how to give people one last chance and how to act unilaterally, then we can word a policy proposal that will achieve that. In particular, before writing the policy proposal, we need to review any proposed actions against the existing policy set, to make sure that we cover everything that needs to be covered. We also need to check that we are withing the framework of what can be done through policy, i.e. we cannot set any fees. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jul 4 06:44:22 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:44:22 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <1070704004435.10161C-100000@Ives.egh.com> References: <1070704004435.10161C-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: > Y got its IP addresses according to the rules, before ARIN existed. > ARIN can't just arbitrarily change the rules on them, > whatever you want it to do. Changing the rules is not necessarily aritrary. ARIN can and does change the rules but it does so in an open and consultative manner. > > Organizations which do not enagage with each other in ARIN are the > > rogues who refuse to negotiate. > > No, in Y's view, ARIN is the rogue that is trying to change > the rules out from under it. ARIN is not merely a 3rd party. ARIN is the forum in which all IP networking industry participants discuss issues and reach a consensus on how the shared resources will be managed. The courts have already recognized that ARIN is not a rogue organization. > Actually, ARIN's lawyer apparently has predicted the legal > outcome, and his prediction is that ARIN would lose... Where is that? Here are some words that ARIN's lawyer did say quoted from http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/ppm1_transcript.html (Search for RYAN to find his words) ----- We received the order approximately two years after it had been issued. It was provided to us in a formal way, and Mr. Kremen asked us to obey the order. That is, to revoke the IP resources that were held by Mr. Cohen and transfer them to Mr. Kremen. We agreed to do so, so long as Mr. Kremen would do what all of you have done since ARIN began in 1998, which is apply for the resources and sign the normal RSA. Mr. Kremen refused to do that and has refused to the current date. His theory is that he doesn't have to do that because he has a court order, and our theory is that we have a certain set of rules and requirements, and that you have to obey the rules and requirements of the community, and we don't read the court order as giving Mr. Kremen a permanent pass from the rules that all of you obey. ... We revoked resources that were held by Mr. Cohen or his associates that were covered by the 2001 order when they were not paid for. In other words, by our own processes, we were very aggressively trying to recover these resources so that they weren't out there. ... First, we've gone back to the court and said that the court in its 2001 order ought to consider modifying the order to make it clear that Mr. Kremen, like everyone else, has to sign an RSA and has to pay for the resources in the future. ... One is that Mr. Kremen is a legacy address holder. He has legacy address blocks. ----- Then in http://www.arin.net/media/clarification-granted.pdf the judge says: ----- 1. Kremen shall submit a Registration Services Transfer Application ("Application") to request a transfer of the IP Resources identified as Blocks 1, 3, and 4 above; 2. ARIN shall approve Kremen's Application for Blocks 1, 3, and 4, once received. ARIN shall afford Kremen the option of signing Registration Services Agreement 2, 3, or 9, as described above; 3. Once Kremen has signed RSA 2, 3, or 9, ARIN shall immediately revoke Blocks 1 and 4 from their current recipients. ARIN shall transfer Blocks 1, 3, and 4 to Kremen; 4. In lieu of Block 5, which is no longer within ARIN's control, ARIN shall provide a substitute ASN to Kremen. ARIN's transfer of this ASN to Kremen shall be on the same terms as its transfer of Blocks 1, 3, and 4; 5. ARIN will not be required to revoke Block 2, as that IP Resource has never been within ARIN's control; 6. Kremen will not be responsible for overdue payments regarding the IP Resources described in this Order prior to the date of this Order, but shall be responsible for paying ARIN for routine services hereafter, pursuant to the terms of his RSA with ARIN; 7. If, for any reason related to its policies, ARIN cannot comply in transferring or issuing the IP Resources described in this Order, ARIN will notify the Court immediately so that the Court can consider what, if any, remedial action. ----- The fact is that ARIN may never end up in court even if it does take unilateral action. And when ARIN does end up in court, the decisions will be made based on the details of the case, not broad brushstrokes that we discuss on a mailing list. ARIN does have expert legal advice and it is unlikely that ARIN will take unilateral action that is clearly untenable in the law. However, the law is notorious for grey areas and the legal system does include appellate courts and the Supreme court as well as international adjudication venues (treaties like NAFTA, ICJ in the Hague). ARIN could conceivable lose at first and win later. When we reach the point where IPv4 addresses are really scarce, the NAFTA tribunal could rule that this is in effect a hidden subsidy, and the DOC will knock on ARIN's door and ask politely could ARIN please revoke legacy resources and reallocate them to organizations who have signed the RSA and have paid their fees. It's all about an open and level playing field. --Michael Dillon From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 4 12:19:24 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:19:24 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <468a580a.222.4ae3.26333@batelnet.bs><20070703143944.GA77690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <658BD299-6F7F-4CDD-80C8-6D54C8384F7C@delong.com> On Jul 4, 2007, at 2:47 AM, wrote: > > >> I think that for most legacy holders, the "Fees" issue is a >> matter of principle or a minor issue. I think that the real >> issues from the legacy holder perspective are: >> >> - I don't get any benefit from signing an RSA > > You become a legitimate holder of IPv4 address allocations. > Whether you like it or not legacy holders are already legitimate holders of IPv4 address allocations. >> - It subjects me to policies that could force me >> to renumber > > It frees you from being forced to renumber when some other company > decides to "borrow" your addresses due to IPv4 address shortages. > I have no reason to believe that will happen. >> - It subjects me to policies that could change at any time > > It gives you a formal vote in ARIN policies and since you are now a > legitimate holder of address resources, other ARIN members are more > likely to listen to your point of view. > I have as much input on ARIN policies now as I would have then. What I might gain, if I joined ARIN as a member, would be a vote on items discussed in the members meetings and the right to vote for certain representatives. However, I can become an ARIN member without signing an RSA, so, again, this is not a benefit of signing an RSA. >> - It potentially limits my options in terms of >> what I can do >> with my address space > > The only option I can see that disappears is the option to sell the > addresses and this is pretty marginal if they are not legitimately > registered with ARIN. > The option to sell the address space doesn't exist today. However, currently, the only way for ARIN to reclaim my addresses is through my voluntary surrender. Otherwise, ARIN has no right to them and no ability to "manage" them. ARIN is just a record keeper. If I sign the current RSA, then, ARIN has the right of reclamation if my address usage no longer meets ARIN policy. This can happen whether that is a result of my changing usage _OR_ ARIN's changing policy. Today, I have no reason to fear ARIN policy changes... They do not affect me. If I sign an RSA, that changes. >> - It costs me money > > Money is not an issue here. The sums are nominal. It can cost a lot > more > in lawyers fees or forced renumbering when (not if) someone takes your > addresses as we reach the point of IPv4 exhaustion. > Likely, I will recover the lawyers fees as part of the lawsuit. More likely, most ISPs will respect the original assignment and the lawsuit won't really be necessary. Even more likely, the person attempting to steal my addresses will soon realize that all they are accomplishing is a DOS attack on me and that the addresses are unusable by them as well. In the situation you describe, all that will happen is nobody can use the address. Not the legitimate legacy holder and not the later usurper. >> I think it provides some encouragement towards reclamation. >> I think that gentle reclamation efforts allowing people to >> return address space in whatever size chunks they are willing >> to and on whatever timetable they are willing to is more >> likely to result in reclamation than policies which attempt >> to force the issue. > > You seem to be presenting "reclamation" as a positive thing which we > should bend over backwards to encourage and entice. I take a different > view. Reclamation is an obligation under ARIN policies which require > companies to *JUSTIFY* their address allocations. When that > justification disappears, likely due to IPv6 migration, companies have > an obligation to return the addresses to ARIN. > Companies that are not recipients of resources from ARIN have no obligation to ARIN whatsoever. I really do not understand where people have developed the perspective that ARIN controls all of this address space. ARIN volunteered to keep records for this space. The do not control it unless the current holder voluntarily returns it to ARIN or joins the ARIN process by voluntarily signing an RSA. Until one of those two things happen, they have a permanent non-transferable right to use those addresses and ARIN has no right to them. > It is not too late for a controlled migration combined with > reclamation > to prevent IPv4 exhaustion entirely. > You cannot prevent IPv4 exhaustion entirely. For one thing, nothing leads me to believe that IPv6 will achieve anything remotely resembling critical mass prior to IPv4 exhaustion, regardless of how far you put off IPv4 exhaustion. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jul 4 12:33:53 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:33:53 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <1070704004435.10161C-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: The Kremen case is very different from what we are talking about here. In the Kremen case, Kremen already held legacy addresses, but, he was attempting to transfer Cohen's non-legacy addresses. He tried to claim that because he held legacy addresses, he should be able to transfer Cohen's non-legacy addresses without signing an RSA. Of course that's bunk. Even if you attempt to transfer legacy addresses, you have to sign an RSA and the addresses are as part of the transfer process brought under ARIN management. Now, let's take a better look at the situation we are really discussing: 1. Party Y receives addresses from the legitimate registry of the day prior to ARIN's existence. 2. Party Y legitimately believes that those addresses were granted to him in perpetuity without fee so long as party Y chose to retain them with the following restrictions: A. Non-transferrable except through substantial acquisition. B. In the event of substantial acquisition, the transfer would have to be processed and approved by the current registry. 3. Party Y's belief matches the policies and general attitudes of the registry at the time when the addresses were issued to party Y. 4. ARIN comes along later and doesn't really like the way these grants were made. 5. ARIN has no actual relationship with party Y. 6. Party Y does not choose to establish a relationship with ARIN. Please, now, explain to me why you think that ARIN has any right to usurp Party Y's grant? Owen From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 08:55:04 2007 From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:55:04 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6eb799ab0707050555k18e4a4d5wb6d9f1949fb1b0d9@mail.gmail.com> > 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing > IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation > between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, > except for that provided for in #2 It's not that ARIN can't do that, it's that I don't think it makes sense to do that. Essentially, I wonder how "no stewardship at all," by intending to incite chaos over some addresses, counts as responsible stewardship, as per ARIN's mission. However, in case the policy were implemented that way... Once random orgs start trying to pick at "up for grabs space", I worry if there's much to keep the up-for-grabbers away from doing the same, trying to use space that was actually legitimately assigned by the current registry, but the org doesn't "think" is being used. I expect ARIN could lose legitimacy not only with the legacy holders, but a lot of people out there, who rely on there not being total and utter addressing chaos. Recall.. ARIN/etc is not the actual mechanism that allows or disallows an organization from using address space. The registry itself can't prevent two determined parties from trying to use the same addresses, that is not the function of ARIN.; Only if they are both registrants, can it help, and that is only done only by making sure not to assign the two registrants the same addresses. Possibly, if providers found that ARIN said "anything goes" for the legacy assignments, the providers would just come up with their own ad-hoc rules to pick up where ARIN left a big hole. I.E. some of the legacy registrants would become further solidified, when their providers develop ad-hoc filters to discard attempts by "rogue orgs" to announce prefixes that would be "up for grabs" according to ARIN (rogue orgs being anything other than the legacy holder). Otherwise, the IP address would no longer be globally unique, making it useless to everyone. Now all the legacy holders would suddenly have a justifiable need for new addressing, they may even be able to justify larger assignments than they had before. Exhaustion could occur even more quickly at that point. ARIN only provides the service of assuring registrants that their assignments are unique among other registrants, which is a pre-requisite for their networks being able to communicate with each other. It is providers themselves that respect whatever ARIN's registry says a range is assigned to. I think they know better than to accept "up for grabs". Either that means the addresses become useless, or the consequence is the legacy holder gets them permanently, even if the legacy holder later decides to return addresses, filters may remain in place all over the world. It's not hard to have chaos, but how can you have it one little range of addresses and really be assured of not have it all over the place? -- -J From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jul 5 09:24:14 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:24:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: References: <1070704004435.10161C-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: Folks - There will be legal review of the policy proposal via the IRPEP; I would recommend focusing on the desired policy outcome rather than constraining policy in advance based on potential legal issues. If it turns out that we can't move ahead with a policy due to the legal aspects, it's still very valuable to know what the desired outcome of the public policy process is... /John From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 13:19:02 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:19:02 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <468AEABD.7030408@psg.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:33 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >at about age five (some decades ago), my son came back from moving cows >from one pasture to the other. he reported "you know, it is easier to >lead them from in front with a can of grain than from behind with a >stick." there seem to be a lot of supposed grown-ups who have not >learned that lesson. > No, the grownups have learned that you can get more cooperation with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word. Obviously people like you won't learn anything until your face is rubbed in it. As I kind of expected. So, I'll wait - and a decade from now when IPv4 runout is a dim memory and everyone is bemoaning how the major networks still haven't switched over, then perhaps you will learn then. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 13:45:40 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:45:40 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:27 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >I think it is a phenomenally bad idea. First, once there's a 20% >adoption >rate on IPv6, there's enough momentum to make most of the other issues >around IPv4 a "short-term problem". So then, what's the problem with instituting such a policy if it's all just going to be short term? >Given the amount of time we have >lived with the status quo, I don't see any advantage to taking action to >change it at that point. > >Item 3 is especially bad because you've basically encouraged vigilante >routing as a denial of service attack against legacy holders who choose >to boycott the RSA. So you are saying that legacy holders boycotting the RSA is a good thing? How can a legacy holder boycott the RSA anyway, since they have to sign one in order to get an IPv6 allocation? Unless of course they intending never getting IPv6 and just running IPv4 forever. Oh I forgot, you were advocating that legacy holders don't even have to sign an RSA to get IPv6. I guess your true colors are showing Owen, you simply want the same situation perpetuated with the legacy holders that they already have, namely, that the legacy holders get any kind of numbering allocations for free in perpetuity. > Encouraging others to such an action (which would >in most of North America be considered a violation of law) would subject >ARIN not only to very likely civil liability, but, could even subject >the >corporation to criminal prosecution under some circumstances. IANAL, >but, I'm betting Steve Ryan would shoot this policy dead in a heart >beat on the legal ramifications alone. > Choosing to not speak on an issue is not "encouraging" You assume that the only thing that is preventing so-called "vigilante routing" as you call it from happening right now, is because the RIR's are keeping track of things. Here in the US (I really wonder if your in the US since you show such ignorance of the law) it is illegal to take a horse and buggy out onto an Interstate highway. Why? Because they are obsolete. The governing bodies that govern vehicle registration (ie: the States) have no laws that cover buggy registration for Interstate highway travel. I am proposing exactly the same thing. IPv4 will eventually be obsolete. The RIR's do not keep track of Arcnet addressing schemes because that is obsolete - the Internet has long grown beyond that numbering system. When IPv4 becomes obsolete the RIR's will have no business keeping track of IPv4 numbering either. Fundamentally I am saying let's make that policy right now. If you believe that 20% IPv6 adoption isn't sufficient enough to call IPv4 obsolete, then what about 40% IPv6 adoption? If that's not enough, what about 60% adoption? Either you want the RIR's to keep track of IPv4 forever - in which case the legacy holders could simply choose to never adopt IPv6 and the Internet would be stuck in dual-stack mode forever - or you must agree that at some point the RIR's stop keeping track of it. If you do agree the RIR's stop keeping track of it at some point, then what conditions must exist for that point to be reached? Ted >Owen > >On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> Hi All, >> >> What do you all think of the following proposal idea: >> >> 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall >> review IP >> utilization yearly and shall determine when >> more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 >> >> 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all >> whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to >> organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that space >> >> Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and >> gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR >> >> 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for >> Grabs" >> No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording >> assignments of it >> except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. >> >> 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing >> IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation >> between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, >> except for that provided for in #2 >> >> >> Ted Mittelstaedt >> _______________________________________________ >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >> (PPML at arin.net). >> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > From arin-contact at dirtside.com Thu Jul 5 13:51:18 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:51:18 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0707051051p6d9de6d9v6d3abe4591ed2be@mail.gmail.com> On 6/28/07, Owen DeLong wrote: > Here's an attempt to partially drain the swamp and create some > incentives > for legacy holders to both return available IPv4 space and start using > IPv6. Owen, I don't object to your proposal but I question its value. I'm a legacy registrant with a /23 down in the swamp and until a couple years ago I was the lead engineer for a registrant holding two legacy /18's. The policy offered by your proposal does not appeal to me in either role. As a /23 holder, why should I return the /23 or part of it (a /24)? I pay ARIN nothing now so a fee waiver is meaningless. A full fee waiver for the initial assignment of an IPv6 block might be nice but I'd want a more definite statement than "if you qualify" before both making the effort to apply and turning in IPv4 addresses. As the engineer for the /18s registrant, I recognize that renumbering folks out of part of that space is a major undertaking. It will cost me many thousands of dollars of manpower and will impose additional and unexpected engineering costs on my customers leading some to reconsider their service contracts. Even if I approach it opportunistically and just don't reallocate space in a particular part of the block when old customers depart, I fail to see how giving up precious IPv4 space (and doubly-precious fee-free legacy space) could possibly be compensated by saving a pittance on my new IPv6 block. It just doesn't make good business sense. I don't want to be the kind of guy who just says, "No!" so what would it take to get me to sign an RSA, turn in part of my space or both? Before I'd step forward with my legacy registration and either sign an RSA or give back part of it, at least one of two things would have to be true: 1. I'd have to realize some appreciable gain for my activity, to offset the loss. What if, for example, I could trade up to a /48 of IPv6 addresses with no initial assignment fee and no justification for each /24 of IPv4 addresses I turn in with the requirements that I also place any retained IPv4 addresses under the RSA and that do so no later than 12/31/2008? Now you have a real enticement. I can get something cheaply now that may not be available later at any price but I have to behave in a way that meaningfully benefits the community to get it. 2. My action would have to REDUCE future uncertainty about the status of my registration. At present, ARIN guarantees that legacy assignments will be managed under the policies then active while assignments under the RSA are subject to whatever policies we folks here on ppml can convince the board to implement. Thus signing an RSA and undertaking related activities would serve to INCREASE my uncertainty around continued holding of the address space. On the other hand, I presently have no contractual rights associated with my legacy registration. Any rights I might have had expired with the implied contract with Network Solutions when they quit the IP registry business. ARIN has chosen to obligate itself to maintain that registration, but if they reinterpret that obligation to my disadvantage I might not even have standing to sue. If I could sign a modified RSA that contractually obligated both ARIN and I to follow the policies in place today but exempted me from any future policy until such a time as I found it advantageous to accept the regular RSA, that might well REDUCE the uncertainty associated with my registration. As a legacy registrant, I would at least find it worth considering. Offered as food for thought. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 13:51:33 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:51:33 +0300 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/4/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Hi All, > > What do you all think of the following proposal idea: I think it's asking for chaos. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From james at towardex.com Thu Jul 5 13:59:36 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:59:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014a01c7bf2e$4e589ee0$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> > Either you want the RIR's to keep track of IPv4 forever You are confused. RIR's keep track of their subscriber numbering resources (in IPv4 and IPv6). Legacy owners who are not members of the RIR are beyond the scope of RIR responsibility. If you want your policy proposal to have any chance of consideration, you will have better luck submitting such proposal to the NRO for global adoption and provide input to the IANA. Ignorantly assuming that somehow legacy holders are ARIN responsibility just because they are in ARIN region is not helpful. > - in which case > the legacy holders could simply choose to never adopt IPv6 and the > Internet > would be stuck in dual-stack mode forever Who cares if they choose to not adopt IPv6? People can continue to run Arcnet and Token Ring as long as they have a need to, same goes for IPv4->IPv6. It is *their* responsibility as operator of their own network to ensure that their customers and majority of Internet public as whole can get to their services -- which means, they will be the ones responsible for dual-stacking, not you (which by the way you still haven't even received your IPv6 block from ARIN, why are you even advocating crazy rules when you don't even care about IPv6?) or anyone else. > - or you must agree that at some > point the RIR's stop keeping track of it. If you do agree the RIR's stop > keeping track of it at some point, then what conditions must exist for > that > point to be reached? RIR's are already not keeping track of legacy holders, simply because they are not members controlled by the RIR. The legacy holders can certainly apply to become a member by signing an RSA, which then their addr space would come under RIR's policies and be tracked in accordance to RIR policies. James From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 5 14:30:08 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:30:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3889FEE9-5D5B-4BEA-A716-216F9DAB54D7@delong.com> On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:27 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: ARIN PPML >> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal >> >> >> I think it is a phenomenally bad idea. First, once there's a 20% >> adoption >> rate on IPv6, there's enough momentum to make most of the other >> issues >> around IPv4 a "short-term problem". > > So then, what's the problem with instituting such a policy if it's > all just going to be short term? > Because most of the other issues being a short term problem means there's no need for such a policy. It doesn't mean the phenomenally large problem set with this proposal disappears. >> Given the amount of time we have >> lived with the status quo, I don't see any advantage to taking >> action to >> change it at that point. >> >> Item 3 is especially bad because you've basically encouraged >> vigilante >> routing as a denial of service attack against legacy holders who >> choose >> to boycott the RSA. > > So you are saying that legacy holders boycotting the RSA is a good > thing? No. I'm saying that launching a denial of service attack against them is an even worse thing. > How can a legacy holder boycott the RSA anyway, since they have to > sign one > in order to get an IPv6 allocation? Unless of course they > intending never > getting IPv6 and just running IPv4 forever. Signing an RSA for new IPv6 space _DOES_ _NOT_ subject your existing IPv4 space to that RSA. Also, it is quite a viable option, actually, for them to run IPv4 and IPv6 dual-stack using 6to4 addresses in native IPv6 mode which is permitted under the RFC. > > Oh I forgot, you were advocating that > legacy holders don't even have to sign an RSA to get IPv6. > Please show me one place where I have advocated such a thing. I have never advocated that and your accusations here are baseless and misleading at best. > I guess your true colors are showing Owen, you simply want the same > situation perpetuated with the legacy holders that they already have, > namely, that the legacy holders get any kind of numbering > allocations for > free in perpetuity. > Hardly. I just want to recognize what is and isn't possible and do the best we can with the situation we have. There really is little point in wasting the monumental amount of effort and capital that it would take to (probably fail in the) attempt to revoke legacy IPv4 resources. By the time all the court battles were done, the reclamation of legacy IPv4 resources would probably not be of substantial benefit to the community. I have no desire to grant legacy holders any new assignments or allocations without signing an RSA. In fact, my proposal specifically required legacy holders who wanted to have their fees on IPv6 resources waived for up to 5 years not only receive that IPv6 resource under an RSA, but, also bring ALL of their existing IP resources under RSA. >> Encouraging others to such an action (which would >> in most of North America be considered a violation of law) would >> subject >> ARIN not only to very likely civil liability, but, could even subject >> the >> corporation to criminal prosecution under some circumstances. IANAL, >> but, I'm betting Steve Ryan would shoot this policy dead in a heart >> beat on the legal ramifications alone. >> > > Choosing to not speak on an issue is not "encouraging" You assume > that > the only thing that is preventing so-called "vigilante routing" as you > call it from happening right now, is because the RIR's are keeping > track > of things. > Marking the addresses as "up for grabs" and having a policy discussion on record describing "up for grabs" the way you already have would certainly hold up as "encouraging". Actually, besides the RIRs there are a number of other resources that track these, including, but, not limited to completewhois. What actually prevents this vigilante routing is well behaved ISPs. The number of not-so-well behaved ISPs is why so much of it occurs anyway. > Here in the US (I really wonder if your in the US since you show such > ignorance of the law) it is illegal to take a horse and buggy out onto > an Interstate highway. Why? Because they are obsolete. The > governing > bodies > that govern vehicle registration (ie: the States) have no laws that > cover > buggy registration for Interstate highway travel. I am proposing > exactly > the same thing. IPv4 will eventually be obsolete. The RIR's do > not keep > track of Arcnet addressing schemes because that is obsolete - the > Internet > has long grown beyond that numbering system. When IPv4 becomes > obsolete > the RIR's will have no business keeping track of IPv4 numbering > either. > The RIRs are not governing bodies. It amazes me that you are so thoroughly ignorant of the law. The governing bodies that govern what is or is not allowed on the highways are actual GOVERNMENTs. The RIRs are NOT GOVERNMENT. Further, you can take a horse and buggy onto an interstate highway. While you can't do it in most places, your blanket assertion does prove false if you look at Pennsylvania, parts of Ohio, and a number of other rural areas where the Interstate replaced earlier roads and would render places inaccessible to horse and buggy if they could not traverse said interstate. > Fundamentally I am saying let's make that policy right now. If you > believe > that 20% IPv6 adoption isn't sufficient enough to call IPv4 > obsolete, then > what about 40% IPv6 adoption? If that's not enough, what about 60% > adoption? > What does it matter? What's the point of calling IPv4 obsolete at the RIR level? When ISPs start derouting it, it will be obsolete for any meaningful definition. > Either you want the RIR's to keep track of IPv4 forever - in which > case > the legacy holders could simply choose to never adopt IPv6 and the > Internet > would be stuck in dual-stack mode forever - or you must agree that > at some > point the RIR's stop keeping track of it. If you do agree the > RIR's stop > keeping track of it at some point, then what conditions must exist > for that > point to be reached? > Doesn't matter. Eventually, the legacy holders won't be able to get an ISP to route their IPv4 addresses. Of course, they can continue to use them as 6to4 assignments in perpetuity, so, I suppose, we could argue that instead of tracking the IPv4 addignments, the RIRs should track them as 6to4 assignments, but, I don't really see any gain to that. Owen > Ted > >> Owen >> >> On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> What do you all think of the following proposal idea: >>> >>> 1) When all unallocated IPv4 has been exhausted, the RIR's shall >>> review IP >>> utilization yearly and shall determine when >>> more than 20% of IPv4 holders are dual-stacked and advertising IPv6 >>> >>> 2) When the 20% point has been passed, all RIR's shall remove all >>> whois and reverse IP records for IPv4 blocks that are assigned to >>> organizations which have NOT signed an RSA with an RIR for that >>> space >>> >>> Legacy holders can sign an RSA at any point beyond this time and >>> gain whois and reverse assignment records back with an RIR >>> >>> 3) IPv4 space not recorded in an RIR shall be considered "Up for >>> Grabs" >>> No RIR shall assign it, and no RIR shall retain recording >>> assignments of it >>> except that which a legacy holder decides to bring under RSA. >>> >>> 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization >>> needing >>> IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of >>> mediation >>> between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, >>> except for that provided for in #2 >>> >>> >>> Ted Mittelstaedt >>> _______________________________________________ >>> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >>> (PPML at arin.net). >>> Manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >> >> From dean at av8.com Thu Jul 5 14:37:40 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > There are MANY national courts that make rulings against people and > companies, that are regularly ignored by those companies and people. > Everything from what's-his-name being considered a criminal in India for > publically kissing a girl, to Iran ruling that some other guy be > put to death for some book he published. And shall I get into the rulings > out of Germany that make it illegal to talk about Hitler and Naziism? > Which are ignored in the US routinely? You mean like French jurisdiction over Yahoo? (Yahoo lost, because it turned out that Yahoo can (and did) control what content went to France), or Chinese jurisdiction over Google (google complied) The laws of other countries aren't ignored: Americans don't bring pro-nazi literature to Germany. If they do, they will suffer the consequences. n Rushdie will be put to death if he returns to Iran, and so he doesn't go to Iran. Its hard to tell who "what's his name" is, since googling 'india kiss' returns a lot of scandals. Public kissing in India is against the law. Perhaps you mean Richard Gere, who said he was ignorant of the law, and apologized for the offense. Ignorance is never a defense. > A US court has no jurisdiction over North America. ARIN is not assigning > IP numbers for the US, they are assigning them for North America. Facts show otherwise, and it is rather pointless to argue law or policy with anarchists who think that no laws apply to them, and that no courts have jurisdiction. Indeed, I presume that one day the WTO will take up cases involving the Internet. However, juridiction in a world court doesn't preclude suit in a national, state, or local court with juridiction over one of the parties. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 5 14:44:40 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:44:40 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0707051051p6d9de6d9v6d3abe4591ed2be@mail.gmail.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com> <3c3e3fca0707051051p6d9de6d9v6d3abe4591ed2be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <72918365-6104-45D6-90EC-94F6CDD8EB5D@delong.com> On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:51 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/28/07, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Here's an attempt to partially drain the swamp and create some >> incentives >> for legacy holders to both return available IPv4 space and start >> using >> IPv6. > > Owen, > > I don't object to your proposal but I question its value. > > I'm a legacy registrant with a /23 down in the swamp and until a > couple years ago I was the lead engineer for a registrant holding two > legacy /18's. The policy offered by your proposal does not appeal to > me in either role. > OK... As the /23 holder, you're really not the target. > As a /23 holder, why should I return the /23 or part of it (a /24)? I > pay ARIN nothing now so a fee waiver is meaningless. A full fee waiver > for the initial assignment of an IPv6 block might be nice but I'd want > a more definite statement than "if you qualify" before both making the > effort to apply and turning in IPv4 addresses. > ARIN has no way to determine if you qualify for an IPv6 assignment before you apply for one. However, when you applied, the only thing you would be obliged to is filling out the template and emailing it. If you didn't qualify, it would end there unless you choose to pursue it further. If you do qualify (either initially or after further effort), then, you would have the OPTION of taking an election under my policy to receive the IPv6 space for free (for 5 years) by bringing your IPv4 space (and ASN(s)) under RSA. > As the engineer for the /18s registrant, I recognize that renumbering > folks out of part of that space is a major undertaking. It will cost > me many thousands of dollars of manpower and will impose additional > and unexpected engineering costs on my customers leading some to > reconsider their service contracts. > Depends. If you're sparse-allocated all over the /18s, then, you're right. If, OTOH, like many of the legacy /8s out there, you have vacant /20s all over the place, then, there's virtually no cost to returning them. > Even if I approach it opportunistically and just don't reallocate > space in a particular part of the block when old customers depart, I > fail to see how giving up precious IPv4 space (and doubly-precious > fee-free legacy space) could possibly be compensated by saving a > pittance on my new IPv6 block. > And lots of people will probably feel that way. Obviously, there will be no value to this proposal in those cases. However, some people will actually choose to do what is best for the community if they can do it without taking on significant additional risk or cost to themselves in the process. > It just doesn't make good business sense. > Community minded action rarely makes good business sense from the perspective you are approaching this with. > I don't want to be the kind of guy who just says, "No!" so what would > it take to get me to sign an RSA, turn in part of my space or both? > > Before I'd step forward with my legacy registration and either sign an > RSA or give back part of it, at least one of two things would have to > be true: > > 1. I'd have to realize some appreciable gain for my activity, to > offset the loss. > > What if, for example, I could trade up to a /48 of IPv6 addresses with > no initial assignment fee and no justification for each /24 of IPv4 > addresses I turn in with the requirements that I also place any > retained IPv4 addresses under the RSA and that do so no later than > 12/31/2008? Now you have a real enticement. I can get something > cheaply now that may not be available later at any price but I have to > behave in a way that meaningfully benefits the community to get it. > I'm already offering you pretty close to that. The barrier to qualifying for IPv6 space has been reduced to the same requirements as IPv4 space has today. So, if you are multihomed and have 500 or more hosts, you can get portable IPv6 space. It does not make sense to me to hand out a /48 for every /24 returned. Each /48 is 65,536 subnets. There's no way to carve a /24 up into more than 256 unique subnets, and, to do that, you have to make it into /32s. Even if you go with point-to-point link numbering, you're maximum number of subnets from a /24 is 64 /30s. Why should we trade you 1024:1? If you have a need for more than a /48, you can easily justify it. If you are an ISP and would be issuing /48s to other organizations, you can easily get a /32. Other than that and the "lack of justification", you haven't presented anything my proposal doesn't already offer. Best of all, you can actually "justify" and see if ARIN accepts your justification _BEFORE_ making any commitment. > > 2. My action would have to REDUCE future uncertainty about the status > of my registration. > > At present, ARIN guarantees that legacy assignments will be managed > under the policies then active while assignments under the RSA are > subject to whatever policies we folks here on ppml can convince the > board to implement. Thus signing an RSA and undertaking related > activities would serve to INCREASE my uncertainty around continued > holding of the address space. > I'm not sure about that original guarantee. While I think that ARIN is obliged to exactly that, there are a number of people with different opinions, and, the angry mob mentality will only get worse as IPv4 free space exhaustion gets closer. > On the other hand, I presently have no contractual rights associated > with my legacy registration. Any rights I might have had expired with > the implied contract with Network Solutions when they quit the IP > registry business. ARIN has chosen to obligate itself to maintain that > registration, but if they reinterpret that obligation to my > disadvantage I might not even have standing to sue. > IANAL, but, the way I interpret the situation, you would not be able to sue ARIN for dropping your WHOIS record(s) or your IN-ADDR delegations, but, you'd probably have a pretty good case if they issued any of your resources to a third party or encouraged the use of any of your resources by third parties. > If I could sign a modified RSA that contractually obligated both ARIN > and I to follow the policies in place today but exempted me from any > future policy until such a time as I found it advantageous to accept > the regular RSA, that might well REDUCE the uncertainty associated > with my registration. As a legacy registrant, I would at least find it > worth considering. > Understood. There is effort being expended on exploring ideas like this, but, that effort is not yet ready to be brought out into public light. Thanks for your input. I'd really like to continue the discussion on section one of your response above as I think we are much closer together and that perhaps some tweaking on both sides would facilitate a more attractive proposal and acquire your support. Owen From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Jul 5 14:54:37 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 19:54:37 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <014a01c7bf2e$4e589ee0$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> References: <014a01c7bf2e$4e589ee0$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> Message-ID: > If you want your policy proposal to have any chance of > consideration, you will have better luck submitting such > proposal to the NRO for global adoption and provide input to > the IANA. Ignorantly assuming that somehow legacy holders > are ARIN responsibility just because they are in ARIN region > is not helpful. Technically, if you want a global policy, you have to get the same wording accepted in all 5 RIRs. Therefore ARIN is a reasonable place to start. But, since the ARIN region has the most legacy allocations, ARIN is absolutely the right place to introduce it. Any wording that gets accepted here will likely be rubber-stamped by the other 4 regions with few legacy holders in them. > to ensure that their customers and majority of Internet > public as whole can get to their services -- which means, > they will be the ones responsible for dual-stacking, MPLS with 6PE is another way to go. Even just running Teredo services or 6to4 relays are a good first step for many ISPs. There are many paths to IPv6. > not you > (which by the way you still haven't even received your IPv6 > block from ARIN, why are you even advocating crazy rules when > you don't even care about IPv6?) or anyone else. Aside from the abusive language, this forum is for people not companies. Typically, companies will apply for allocations and implement IPv6, not the PEOPLE who participate in this forum. -- Michael Dillon From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 15:21:48 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:21:48 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab0707050555k18e4a4d5wb6d9f1949fb1b0d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >James Hess >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:55 AM >To: ARIN Address Policy >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >> 4) "Up for Grabs" IP space will be usable by any organization needing >> IPv4 numbering. None of the RIR's will provide any sort of mediation >> between competing organizations wanting to use the same IPv4 space, >> except for that provided for in #2 > >It's not that ARIN can't do that, it's that I don't think it makes >sense to do that. > >Essentially, I wonder how "no stewardship at all," by intending to >incite chaos >over some addresses, counts as responsible stewardship, as per >ARIN's mission. > Saying you aren't going to steward something doesen't mean your advocating chaos. > >However, in case the policy were implemented that way... > >Once random orgs start trying to pick at "up for grabs space", I worry >if there's >much to keep the up-for-grabbers away from doing the same, trying to >use space that was actually legitimately assigned by the current >registry, but >the org doesn't "think" is being used. > The same situation exists today. What prevents it is that most responsible networks don't allow end-node AS's to announce prefixes that are not listed in a registries database, and presumably responsible networks don't originate such advertisements. It is also important to keep in mind that one of these days IPv4 will be declared obsolete, and the RIR's will stop keeping track of it, at that point it will effectively be "up for grabs" >I expect ARIN could lose legitimacy not only with the legacy holders, >but a lot of >people out there, who rely on there not being total and utter >addressing chaos. > > >Recall.. ARIN/etc is not the actual mechanism that allows or disallows >an organization >from using address space. > Yes, it effectively is, because so many transit AS's rely on it to determine whether or not an advertisement is legitimate or not. >The registry itself can't prevent two determined parties from trying >to use the same >addresses, that is not the function of ARIN.; Only if they are both >registrants, can >it help, and that is only done only by making sure not to assign the >two registrants the >same addresses. > If 2 entities try to use the same space, and neither is listed in a record as being the owner, then both are going to have problems and no network is going to help them solve them (by erecting blocks or whatever) until one of the entites signs an RSA with an RIR and becomes the assigner of record for that space. Please reread my original post. I said that only legacy space where the legacy owner refused to sign an RSA for it would be "up for grabs" If the legacy owner does sign a RSA then the space is now allocated to them, and is no longer up for grabs. If another party tries using it then they will be frozen out by the network operators who can easily see that the space is allocated to the legacy holder now. > >Possibly, if providers found that ARIN said "anything goes" for the >legacy assignments, >the providers would just come up with their own ad-hoc rules to pick >up where ARIN left >a big hole. > Quite possible. Of course, the providers would certainly require the legacy holders to sign an RSA with the new entity that controls the legacy assignments, as well as pay for maintaining the records, so I don't see why any legacy holder would prefer to do it this way. Either they fund an RIR alternative or they fund the RIR, either way, the free ride is over. >I.E. some of the legacy registrants would become further solidified, >when their providers >develop ad-hoc filters to discard attempts by "rogue orgs" to announce >prefixes that >would be "up for grabs" according to ARIN >(rogue orgs being anything other than the legacy holder). > >Otherwise, the IP address would no longer be globally unique, making >it useless to everyone. Now all the legacy holders would suddenly >have a justifiable need for new addressing, they may even be able to >justify larger assignments than they had before. > >Exhaustion could occur even more quickly at that point. > OK let's be a little more specific, please. Your saying a legacy holder might abandon a legacy IPv4 assignment and sign an RSA for a new unsullied IPv4 assignment with a RIR? Why would they do this? The cost would be the same as if they just went ahead and signed an RSA for the legacy addresses they already are using, and they wouldn't have to renumber. > >ARIN only provides the service of assuring registrants that their >assignments are >unique among other registrants, which is a pre-requisite for their networks >being able to communicate with each other. > >It is providers themselves that respect whatever ARIN's registry >says a range >is assigned to. > >I think they know better than to accept "up for grabs". > >Either that means the addresses become useless, or the consequence >is the legacy >holder gets them permanently, even if the legacy holder later >decides to return >addresses, filters may remain in place all over the world. > >It's not hard to have chaos, but how can you have it one little range >of addresses >and really be assured of not have it all over the place? > We already have such a situation, as it's been already documented that spammers are using legacy IPv4 that is NOT advertised, advertising it themselves, and spamming from it. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 15:24:39 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:24:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >McTim >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:52 AM >To: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >On 7/4/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> What do you all think of the following proposal idea: > >I think it's asking for chaos. > The only chaos would be among legacy IPv4 assignments that the legacy holders refuse to sign an RSA for, and the legacy holders of such blocks could fix that easily by just signing an RSA. Ted From dean at av8.com Thu Jul 5 15:26:52 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:26:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > In any case, at some point we have to say enough is enough. We give > people the opportunity to play ball but when they refuse to come on > board, we have to act unilaterally. I believe that we are now at the > point, due to IPv4 exhaustion being so near, where we have to give > people ONE LAST CHANCE, and after that act unilaterally. I think it is rather funny that people argue on one hand to loosen IPv4 allocation policy, and on the other to tighten reclamation. Are you trying to create a artificial crisis? It seems to me that 'Resource Reclamation" is a policy in search of a problem to solve. When IPv4 runs out, people will use pure IPv6 and gateways to old IPv4. There is also a false dichotomy. IPv4 allocations are already automatically IPv6 allocations, so there is no need for anyone to exchange IPv4 for IPv6 [it would be kind of stupid, even]. An IPv4 address is automatically an IPv6 address. There is only a need to convert V4 wire protocols to V6 wire protocols. Address translation is defined from IPv6->IPv4. Traditional NAT is only needed for the return path (IPv4 -> IPv6). This is not an terribbly difficult problem, and becomes easier as more ISPs are native IPv6. And I think paths over native IPv6 (e.g. IPv4 - IPv6 - IPv4) should be transparent. So, there is no need for any unilateral actions for IPv4. There may be some need for some software/hardware for the V4-V6 gateways, but that isn't anything ARIN can fix. These gateways might not be easy, but that difficulty isn't ARIN's problem, either. I think the real issue and motivation is the size of the routing table. Some companies have always filtered /24s and anything smaller than /16 from classB nets, etc. They did this to reduce their table size. But IPv4 resource reclamation won't solve that problem for more than a few months, while people get IPv6 allocations, which take up even more space per route, so this is a very shortsighted and contentious policy. The recent example of running out of RFC1918 space on cable modems is solved by using IPv6 space, behind a traditional NAT. Again, software/hardware, not policy changes, is required. > We won't be acting arbitrarily because ARIN is an open organization > and any actions will be discussed openly until we come to a consenus. > This is our strength and I believe that when ARIN finally does act, it > won't polarize anthing and will not create a mess. Wasn't it claimed that the IETF/ISOC would be fair, open, and consensus based? And before that, Nanog claimed to be open and consensus based. Yet both organizations have created false consensus by dirty tricks such as blatantly lying about the consensus results, or creating false consensus by silencing the opposition, or acting in conflict of interest upto and including frauds. These aren't really very fair or very open, or very honest. None of what they did in those cases was in the public interest. And you (Dillon) participated in both organizations without objection to blatant dishonesty and unfairness, so I have to wonder about your assurance of a "fair and open" process. If past experience is any guide to what you apparently consider "fair and open", then I have to conclude that we should all be very worried. Examples of IETF/ISOC and Nanog misbehavior are available, and some have previously been cited. --Dean From mksmith at adhost.com Thu Jul 5 15:47:39 2007 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:47:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <72918365-6104-45D6-90EC-94F6CDD8EB5D@delong.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><3c3e3fca0707051051p6d9de6d9v6d3abe4591ed2be@mail.gmail.com> <72918365-6104-45D6-90EC-94F6CDD8EB5D@delong.com> Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC514@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Owen DeLong > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:45 AM > To: William Herrin > Cc: ARIN Address Policy > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives > > > On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:51 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > > On 6/28/07, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Here's an attempt to partially drain the swamp and create some > >> incentives > >> for legacy holders to both return available IPv4 space and start > >> using > >> IPv6. > > > > Owen, > > > > I don't object to your proposal but I question its value. > > > > I'm a legacy registrant with a /23 down in the swamp and until a > > couple years ago I was the lead engineer for a registrant holding two > > legacy /18's. The policy offered by your proposal does not appeal to > > me in either role. > > > OK... As the /23 holder, you're really not the target. > > > As a /23 holder, why should I return the /23 or part of it (a /24)? I > > pay ARIN nothing now so a fee waiver is meaningless. A full fee > waiver > > for the initial assignment of an IPv6 block might be nice but I'd > want > > a more definite statement than "if you qualify" before both making > the > > effort to apply and turning in IPv4 addresses. > > > ARIN has no way to determine if you qualify for an IPv6 assignment > before you apply for one. However, when you applied, the only > thing you would be obliged to is filling out the template and emailing > it. If you didn't qualify, it would end there unless you choose to > pursue it further. If you do qualify (either initially or after > further > effort), then, you would have the OPTION of taking an election under > my policy to receive the IPv6 space for free (for 5 years) by bringing > your IPv4 space (and ASN(s)) under RSA. That's an interesting point. It sounds to me as if the ultimate depletion of IPv4 space is not going to be put off to any great degree by reclaiming the old swamp space. And, ARIN has guidelines for acquiring new space based upon need/justification as defined by previous allocations. If it's true that reclamation is not going to help us to any great degree, why not focus our efforts on writing language to allow entities to use swamp space as justification for IPv6 allocations, but not provide any particular incentives beyond that? As someone said on another list, (paraphrased) it's up to the entity to decide their own routing policies. If they want to continue to run Token Ring/AppleTalk/IPv4 then that's their prerogative. If they are interested in running IPv6 then they should fall under the same guidelines as everyone else who is allocated space from ARIN (or whatever RIR they choose). If ARIN wants to "be nice" and help those entities get IPv6 space by allowing them to justify their allocation using their swamp space then I'm in favor of it. I'm not in favor of any continuation of the ambiguities the swamp-holders enjoy/suffer. Regards, Michael K. Smith mksmith at adhost.com (work) mksmith at mac.com (!work) From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 16:09:12 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:09:12 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <014a01c7bf2e$4e589ee0$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >James Jun >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:00 AM >To: 'ARIN PPML' >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >> Either you want the RIR's to keep track of IPv4 forever > >You are confused. RIR's keep track of their subscriber numbering resources >(in IPv4 and IPv6). Legacy owners who are not members of the RIR >are beyond >the scope of RIR responsibility. > Let me demonstrate: # whois -h whois.arin.net 199.248.255.0 OrgName: Leatherman Tool Group, Inc OrgID: LTG Address: 12106 NE Ainsworth Circle City: Portland StateProv: OR PostalCode: 97220 Country: US NetRange: 199.248.255.0 - 199.248.255.255 CIDR: 199.248.255.0/24 NetName: LEATHERMAN NetHandle: NET-199-248-255-0-1 Parent: NET-199-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: NS.FTA.COM NameServer: NS01.SAVVIS.NET Comment: RegDate: 1994-10-11 Updated: 2004-05-05 RTechHandle: BCO-ARIN RTechName: O'Brien, Byron RTechPhone: +1-503-546-9929 RTechEmail: hostmaster at hcorp.com # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-07-04 19:10 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. news# I guarenteee to you that Leatherman Tool Group IS NOT paying ARIN a dime, has NEVER paid them a dime. Yet, ARIN is still tracking this so ARIN obviously considers this legacy holder still their responsibility. >If you want your policy proposal to have any chance of consideration, you >will have better luck submitting such proposal to the NRO for global >adoption and provide input to the IANA. Ignorantly assuming that somehow >legacy holders are ARIN responsibility just because they are in ARIN region >is not helpful. > > > >> - in which case >> the legacy holders could simply choose to never adopt IPv6 and the >> Internet >> would be stuck in dual-stack mode forever > >Who cares if they choose to not adopt IPv6? People can continue to run >Arcnet and Token Ring as long as they have a need to, same goes for >IPv4->IPv6. It is *their* responsibility as operator of their own network >to ensure that their customers and majority of Internet public as whole can >get to their services -- which means, they will be the ones responsible for >dual-stacking, not you No, sorry it does not work that way. The reason is that when "their" customers cannot connect to a service one of my customers is fielding, their customer may in fact complain to them, but my customer is going to complain to me also. If I want to retain my customer I'm going to have to do whatever it takes to allow the legacy network to connect to me, because there's always another ISP somewhere that will claim they will allow my customer to service the customer on the legacy network. (even if it isn't true) By the time my customer finds the truth out he's left me and gone to the other ISP (and probably left that ISP and gone to yet another one) The same thing happened when Verizon.net started doing their "caller ID call-back" e-mail which is definitely NOT compliant to the RFCs. WE had to change to be compliant with them, even though they were the ones breaking the rules, because customers don't care who is right, they just want you to "fix it" and they don't care that your fix might be the wrong thing to do. >(which by the way you still haven't even received >your IPv6 block from ARIN, why are you even advocating crazy rules when you >don't even care about IPv6?) or anyone else. > Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that tracks them is in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've proposed. Yet, you accept it. > > >> - or you must agree that at some >> point the RIR's stop keeping track of it. If you do agree the RIR's stop >> keeping track of it at some point, then what conditions must exist for >> that >> point to be reached? > >RIR's are already not keeping track of legacy holders, simply because they >are not members controlled by the RIR. Wrong, as I illustrated above. Ted From james at towardex.com Thu Jul 5 16:32:36 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:32:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: <014a01c7bf2e$4e589ee0$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> Message-ID: <016b01c7bf43$adff4410$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> [ snip ] > > I guarenteee to you that Leatherman Tool Group IS NOT paying ARIN a dime, > has NEVER paid them a dime. Yet, ARIN is still tracking this so ARIN > obviously considers this legacy holder still their responsibility. Yes, I am well aware of ARIN keeping whois record of all legacy holders in their service region (likewise, 17.0.0.0/8, 3.0.0.0/8, etc, we can spend the whole summer discussing this string by string and argue over how fast the moon moves and etc). But you advocate that it is ARIN's responsibility: no, other than maintaining whois records, it is not, and that is my point in my previous email. ARIN policies do not apply, unless legacy holders voluntarily want ARIN policies to apply over them. > > No, sorry it does not work that way. The reason is that when "their" > customers > cannot connect to a service one of my customers is fielding, their > customer > may in fact complain to them, but my customer is going to complain to me > also. If I want to retain my customer I'm going to have to do whatever it > takes > to allow the legacy network to connect to me, because there's always > another > ISP somewhere that will claim they will allow my customer to service the > customer on the legacy network. (even if it isn't true) That's a moot argument. You can enable IPv6 and IPv4 on your network and figure out dualstacking migration like other ISP's are doing (heck, even most "Tier-1" ISP's and many large access carriers are working toward a solution now, number of big guys already offering production class service already). After you enable it, your customers can suddenly talk to both worlds until much of the Internet moves over to IPv6, which you can then turn off IPv4. And reduced-cost transition mechanisms are continued to be worked on at IETF and other forums, such as Teredo, and that original PT-NAT idea back in the days was pretty cool too. Are you advocating that you are going to sue Apple for deprecating support for AppleTalk in recent Mac OS X series, because your network continues to use old AppleTalk protocol and you're hell bent on keeping it? How about move on like everyone else has, to TCP/IP, in order to support Apple share volumes? We can play this game all day long, citing specific scenarios that all of us encounter on a daily basis to counter-argue each other. So please, get on with the program. Technology changes, market adopts, and there's always something in life called marginal cost of doing business. IPv4->IPv6 transition is costly but it is manageable and acceptable by much of the Internet community, especially with hard work being put forth on transition technologies. If you want to create chaos because you are so lazy to transition your network to IPv6, then I am sorry that there isn't much that people can do for you. > Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that tracks them is > in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've proposed. Yet, you accept > it. Because legacy holders got their IP space before ARIN existed, thus RSA and ARIN policies do not apply to them. Since when did ARIN become a government body? I mean do we really need a lawyer to figure this out? James From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 16:53:39 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:53:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <3889FEE9-5D5B-4BEA-A716-216F9DAB54D7@delong.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:30 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > >> >> So you are saying that legacy holders boycotting the RSA is a good >> thing? > >No. I'm saying that launching a denial of service attack against >them is an >even worse thing. > And I'm not advocating that. > >> >> Oh I forgot, you were advocating that >> legacy holders don't even have to sign an RSA to get IPv6. >> >Please show me one place where I have advocated such a thing. >I have never advocated that and your accusations here are baseless >and misleading at best. I already e-mailed you this off list, maybe you didn't read it: In your proposal: "... 1. If the organization does not currently pay ARIN fees, they shall remain fee exempt...." You didn't say "fee exempt for a certain amount of time", nor did you say "does not currently pay ARIN IPv4 fees they shall remain fee exempt for IPv4 only" both of which would have closed a huge hole. > >Hardly. I just want to recognize what is and isn't possible and do the >best we can with the situation we have. There really is little point in >wasting the monumental amount of effort and capital that it would take >to (probably fail in the) attempt to revoke legacy IPv4 resources. How does the RIR's ceasing to track IPv4 that isn't under an RSA with them post-IPv4 runout constitute a revoking of IPv4? >By the time all the court battles were done, the reclamation of >legacy IPv4 resources would probably not be of substantial benefit >to the community. > This isn't about reclamation. This is about getting people that aren't paying IPv4 fees to an RIR, out of the tracking system once IPv4 runout has happened and a significant number of orgs have switched to IPv6. Specifically, my suggestion wouldn't even take place until IPv4 was effectively useless for new assignments - even if it was available. >Marking the addresses as "up for grabs" and having a policy discussion >on record describing "up for grabs" the way you already have would >certainly hold up as "encouraging". > Except that this isn't a policy discussion since no policy has been proposed and your not even discussing the items in the post anyway. >Actually, besides the RIRs there are a number of other resources that >track these, including, but, not limited to completewhois. > So go join the fringe at http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ and quit bothering the rest of us. How many ISP's do they have now? 7? 8? If you really thought that someone else tracking these was a serious problem you wouldn't be using that as an argument, because since an alterantive would be available, it would make what the RIR's did a non-issue. The only reason your bringing it up is because you know it's a bogus argument. > >The RIRs are not governing bodies. It amazes me that you are so >thoroughly >ignorant of the law. The governing bodies that govern what is or is >not allowed >on the highways are actual GOVERNMENTs. The RIRs are NOT GOVERNMENT. Yup - and so, what requirement does an RIR have to continue to record a legacy assignment? They have no contract and as you point out they aren't a government, so why do they have to keep doing it? >Further, you can take a horse and buggy onto an interstate highway. >While you >can't do it in most places, your blanket assertion does prove false >if you look >at Pennsylvania, parts of Ohio, and a number of other rural areas >where the >Interstate replaced earlier roads and would render places >inaccessible to >horse and buggy if they could not traverse said interstate. http://www.commonsensei69.org/damage.htm "...Because the Amish travel only by horse-and-buggy, they cannot travel on or across interstate highways..." >> Fundamentally I am saying let's make that policy right now. If you >> believe >> that 20% IPv6 adoption isn't sufficient enough to call IPv4 >> obsolete, then >> what about 40% IPv6 adoption? If that's not enough, what about 60% >> adoption? >> >What does it matter? What's the point of calling IPv4 obsolete at >the RIR >level? When ISPs start derouting it, it will be obsolete for any >meaningful >definition. > That is nothing more than setting up circular logic. As long as the RIR's track IPv4, those assignments are official, and anyone who has one can claim that an ISP cannot deroute it. (you claim they can file a court injunctions over this kind of thing, well there you go) So the ISP's aren't going to deroute them. Your saying the RIR's aren't going to consider the assignments obsolete until the ISP's start derouting them. Until they consider them obsolete they will still track them. So in summary, the RIR's will never stop tracking them and the ISPs will never stop routing them. So explain why again that a legacy holder who pays no fees to an RIR for IPv4 would choose to go to IPv6 and start paying fees? >> >Doesn't matter. Eventually, the legacy holders won't be able to get >an ISP >to route their IPv4 addresses. Then why are you so opposed to setting a date in advance that we will all say this is going to happen? If it doesen't matter, then why argue against this? Sounds to me like the boyfriend objecting to his girlfriend visiting churches and looking at wedding packages, while at the same time insisting that he's going to marry her... eventually. Ted From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 16:58:37 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:58:37 +0300 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/5/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > The only chaos would be among legacy IPv4 assignments patently false, chaos would ensue for all. "legacy" space holders, "grabbers", and everyone who has to decide whom to listen to when these blocks are announced. > that the legacy holders refuse to sign an RSA for, they don't need to, see slide 9 on the link that Randy sent in a different thread. >and the legacy > holders of such blocks could fix that easily by just signing an > RSA. > If they haven't yet, they probably won't. It doesn't look like you'll get consensus on this one. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 5 16:59:18 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:59:18 -1000 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <468D5BA6.90600@psg.com> > Obviously people like you won't learn anything until your face is rubbed > in it. As I kind of expected. So, I'll wait - and a decade from now when > IPv4 runout is a dim memory and everyone is bemoaning how the major > networks still haven't switched over, then perhaps you will learn then. clue, oh mature one: i work for the first isp on the bleeping planet to provide ipv6. randy From dean at av8.com Thu Jul 5 17:03:23 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've just reviewed the clarification order. There are some problems. I note that ASN 11083 (block 5 on Kremen's documents) was under ARIN's control in 2001. ARIN transferred this block to LACNIC in 2002, _while_ it was under order to transfer it to Kremen. Plzak's statement that it isn't under ARIN's control really should be challenged. I note that ASN's 11082 and 11084 are still in ARIN's hands, so this wasn't simply swept up in a larger block of numbers, but was individually transfered in _spite_ of the court order. Well, that's snarky: transfer it to LACNIC so it can't be given to Kremen. There is a legal term for that, I think. The Court should be informed of this. The transfer to LACNIC really should be invalidated. The court says "Kremen may sign his choice of (1) RSA mirroring the terms and conditions of ARIN's agreement with Cohen (RSA 2);" RSA 2 would be the legacy form. (Essentially, nothing but the name and address). So, ARIN should just change the name and address, as Kremen requests. While the court found that 2 blocks don't have to be transfered (AS11083 and an IP block belonging to UUnet apparently just used by Cohen), Kremen won again: ARIN has to give Cohen's legacy terms to Kremen, if Kremen wants them (and he does). Yet, ARIN still refuses to comply, and by its refusal, harms Kremen further. ARIN knows that it ultimately has no choice but to comply. Its dispute is not based on any principle but on obstinance. Just like Exactis v. MAPS, where MAPS lawyer was chastised for coming to court the frivolous claim that the First Amendment permitted violation of the Sherman Act and extortion, etc. It is perhaps telling that Paul Vixie is involved in both of these two frivolous disputes. (Vixie was CEO of MAPS, and is a board member of ARIN) There is no policy or principle that is being defended by ARIN. Neither Kremen, nor the Court, are demanding any policy change on ARIN. ARIN just has to do for Kremen exactly what it did for Cohen. ARIN's continued dispute and refusal is just frivolous. Therefore, greater penalties on ARIN are very appropriate. That is a proper and just result, to everyone but the anarchists. More inline. On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > (Search for RYAN to find his words) > ----- > We received the order approximately two years after it had been issued. The court found otherwise, and found that Kremen had been negotiating with ARIN for 5 years between 2001 and 2006. > It was provided to us in a formal way, and Mr. Kremen asked us to obey > the order. That is, to revoke the IP resources that were held by Mr. > Cohen and transfer them to Mr. Kremen. We agreed to do so, so long as > Mr. Kremen would do what all of you have done since ARIN began in 1998, > which is apply for the resources and sign the normal RSA. In fact, and the court held, Mr. Kremen can't be held standards that didn't apply to Mr. Cohen, and don't apply to other legacy holders. If Cohen didn't sign a current RSA, neither should Kremen. The court cites 3 RSAs (at Kremen's choice) that are appropriate. The Court included the one Kremen has wanted: the legacy agreement. ARIN wants Kremen to agree to _new_ terms, and ARIN's lawyer incorrectly describes Kremen's as not wanting to agree to _any_ terms. The court has repeatedly, now, said that ARIN has to give Kremen the same terms it gave Cohen (the legacy terms: basically, name and address). ARIN is refusing to do that. > Mr. Kremen refused to do that and has refused to the current date. His > theory is that he doesn't have to do that because he has a court > order, and our theory is that we have a certain set of rules and > requirements, and that you have to obey the rules and requirements of > the community, and we don't read the court order as giving Mr. Kremen > a permanent pass from the rules that all of you obey. ... We revoked > resources that were held by Mr. Cohen or his associates that were > covered by the 2001 order when they were not paid for. In other words, > by our own processes, we were very aggressively trying to recover > these resources so that they weren't out there. ... ARIN can't claim that _Cohen_ didn't pay on the block after 2001, because thats during the dispute. The 'payment' argument was already rejected, by the way. > First, we've gone back to the court and said that the court in its > 2001 order ought to consider modifying the order to make it clear that > Mr. Kremen, like everyone else, has to sign an RSA and has to pay for > the resources in the future. ... One is that Mr. Kremen is a legacy > address holder. He has legacy address blocks. ----- No such formal agreement was ever required of legacy holders. Nor is any such agreement even now required of _current_ legacy holders. Current legacy holders have never signed a formal RSA, just the legacy registration form, so there is no justification to force Kremen to do more. This is the basis of Kremen's suit, and Kremen has won repeatedly. What's more, its all a waste of ARIN resources to fight this. There is no principle to be found here for ARIN. (except the principle of anarchy and not submitting to court orders, which many people here do advocate, but which isn't going to be useful in court) ARIN can perform immediately: It can record Kremen as a legacy holder in 30 seconds, if it chooses to do so. Its been ordered to make Kremen a legacy holder. There is no justification for disobeying the court. > It's all about an open and level playing field. On that, we agree. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 17:08:19 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:08:19 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <016b01c7bf43$adff4410$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >James Jun >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:33 PM >To: 'ARIN PPML' >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >Yes, I am well aware of ARIN keeping whois record of all legacy holders in >their service region (likewise, 17.0.0.0/8, 3.0.0.0/8, etc, we can >spend the >whole summer discussing this string by string and argue over how fast the >moon moves and etc). > >But you advocate that it is ARIN's responsibility: no, other than >maintaining whois records, it is not, and that is my point in my previous >email. ARIN policies do not apply, unless legacy holders voluntarily want >ARIN policies to apply over them. > OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin simply removing these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? >After you enable it, your customers can suddenly talk to both >worlds until much of the Internet moves over to IPv6, which you can then >turn off IPv4. No, I can't. I think you missed the point. As long as someone out there on the Internet is uing ONLY IPv4, then I'm not going to be able to turn off dual stacking if one of my customers wants to talk to them or wants them to talk to my customer. There is none of this "much of" you seem to think exists. I can argue with my customer that "much of" the Internet is now single IPv6 stacked and his coorespondent on the IPv4-only network is who is the problem - that will go over like a lead balloon, my customer will just go to some other ISP. And most likely it will be a legacy ISP with a block they have that they aren't paying for. And if you really honestly believe this then tell me what ratio of dual-stack to single-IPv4 stack constitutes "much of" and I'll adjust my suggestion accordingly. Of course you will probably then argue it's irrelevant and still shouldn't be done. Face it, in summary, you don't want IPv4 shut off by any overt action, you just want to do nothing and your assuming that somehow it will just stop being used by itself. That isn't realistic. > >Are you advocating that you are going to sue Apple for deprecating support >for AppleTalk in recent Mac OS X series, because your network continues to >use old AppleTalk protocol and you're hell bent on keeping it? No, the opposite. I'm arguing that Apple SHOULD deprecate support for Appletalk to try to get people to switch away from it. ARIN and the RIR's SHOULD deprecate support for the non-paying legacy IPv4 blocks to try to get the legacy holders to either sign an RSA for their IPv4 or go to IPv6. >How about >move on like everyone else has, to TCP/IP, in order to support Apple share >volumes? EXACTLY, how about having the legacy IPv4 holders move on to IPv6 and just give up their IPv4 ranges? >transition technologies. If you want to create chaos because you are so >lazy to transition your network to IPv6, then I am sorry that there isn't >much that people can do for you. > Please continue to shout that to every legacy IPv4 holder out there, I think they need to hear it. > >> Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that >tracks them is >> in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've proposed. Yet, you accept >> it. > >Because legacy holders got their IP space before ARIN existed, thus RSA and >ARIN policies do not apply to them. Then ARIN should simply ignore them, remove all records of who the legacy blocks are owned by, and not make assignments out of those ranges. As you say, the RSA and ARIN policies don't apply to them. Ted From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Jul 5 16:41:08 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:41:08 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><3c3e3fca0707051051p6d9de6d9v6d3abe4591ed2be@mail.gmail.com><72918365-6104-45D6-90EC-94F6CDD8EB5D@delong.com> <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC514@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Message-ID: <06de01c7bf48$d56931a0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" > That's an interesting point. It sounds to me as if the ultimate > depletion of IPv4 space is not going to be put off to any great > degree by reclaiming the old swamp space. Projections say it'll buy us six months. Even if it's year or two, that's still of dubious benefit in the long run. > And, ARIN has guidelines for acquiring new space based > upon need/justification as defined by previous allocations. > If it's true that reclamation is not going to help us to any great > degree, why not focus our efforts on writing language to > allow entities to use swamp space as justification for IPv6 > allocations, but not provide any particular incentives beyond > that? That's how things work for v4, but it's not how things work for v6. As it stands, all one needs for a v6 allocation is to be an "existing, known ISP" or have a plan to make 200 assignments, and all one needs for a v6 assignment is to qualify for a v4 assignment. Presumably, anyone with v4 swamp space already meets the relevant standard, so what needs to be changed? Can you provide an example of someone with v4 swamp space who _isn't_ elligible for v6 space already but should be? S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 17:15:59 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:15:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >McTim >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:59 PM >To: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >On 7/5/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> The only chaos would be among legacy IPv4 assignments > >patently false, chaos would ensue for all. "legacy" space holders, >"grabbers", and everyone who has to decide whom to listen to when >these blocks are announced. > Why, all they have to do is look and see if the block is registered in an RIR. > >If they haven't yet, they probably won't. It doesn't look like you'll >get consensus on this one. If there is no consensus on what to do with the IPv4 blocks held by the legacy holders after 20% of the Internet has become IPv6 only, then there is absolutely no point in proposing any further policies dealing with IPv4 runout, because people really honestly don't want to switch over. The IPv4 runout has become Somebody Else's Problem, and as long as it is such, Somebody Else is going to solve it. Hopefully you read Douglas Adams so you get the reference. Ted From mksmith at adhost.com Thu Jul 5 17:17:59 2007 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:17:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <06de01c7bf48$d56931a0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <371EB4EE-C2FE-46CD-BAF9-DB35937B572A@delong.com><3c3e3fca0707051051p6d9de6d9v6d3abe4591ed2be@mail.gmail.com><72918365-6104-45D6-90EC-94F6CDD8EB5D@delong.com> <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC514@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> <06de01c7bf48$d56931a0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC52C@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:41 PM > To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost; Owen DeLong; William Herrin > Cc: ARIN Address Policy > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives > > Thus spake "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" > > That's an interesting point. It sounds to me as if the ultimate > > depletion of IPv4 space is not going to be put off to any great > > degree by reclaiming the old swamp space. > > Projections say it'll buy us six months. Even if it's year or two, > that's > still of dubious benefit in the long run. > > > And, ARIN has guidelines for acquiring new space based > > upon need/justification as defined by previous allocations. > > If it's true that reclamation is not going to help us to any great > > degree, why not focus our efforts on writing language to > > allow entities to use swamp space as justification for IPv6 > > allocations, but not provide any particular incentives beyond > > that? > > That's how things work for v4, but it's not how things work for v6. As > it > stands, all one needs for a v6 allocation is to be an "existing, known > ISP" > or have a plan to make 200 assignments, and all one needs for a v6 > assignment is to qualify for a v4 assignment. > > Presumably, anyone with v4 swamp space already meets the relevant > standard, > so what needs to be changed? Can you provide an example of someone > with v4 > swamp space who _isn't_ elligible for v6 space already but should be? > I think we're on the same page here. We (not you and I) seem to be overly concerned with incenting or dis-incenting the swamp holders into returning their space to ARIN. If they can get IPv6 space with no hassles and there are no real benefits to reclaiming the space in terms of buying us additional time in a IPv4 world, why do we care? I'm not sure how modifying ARIN policy in regards to swamp holders is going to promote the transition to IPv6. Regards, Michael K. Smith mksmith at adhost.com (work) mksmith at mac.com (!work) From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 17:19:29 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:19:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <468D5BA6.90600@psg.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:59 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >> Obviously people like you won't learn anything until your face is rubbed >> in it. As I kind of expected. So, I'll wait - and a decade >from now when >> IPv4 runout is a dim memory and everyone is bemoaning how the major >> networks still haven't switched over, then perhaps you will learn then. > >clue, oh mature one: i work for the first isp on the bleeping planet to >provide ipv6. > Off of a Xenix system, no less! ;-) Ted From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu Jul 5 17:32:17 2007 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 21:32:17 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC52C@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> References: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC514@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> <06de01c7bf48$d56931a0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316022AC52C@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Message-ID: <20070705213217.GA4400@vacation.karoshi.com.> top postiing to annoy.. :) i THINK that for the legacy holders I know, the value add for them in entering into a relationship w/ ARIN is one of keeping data current/fresh... like getting records updated. the value add for ARIN is that there is/becomes an unambigious tie as ARIN being the recognised successor in interest from the original registry. little or nothing to do w/ IPv6 and only tangential bearing on reclaimation. at least from this neck of the woods. --bill > > I think we're on the same page here. We (not you and I) seem to be > overly concerned with incenting or dis-incenting the swamp holders into > returning their space to ARIN. If they can get IPv6 space with no > hassles and there are no real benefits to reclaiming the space in terms > of buying us additional time in a IPv4 world, why do we care? I'm not > sure how modifying ARIN policy in regards to swamp holders is going to > promote the transition to IPv6. > > Regards, > > Michael K. Smith > mksmith at adhost.com (work) > mksmith at mac.com (!work) > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jul 5 18:47:51 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:47:51 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN/Kremen matter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dean - ARIN has stipulated since the beginning that signing a version of the RSA would be necessary to effect the transfers requested. This was the primary basis of initial dispute between the parties. In December, the US District Court dismissed Kremen's claims with prejudice, and further made his signing a version of ARIN's RSA a prerequisite condition prior to transfer of any numbering resources. ARIN will, of course, honor the Court's order if/when the prerequisites are met. I'd like to also note that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just seen to dismiss the appeal of this case on May 24th, and that was the result of discussions between representatives of the parties. At this point, you have made points contrary to those already agreed between the parties in this matter and you do not appear to represent either party. If that situation changes, please contact me at your convenience. /John John Curran Chairman of the Board of Trustees American Registry for Internet Numbers === At 5:03 PM -0400 7/5/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >I've just reviewed the clarification order. There are some problems. I >note that ASN 11083 (block 5 on Kremen's documents) was under ARIN's >control in 2001. ARIN transferred this block to LACNIC in 2002, _while_ >it was under order to transfer it to Kremen. Plzak's statement that it >isn't under ARIN's control really should be challenged. I note that >ASN's 11082 and 11084 are still in ARIN's hands, so this wasn't simply >swept up in a larger block of numbers, but was individually transfered >in _spite_ of the court order. Well, that's snarky: transfer it to >LACNIC so it can't be given to Kremen. There is a legal term for that, I >think. The Court should be informed of this. The transfer to LACNIC >really should be invalidated. > >The court says "Kremen may sign his choice of (1) RSA mirroring the >terms and conditions of ARIN's agreement with Cohen (RSA 2);" > >RSA 2 would be the legacy form. (Essentially, nothing but the name and >address). So, ARIN should just change the name and address, as Kremen >requests. > >While the court found that 2 blocks don't have to be transfered (AS11083 >and an IP block belonging to UUnet apparently just used by Cohen), >Kremen won again: ARIN has to give Cohen's legacy terms to Kremen, if >Kremen wants them (and he does). > >Yet, ARIN still refuses to comply, and by its refusal, harms Kremen >further. ARIN knows that it ultimately has no choice but to comply. Its >dispute is not based on any principle but on obstinance. Just like >Exactis v. MAPS, where MAPS lawyer was chastised for coming to court the >frivolous claim that the First Amendment permitted violation of the >Sherman Act and extortion, etc. It is perhaps telling that Paul Vixie >is involved in both of these two frivolous disputes. (Vixie was CEO of >MAPS, and is a board member of ARIN) > >There is no policy or principle that is being defended by ARIN. Neither >Kremen, nor the Court, are demanding any policy change on ARIN. ARIN >just has to do for Kremen exactly what it did for Cohen. ARIN's >continued dispute and refusal is just frivolous. Therefore, greater >penalties on ARIN are very appropriate. That is a proper and just >result, to everyone but the anarchists. > >More inline. > >On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> >> (Search for RYAN to find his words) >> ----- >> We received the order approximately two years after it had been issued. > >The court found otherwise, and found that Kremen had been negotiating >with ARIN for 5 years between 2001 and 2006. > >> It was provided to us in a formal way, and Mr. Kremen asked us to obey >> the order. That is, to revoke the IP resources that were held by Mr. >> Cohen and transfer them to Mr. Kremen. We agreed to do so, so long as >> Mr. Kremen would do what all of you have done since ARIN began in 1998, >> which is apply for the resources and sign the normal RSA. > >In fact, and the court held, Mr. Kremen can't be held standards that >didn't apply to Mr. Cohen, and don't apply to other legacy holders. If >Cohen didn't sign a current RSA, neither should Kremen. The court cites >3 RSAs (at Kremen's choice) that are appropriate. The Court included the >one Kremen has wanted: the legacy agreement. > >ARIN wants Kremen to agree to _new_ terms, and ARIN's lawyer incorrectly >describes Kremen's as not wanting to agree to _any_ terms. The court >has repeatedly, now, said that ARIN has to give Kremen the same terms it >gave Cohen (the legacy terms: basically, name and address). ARIN is >refusing to do that. > >> Mr. Kremen refused to do that and has refused to the current date. His >> theory is that he doesn't have to do that because he has a court >> order, and our theory is that we have a certain set of rules and >> requirements, and that you have to obey the rules and requirements of >> the community, and we don't read the court order as giving Mr. Kremen >> a permanent pass from the rules that all of you obey. ... We revoked >> resources that were held by Mr. Cohen or his associates that were >> covered by the 2001 order when they were not paid for. In other words, >> by our own processes, we were very aggressively trying to recover >> these resources so that they weren't out there. ... > >ARIN can't claim that _Cohen_ didn't pay on the block after 2001, >because thats during the dispute. The 'payment' argument was already >rejected, by the way. > >> First, we've gone back to the court and said that the court in its >> 2001 order ought to consider modifying the order to make it clear that >> Mr. Kremen, like everyone else, has to sign an RSA and has to pay for >> the resources in the future. ... One is that Mr. Kremen is a legacy >> address holder. He has legacy address blocks. ----- > >No such formal agreement was ever required of legacy holders. Nor is any >such agreement even now required of _current_ legacy holders. Current >legacy holders have never signed a formal RSA, just the legacy >registration form, so there is no justification to force Kremen to do >more. This is the basis of Kremen's suit, and Kremen has won >repeatedly. > >What's more, its all a waste of ARIN resources to fight this. There is >no principle to be found here for ARIN. (except the principle of anarchy >and not submitting to court orders, which many people here do advocate, >but which isn't going to be useful in court) > >ARIN can perform immediately: It can record Kremen as a legacy holder in >30 seconds, if it chooses to do so. Its been ordered to make Kremen a >legacy holder. There is no justification for disobeying the court. > >> It's all about an open and level playing field. > >On that, we agree. > >-- >Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? >www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service >617 344 9000 From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 5 18:49:54 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:49:54 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> No. I'm saying that launching a denial of service attack against >> them is an >> even worse thing. >> > > And I'm not advocating that. > Up for grabs is _EXACTLY_ that whether you realize it or not. >> >>> >>> Oh I forgot, you were advocating that >>> legacy holders don't even have to sign an RSA to get IPv6. >>> >> Please show me one place where I have advocated such a thing. >> I have never advocated that and your accusations here are baseless >> and misleading at best. > > I already e-mailed you this off list, maybe you didn't read it: > > In your proposal: > > "... 1. If the organization does not currently pay ARIN > fees, they shall remain fee exempt...." > > You didn't say "fee exempt for a certain amount of time", nor did you > say "does not currently pay ARIN IPv4 fees they shall remain > fee exempt for IPv4 only" both of which would have closed a huge hole. > Nor did section 1 discuss IPv6 address space. Read section 4. which is the only part of the proposal that speaks of anything related to IPv6 space being issued... > 4. All organizations returning space under this > policy shall, if they meet other eligibility > requirements and so request, obtain an > appropriate IPv6 end-user assignment > or ISP allocation as applicable, with no fees > for the first 5 years. Organizations electing > to receive IPv6 allocation/assignment under > this provision must sign a current RSA and > must agree that all of their IPv4 resources are > henceforth subject to the RSA. Organizations > taking this election shall be subject to end-user > fees for their IPv4 resources not previously > under an ARIN RSA. If they are already an > ARIN subscriber, then IPv4 resources > affected by this process may, instead, be added to > their existing subscriber agreement at the > address holder's discretion. Note that it very specifically requires them not only to sign an RSA for their IPv6 resources, but, also, in order to get IPv6 for free for 5 years, they _MUST_ bring all IPv4 resources under RSA _AND_ start paying appropriate fees for them. >> >> Hardly. I just want to recognize what is and isn't possible and >> do the >> best we can with the situation we have. There really is little >> point in >> wasting the monumental amount of effort and capital that it would >> take >> to (probably fail in the) attempt to revoke legacy IPv4 resources. > > How does the RIR's ceasing to track IPv4 that isn't under an RSA > with them > post-IPv4 runout constitute a revoking of IPv4? > Removing then from the registry isn't revocation, but, it's also not helpful and there's really no point to doing it. >> By the time all the court battles were done, the reclamation of >> legacy IPv4 resources would probably not be of substantial benefit >> to the community. >> > > This isn't about reclamation. This is about getting people that > aren't paying IPv4 fees to an RIR, out of the tracking system once > IPv4 runout has happened and a significant number of orgs have > switched to IPv6. What's the point of doing that? > Specifically, my suggestion wouldn't even take place until IPv4 > was effectively useless for new assignments - even if it was > available. > I'm not convinced this assertion is accurate. >> Marking the addresses as "up for grabs" and having a policy >> discussion >> on record describing "up for grabs" the way you already have would >> certainly hold up as "encouraging". >> > > Except that this isn't a policy discussion since no policy has been > proposed and your not even discussing the items in the post anyway. > Sorry... If this isn't a policy discussion, it doesn't belong on this mailing list. This list is for the purpose of discussing and developing ARIN policies. Whether the policy has been proposed or not, this _IS_ a policy discussion. You can have a policy discussion without a formal policy proposal. >> Actually, besides the RIRs there are a number of other resources that >> track these, including, but, not limited to completewhois. >> > > So go join the fringe at http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ and quit > bothering the rest of us. How many ISP's do they have now? 7? 8? First, I would hardly put www.completewhois.net in the same bin with opennic.unrated.net. Second, I have a long history of constructive participation in the ARIN policy process including a number of proposals I have either written or participated in the development of which are now policy. > If you really thought that someone else tracking these was a serious > problem you wouldn't be using that as an argument, because since an > alterantive would be available, it would make what the RIR's did a > non-issue. The only reason your bringing it up is because you know > it's a bogus argument. > I'm bringing it up because it further demonstrates the extent to which your proposal accomplishes nothing positive and all of its limited potential effects are just disruptive. >> >> The RIRs are not governing bodies. It amazes me that you are so >> thoroughly >> ignorant of the law. The governing bodies that govern what is or is >> not allowed >> on the highways are actual GOVERNMENTs. The RIRs are NOT GOVERNMENT. > > Yup - and so, what requirement does an RIR have to continue to record > a legacy assignment? They have no contract and as you point out they > aren't a government, so why do they have to keep doing it? > I believe they made an agreement to do so with IANA as part of the process of their formation. Other than that, I suppose, perhaps, they don't need to, however, there's also no gain to anyone for them to stop doing so. >> Further, you can take a horse and buggy onto an interstate highway. >> While you >> can't do it in most places, your blanket assertion does prove false >> if you look >> at Pennsylvania, parts of Ohio, and a number of other rural areas >> where the >> Interstate replaced earlier roads and would render places >> inaccessible to >> horse and buggy if they could not traverse said interstate. > > http://www.commonsensei69.org/damage.htm > > "...Because the Amish travel only by horse-and-buggy, they cannot > travel on or across interstate highways..." > That's only between two cities within Indiana which is not one of the states I mentioned. I know that the Amish are allowed to operate horse and buggy on Pennsylvania interstates, and, I know that in some parts of Ohio this is common practice and the LE folks seem to ignore it even if it is against the law. Unfortunately, neither Ohio nor Pennsylvania put their laws on the web in such a way as to make it easy for me to give you the exact statutes (or even to read them myself). > >>> Fundamentally I am saying let's make that policy right now. If you >>> believe >>> that 20% IPv6 adoption isn't sufficient enough to call IPv4 >>> obsolete, then >>> what about 40% IPv6 adoption? If that's not enough, what about 60% >>> adoption? >>> >> What does it matter? What's the point of calling IPv4 obsolete at >> the RIR >> level? When ISPs start derouting it, it will be obsolete for any >> meaningful >> definition. >> > > That is nothing more than setting up circular logic. As long as the > RIR's track IPv4, those assignments are official, and anyone who has > one can claim that an ISP cannot deroute it. (you claim they can file > a court injunctions over this kind of thing, well there you go) So > the > ISP's aren't going to deroute them. > Nobody can claim an ISP can't deroute an IPv4 address today. Lots of IPSs deroute lots of addresses every day now. No ISP has to carry your IPv4 route unless you or someone else has a contract with them that says they will. > Your saying the RIR's aren't going to consider the assignments > obsolete > until the ISP's start derouting them. Until they consider them > obsolete they will still track them. > Pretty much. > So in summary, the RIR's will never stop tracking them and the ISPs > will never stop routing them. So explain why again that a legacy > holder who pays no fees to an RIR for IPv4 would choose to go to IPv6 > and start paying fees? > I don't accept your premise. I firmly believe that ISPs will begin charging more and more for IPv4 connectivity and eventually will terminate IPv4 services on an ISP by ISP basis. I believe that when there is no longer a critical mass of IPv4 connectivity, IPv4 will rapidly fall into disuse on the public internet and that at that time, the RIRs can put obsolescence policies in place to sunset the tracking of IPv4 registration data. An IPv4 legacy holder who wants to talk to the rest of the internet will move to IPv6 because he will have to in order to talk to the rest of the internet. It will be the ISPs that provide this forcing function, however, and not the RIRs. >>> >> Doesn't matter. Eventually, the legacy holders won't be able to get >> an ISP >> to route their IPv4 addresses. > > Then why are you so opposed to setting a date in advance that we will > all say this is going to happen? If it doesen't matter, then why > argue > against this? > Because the date should be decided on a case-by-case basis between the ISP and the address holder, not by some RIR policy decision without any visibility into the real world of what is happening. Because there is no benefit to doing so, only cost. > Sounds to me like the boyfriend objecting to his girlfriend visiting > churches and looking at wedding packages, while at the same time > insisting > that he's going to marry her... eventually. > Only if we accept all of your broken assertions. I don't. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 20:09:59 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:09:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <20070705213110.GN9951@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: bill fumerola [mailto:billf at mu.org] >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:31 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: 'ARIN PPML' >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin >simply removing >> these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? > >who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community >trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does >something foolish. > >as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're >legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more >useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder. For now. What about post-IPv4 runout? Ted From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Jul 5 20:24:48 2007 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:24:48 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <468D8BD0.2010401@rollernet.us> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bill fumerola [mailto:billf at mu.org] >> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:31 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: 'ARIN PPML' >> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin >> simply removing >>> these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? >> who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community >> trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does >> something foolish. >> >> as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're >> legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more >> useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder. > > For now. What about post-IPv4 runout? > How does whois become less useful after that point? ~Seth From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jul 5 20:33:22 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:33:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:50 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >> >> This isn't about reclamation. This is about getting people that >> aren't paying IPv4 fees to an RIR, out of the tracking system once >> IPv4 runout has happened and a significant number of orgs have >> switched to IPv6. > >What's the point of doing that? > Your asking in effect, what is the point of winding down IPv4? If there is no point of winding down IPv4 then what is the point of winding ip IPv6? >> Specifically, my suggestion wouldn't even take place until IPv4 >> was effectively useless for new assignments - even if it was >> available. >> >I'm not convinced this assertion is accurate. > OK. Are you saying that IPV4 will NEVER become useless for new assignments? Explain yourself! >>> Marking the addresses as "up for grabs" and having a policy >>> discussion >>> on record describing "up for grabs" the way you already have would >>> certainly hold up as "encouraging". >>> >> >> Except that this isn't a policy discussion since no policy has been >> proposed and your not even discussing the items in the post anyway. >> >Sorry... If this isn't a policy discussion, it doesn't belong on this >mailing list. >This list is for the purpose of discussing and developing ARIN policies. >Whether the policy has been proposed or not, this _IS_ a policy >discussion. >You can have a policy discussion without a formal policy proposal. > People do it all the time on this list, introducing all kinds of side issues. Such as the topic that seems to come up all the time that people who want legacy holders to start paying their way are jealous, nasty and so on. Even though that has not been on any policy I've seen. >> >> Yup - and so, what requirement does an RIR have to continue to record >> a legacy assignment? They have no contract and as you point out they >> aren't a government, so why do they have to keep doing it? >> >I believe they made an agreement to do so with IANA as part of the >process >of their formation. Other than that, I suppose, perhaps, they don't >need to, >however, there's also no gain to anyone for them to stop doing so. > OK, well here is the heart of the issue. Are you saing then that the RIR's should continue to keep legacy IPv4 assignments recorded in perpetuity? What happens when an org switches over to IPv6 and decides to tell an RIR that they don't want their IPv4 anymore and take it back and stop billing them for it, but they are going to keep their IPv6 in force and continue to pay the bills on that. Right now the RIR pulls the whois and makes the IPv4 available for assignment elsewhere. But, what happens in the future when everyone on the Internet has switched to dual-stacks and so nobody wants to pay for IPv4 assignments any longer - and companies are turning them in right and left. All except the legacy holders - since they aren't paying for them, they won't have incentive to inform anyone they aren't using them any longer, since that will not affect any billing they are paying. is the RIR supposed to keep the legacy IPv4 in it's whois forever? >I don't accept your premise. I firmly believe that ISPs will begin >charging more and more for IPv4 connectivity and eventually will >terminate IPv4 services on an ISP by ISP basis. I believe that >when there is no longer a critical mass of IPv4 connectivity, IPv4 >will rapidly fall into disuse on the public internet and that at that >time, the RIRs can put obsolescence policies in place to sunset >the tracking of IPv4 registration data. > >An IPv4 legacy holder who wants to talk to the rest of the internet >will move to IPv6 because he will have to in order to talk to the >rest of the internet. It will be the ISPs that provide this forcing >function, however, and not the RIRs. > What possible incentive do the ISPs have to stop using IPv4 unless they are paying for the addressing? Legacy holders are not paying thus where is the incentive? >> >> Then why are you so opposed to setting a date in advance that we will >> all say this is going to happen? If it doesen't matter, then why >> argue >> against this? >> >Because the date should be decided on a case-by-case basis between >the ISP and the address holder, not by some RIR policy decision without >any visibility into the real world of what is happening. Then IPv6 switchover will never happen. > Because there >is no benefit to doing so, only cost. > There is cost to any possible future. The future you are advocating - that IPv4 be considered viable for time out of mind beyond the end of IPv4 runout is the most costly of all. It will promote a buying-and-selling market and make the growing networks bear the brunt of the costs while the legacy holders reap windfalls. Ted From james at towardex.com Thu Jul 5 20:49:05 2007 From: james at towardex.com (James Jun) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 20:49:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018401c7bf67$82b47630$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> >> >> Then why are you so opposed to setting a date in advance that we will >> all say this is going to happen? If it doesen't matter, then why >> argue against this? >> >Because the date should be decided on a case-by-case basis between the >ISP and the address holder, not by some RIR policy decision without any >visibility into the real world of what is happening. > > Then IPv6 switchover will never happen. > As someone who maintains over 450 IPv6 hand-off connections around the U.S., I can tell you that the reality contradicts your argument on all grounds. Most large carriers already run IPv6 natively on their backbone; those who haven't done it so far at the least have IPv6 migration planning being planned out inside their organization. There is far greater number of small ISP's who haven't gotten the memo yet to implement IPv6, than there are big guys who already are working toward some sort of solution for their customers. I say this, because much of your utopian drama proposals are designed around "rich gets richer, poorer gets poorer, big guys are the evil" mantra, including your latest frivolous proposal against legacy holders. And seriously, most legacy holders, especially the large-block holders, are not in carrier business with some notable exceptions (for example, Level3 holding 4.0.0.0/8, after acquisition of BBN assets; however, even so, (3) has a direct IPv6 allocation from ARIN, 2001:1900::/32 and offer IPv6 service to customers now -- and they are an ARIN member). A lot of legacy holders are in enterprise environment (unless you consider small /24-/22 mom & pop legacy holders and enterprise WAN's as big giant evil carriers who would prevent Global IPv6 Adoption from ever happening), which they will only make themselves suffer by not adopting IPv6. So please, before you argue that somehow if we don't do XYZ in a frivolous chaotic manner, IPv6 will never happen, first pay more attention to products and services available in the carrier industry today regarding IPv6; and new developments that are being worked on to further expand IPv6 services out to the edge (the end users). It's all happening right now, slowly but definitely gaining traction, all without your input. Regards, james From Keith at jcc.com Thu Jul 5 23:03:22 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:03:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives Message-ID: <4d34b95bc071886854b72ceb892bee82468db10c@jcc.com> I've seen a lot of discussion over the last couple of days about legacy address space reclamation and whether or not legacy address holders are paying their fair share to support ARIN. The thing I haven't seen are any numbers. How many legacy address blocks exist that are large enough to be useful to ARIN? If there are enough address blocks to be useful to ARIN, then it may be worth enhancing incentives. This discussion of reclamation incentives has also generated a lot of discussion about legacy address holders who have not signed an RSA and do not pay ARIN anything. However, I have not seen anything about how many legacy address holders exist. Numbers would be useful to help decide whether the proposed change is worth making. Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From Keith at jcc.com Thu Jul 5 23:31:33 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:31:33 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal Message-ID: <3b7d91eb38eb96161bc866c67491a133468db7a8@jcc.com> One of the assumptions of the "Up For Grabs" not-quite-a-proposal is that there are evil legacy address holders who have refused to pay their fair share of the ARIN costs. I've been the technical point of contact for our IPv4 /24 address for some time. I don't ever remember seeing anything from ARIN asking us to sign an RSA and pay a yearly fee. So, I've refused to respond to an invitation I haven't received. I went to the ARIN web site to see what I would have to do to sign an RSA for our IPv4 /24. I don't immediately see anything that says "If you are a legacy address holder, this is what you do..." So, I've refused to follow a process that isn't visible. Yep, I'm definitely evil. I do see the ARIN membership application, which seems to be different from signing an RSA. Maybe if I become a member and pay the yearly membership fee I won't be as evil. If "Up For Grabs" were a real policy proposal, I would be opposed to it. It is an attempt to punish legacy address holders rather than an attempt to do anything positive. Since it is not a real policy proposal, I can ignore it for the moment, and maybe it will go away. Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Jul 6 01:02:01 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 00:02:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives References: <4d34b95bc071886854b72ceb892bee82468db10c@jcc.com> Message-ID: <099801c7bf8d$39830410$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Keith W. Hare" > I've seen a lot of discussion over the last couple of days about > legacy address space reclamation and whether or not legacy > address holders are paying their fair share to support ARIN. > > The thing I haven't seen are any numbers. > ... > This discussion of reclamation incentives has also generated > a lot of discussion about legacy address holders who have > not signed an RSA and do not pay ARIN anything. However, > I have not seen anything about how many legacy address > holders exist. Per the presentation at ARIN XIX, there are 31,386 legacy direct registrations to 20,501 organizations, and 2,277 of those orgs have signed an RSA. Currently no fees are collected for those 31,386 legacy blocks; however, the orgs that have signed an RSA are likely paying for other, non-legacy resources. Also, only 44% of the blocks appear in the routing tables, and only 54% have been updated since Dec 97. That means a sizeable fraction of the blocks are likely abandoned. Since ARIN (per a response to an off-list query) doesn't know whether legacy blocks are "assignments" or "allocations", it's not possible to determine how much revenue would be generated if all of them were subject to fees. Worst case, ARIN would collect around $1M/yr if the active blocks were all determined to be "assignments" and the registrants were paying the $100/yr maintenance fee -- an increase of about 10% to ARIN's revenue. OTOH, if most of the blocks were "allocations", the increase could be 20+ times that. Nobody knows. > How many legacy address blocks exist that are large enough > to be useful to ARIN? All of them are potentially useful. However, I haven't seen any stats that break out how many of the registrations are of the various sizes. Common sense says that most will be /24s, but there's gobs of /16s out there as well, and a few /8s. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 01:39:31 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:39:31 +0300 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/6/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >patently false, chaos would ensue for all. "legacy" space holders, > >"grabbers", and everyone who has to decide whom to listen to when > >these blocks are announced. > > > > Why, all they have to do is look and see if the block is registered in > an RIR. Don't you mean RR? First of all we will have to ignore hierarchical authentication, but let's say for the sake of this argument that you and I could both register a /8 when it became "up for grabs". I register it in RIPE, you register it in ARIN on the same day. Whose block is it then? The first to create the inetnum? The first to create a route object? if the RIRs have no role in adjudicating disputes, then what? the courts? where, EU or US? see, chaos. > > If there is no consensus on what to do with the IPv4 blocks held by the > legacy holders after 20% of the Internet has become IPv6 only, then > there is absolutely no point in proposing any further policies dealing with > IPv4 runout, because people really honestly don't want to switch over. I don't see the logic here. I don't know why 20% is a magic number. Some folk don't won't want to switch and might never, Those IPv4 registrations could be in RIR DBs in perpetuity. I don't see a problem here. > > The IPv4 runout has become Somebody Else's Problem, and as long as it > is such, Somebody Else is going to solve it. This proposal would make it a problem for all. Right now it's a challenge, not a problem. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Jul 6 02:10:15 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 01:10:15 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal References: Message-ID: <09f501c7bf95$c5f15bb0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" > I guarenteee to you that Leatherman Tool Group IS NOT > paying ARIN a dime, has NEVER paid them a dime. Yet, > ARIN is still tracking this so ARIN obviously considers this > legacy holder still their responsibility. > ... > Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that > tracks them is in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've > proposed. Yet, you accept it. That is primarily because it benefits ARIN's paying members to know who's using that space. WHOIS primarily benefits people _other than_ the registrant. The same argument could be made for reverse DNS service, though that's not quite as clear-cut. "Tracks" is also not quite accurate; ARIN is dependent on the registrants keeping their data up to date. Half of them haven't bothered to do so in the last decade, and ARIN isn't out there hunting them down. The amount of money spent on legacy folks is minimal, since the systems need to be built and maintained for non-legacy folks anyways. It's a negligible incremental cost. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Jul 6 09:43:34 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:43:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives In-Reply-To: <4d34b95bc071886854b72ceb892bee82468db10c@jcc.com> References: <4d34b95bc071886854b72ceb892bee82468db10c@jcc.com> Message-ID: <20070706134333.GA54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:03:22PM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: > If there are enough address blocks to be useful to ARIN, then it may be > worth enhancing incentives. Useful is an interesting word. Can we push out IPv4 exhaustion with aggressive reclamation? Only for a relatively short period of time. I think the top end estimate is 1-2 years. Is there value in taking away unused addresses and giving them to people who can use them based on "efficient utilization" and stewardship prior to them just becoming an asset on the black/grey/white market? Depends on your point of view. Is there value to having everyone under an RSA, one of the terms of which is that there are "no property rights" to addresses prior to exhaustion? Depends on your point of view. Is it good to start now reclaiming the low hanging fruit such that if the transition goes poorly and the community wants us to reach for fruit further up the tree we already have some experience picking it? Perhaps. -- 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: From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Jul 6 09:52:27 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:52:27 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders Message-ID: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:31:33PM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: > I've been the technical point of contact for our IPv4 /24 address for > some time. I don't ever remember seeing anything from ARIN asking us to > sign an RSA and pay a yearly fee. So, I've refused to respond to an > invitation I haven't received. > > I went to the ARIN web site to see what I would have to do to sign an > RSA for our IPv4 /24. I don't immediately see anything that says "If > you are a legacy address holder, this is what you do..." So, I've > refused to follow a process that isn't visible. Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how to sign an RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could then mass-mail all of the legacy holders with the web page. For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of the right things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN attempt some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? -- 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: From Keith at jcc.com Fri Jul 6 10:42:06 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:42:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders Message-ID: <5c31aa460b4f3eef0ee13986b3c2779e468e54d1@jcc.com> > In a message sent on Friday, July 06, 2007 9:52 AM, > Leo Bicknell wrote: > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders > >>... > > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how to sign > an RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could then > mass-mail all of the legacy holders with the web page. ARIN should definitely create a web page with information for legacy holders. > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of the right > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that > ARIN attempt > some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? > Yes, direct outreach to legacy holders is the right thing to do. Policies are great (this is the policy mailing list, after all) but if the people/companies to whom the policies are addressed don't know the policies exist, the policies are are not particularly useful. Keith ______________________________________________________________ Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 http://www.jcc.com USA ______________________________________________________________ From paul at vix.com Fri Jul 6 10:57:46 2007 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:57:46 +0000 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:52:27 -0400." <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how to sign > an RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could then > mass-mail all of the legacy holders with the web page. > > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of the right > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN attempt > some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? i think the reason there are no instructions is that we don't know what they should say. "if you have a /16 that you would not qualify for under current rules, then as a legacy holder upgrading to RSA, you [may][may not] keep this address space." riddle me that, batman. From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Jul 6 10:57:57 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <5c31aa460b4f3eef0ee13986b3c2779e468e54d1@jcc.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066707117@mail> Yes, outreach is the right thing to do. I am not optimistic that it will have any appreciable effect, but we need to be able to say we tried cooperative measures. Kevin :$s/worry/happy/g > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Keith W. Hare > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:42 AM > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders > > > > In a message sent on Friday, July 06, 2007 9:52 AM, Leo Bicknell > > wrote: > > To: ARIN PPML > > Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders > > > >>... > > > > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how > to sign an > > RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could > then mass-mail > > all of the legacy holders with the web page. > > ARIN should definitely create a web page with information for > legacy holders. > > > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of > the right > > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN > > attempt some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? > > > > Yes, direct outreach to legacy holders is the right thing to do. > > Policies are great (this is the policy mailing list, after all) but if > the people/companies to whom the policies are addressed don't know the > policies exist, the policies are are not particularly useful. > > Keith > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc. > keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road > Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381 > Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023 > http://www.jcc.com USA > ______________________________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From jeroen at unfix.org Fri Jul 6 10:58:52 2007 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:58:52 +0100 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <468E58AC.7010708@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:31:33PM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: >> I've been the technical point of contact for our IPv4 /24 address for >> some time. I don't ever remember seeing anything from ARIN asking us to >> sign an RSA and pay a yearly fee. So, I've refused to respond to an >> invitation I haven't received. >> >> I went to the ARIN web site to see what I would have to do to sign an >> RSA for our IPv4 /24. I don't immediately see anything that says "If >> you are a legacy address holder, this is what you do..." So, I've >> refused to follow a process that isn't visible. > > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how to sign > an RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could then > mass-mail all of the legacy holders with the web page. > > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of the right > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN attempt > some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? I think such a page and then spamming the legacy holders with the information might be worthwhile. As ARIN would then be spamming them anyway with this information, an additional incentive, like the one proposed by Owen DeLong might be a good idea to spam along, also raising IPv6 awareness to them. One could also go propose a "Sign IPv4 RSA for legacy space at 50% of normal fees when also getting IPv6 space (under RSA+normal fees+justification)" option. Nevertheless, a good information page about legacy space, what it is in the first place and how to easily get an RSA signed for it, might be very worthwhile. 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: From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Jul 6 11:09:02 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:09:02 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <468E58AC.7010708@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066707118@mail> There ya go.. just spam them with a tried and true method.. "You have been pre-approved for a large block of IPv6 addresses at a huge discount if you respond now. Free T-shirt to the first 50 registrants. Some restrictions apply." Then just put an RSA in the fine print.. lol Kevin :$s/worry/happy/g > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jeroen Massar > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:59 AM > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders > > Leo Bicknell wrote: > > In a message written on Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:31:33PM > -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: > >> I've been the technical point of contact for our IPv4 /24 > address for > >> some time. I don't ever remember seeing anything from > ARIN asking us > >> to sign an RSA and pay a yearly fee. So, I've refused to > respond to > >> an invitation I haven't received. > >> > >> I went to the ARIN web site to see what I would have to do > to sign an > >> RSA for our IPv4 /24. I don't immediately see anything > that says "If > >> you are a legacy address holder, this is what you do..." So, I've > >> refused to follow a process that isn't visible. > > > > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how > to sign an > > RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could > then mass-mail > > all of the legacy holders with the web page. > > > > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of > the right > > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN > > attempt some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? > > I think such a page and then spamming the legacy holders with > the information might be worthwhile. > > As ARIN would then be spamming them anyway with this > information, an additional incentive, like the one proposed > by Owen DeLong might be a good idea to spam along, also > raising IPv6 awareness to them. > > One could also go propose a "Sign IPv4 RSA for legacy space > at 50% of normal fees when also getting IPv6 space (under RSA+normal > fees+justification)" option. > > Nevertheless, a good information page about legacy space, > what it is in the first place and how to easily get an RSA > signed for it, might be very worthwhile. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 6 11:21:22 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:21:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2007, at 6:52 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:31:33PM -0400, > Keith W. Hare wrote: >> I've been the technical point of contact for our IPv4 /24 address for >> some time. I don't ever remember seeing anything from ARIN asking >> us to >> sign an RSA and pay a yearly fee. So, I've refused to respond to an >> invitation I haven't received. >> >> I went to the ARIN web site to see what I would have to do to sign an >> RSA for our IPv4 /24. I don't immediately see anything that says "If >> you are a legacy address holder, this is what you do..." So, I've >> refused to follow a process that isn't visible. > > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how to sign > an RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could then > mass-mail all of the legacy holders with the web page. > Becoming a member and bringing your resources under RSA are separate and unrelated things for most legacy holders. There really are at least four sets of directions needed, but, yes, having a "Legacy Holder Information Page" which is easily reachable from the front page would be a good idea IMHO. Here are the four sets of directions needed on or from that page: + Legacy End User who wishes to bring their addresses into the ARIN process and does not have any RSA-related resources. + Legacy End User who also has RSA-related resources and would like their legacy resources added to their existing RSA. + Legacy ISP who wishes to add their legacy resources to their current ARIN membership. + Legacy End User who wishes to join ARIN as a member. > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of the right > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN > attempt > some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? > YES!!!! Owen From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Jul 6 11:28:19 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:28:19 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <00ac01c7bfe3$49f7da90$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Paul Vixie" > i think the reason there are no instructions is that we don't know > what they should say. "if you have a /16 that you would not qualify > for under current rules, then as a legacy holder upgrading to RSA, > you [may][may not] keep this address space." riddle me that, > batman. Merely signing an RSA does not bring legacy resources under the domain of ARIN policy nor cause fees to be assessed. This should probably be explicitly stated in policy somewhere. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Jul 6 11:38:36 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:38:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 02:57:46PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > i think the reason there are no instructions is that we don't know what > they should say. "if you have a /16 that you would not qualify for under > current rules, then as a legacy holder upgrading to RSA, you [may][may not] > keep this address space." riddle me that, batman. A number of people have stood up and said that ARIN made a promise to the legacy holders that they would exist under the status-quo "forever". Randy has provided the only hard evidence I have seen, and it's a single bullet point in a presentation prior to ARIN's formation. That has, however, continued to be the status-quo for 10+ years now. It has also been the status quo that if you want to transfer the block to someone else, you trigger a review and the new recipient must sign an RSA. Of course, council would have to put this into legalese, most likely by altering the RSA for legacy holders but I think something along the lines of: "As an original owner of a legacy address space block you may continue to use the address space forever for your own purposes. As a legacy holder you will not be subjected to ARIN's policies for legacy space holders for the legacy blocks only, and will not be subject to audit by ARIN for those legacy blocks. Any sale, lease, or transfer of the block or a portion of the block to a party outside the original owners control will require that the new recipient sign a current RSA and agree to abide by all of ARIN's policies for address space assignment. Failure to maintain contact information for the block, or to pay the $100 per year maintenance fee will result in forfeiture of the block. The $100 per year fee will never change." Quite simply, an original legacy holder gets their (so claimed) implied contract put on paper, and we codify in that paper that it is in fact a non-transferable agreement. I think for the legacy holders to have a formal contract with that written down would be seen as a huge win for them, and would constitute giving them something. At the same time, they would be under an RSA, and ARIN would have a legal stick to help curtail any black market in IP's that may appear. -- 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: From terry.l.davis at boeing.com Fri Jul 6 12:15:45 2007 From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:15:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org><30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A03685880@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> Leo Not a bad approach; it would give ARIN some control of the transfer process then. Your second sentence needs a bit of a touch-up; it doesn't seem to read quite right. Take care Terry > -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:39 AM > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders > > In a message written on Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 02:57:46PM +0000, Paul Vixie > wrote: > > i think the reason there are no instructions is that we don't know what > > they should say. "if you have a /16 that you would not qualify for > under > > current rules, then as a legacy holder upgrading to RSA, you [may][may > not] > > keep this address space." riddle me that, batman. > > A number of people have stood up and said that ARIN made a promise > to the legacy holders that they would exist under the status-quo > "forever". Randy has provided the only hard evidence I have seen, > and it's a single bullet point in a presentation prior to ARIN's > formation. > > That has, however, continued to be the status-quo for 10+ years > now. It has also been the status quo that if you want to transfer > the block to someone else, you trigger a review and the new recipient > must sign an RSA. > > Of course, council would have to put this into legalese, most > likely by altering the RSA for legacy holders but I think something > along the lines of: > > "As an original owner of a legacy address space block you may > continue to use the address space forever for your own purposes. > As a legacy holder you will not be subjected to ARIN's policies for > legacy space holders for the legacy blocks only, and will not be > subject to audit by ARIN for those legacy blocks. > > Any sale, lease, or transfer of the block or a portion of the block > to a party outside the original owners control will require that > the new recipient sign a current RSA and agree to abide by all of > ARIN's policies for address space assignment. > > Failure to maintain contact information for the block, or to pay > the $100 per year maintenance fee will result in forfeiture of the > block. The $100 per year fee will never change." > > Quite simply, an original legacy holder gets their (so claimed) > implied contract put on paper, and we codify in that paper that it > is in fact a non-transferable agreement. I think for the legacy > holders to have a formal contract with that written down would be > seen as a huge win for them, and would constitute giving them > something. At the same time, they would be under an RSA, and ARIN > would have a legal stick to help curtail any black market in IP's > that may appear. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org From andrew.dul at quark.net Fri Jul 6 12:33:35 2007 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:33:35 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources Message-ID: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> I've been working on this policy with a few people from the AC for a couple of months. Given today's discussion on the PPML, it seemed like an appropriate time to submit it to the policy process. ============== Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 1. Policy Proposal Name: Authentication of Legacy Resources 2. Author a. name: Andrew Dul b. email: andrew.dul at quark.net c. telephone: +1 206-359-8130 d. organization: Perkins Coie LLP 3. Proposal Version: 1.0 4. Submission Date: 07012007 5. Proposal type: New 6. Policy term: Permanent 7. Policy statement: Add new NRPM section 4.9 - Legacy Records Legacy resource record holders shall be permitted to sign an registration services agreement which permits the organization which is currently using the resources as of January 1, 2007 to continue to use those resources as long as a registration services agreement is signed by the organization and the organization is not past-due on their annual maintenance fee. ARIN will evaluate and verify the chain of custody of any resource records prior to executing a registration services agreement with an organization. If a legacy resource holder requests additional IPv4 resources all IPv4 resources (legacy and non-legacy) shall be evaluated to determine utilization for additional assignments under NRPM sections 4.2 or 4.3. ARIN shall use all reasonable methods to attempt to contact legacy record holders starting on January 1, 2008. ARIN shall also post information on the public website regarding this outreach to legacy resource holders. No changes shall be made to legacy resource records which are not covered by a registration services agreement after December 31, 2007. Add new NRPM section 7.3 - Legacy Reverse Delegation Records Legacy IP address record holders who have not signed a registration services agreement with ARIN will have their name server delegations for the in-addr.arpa zone removed starting on June 30, 2009. All name server delegations shall be removed from the in-addr.arpa zone by December 31, 2009. If an individual contacts ARIN and claims to represent a legacy record holder after the removal of an organization's name server delegations, the individual shall be permitted to request a one-time 6 month reinstatement of their name server delegations. This 6 month period is intended to allow an organization to work in good faith to establish a registration services agreement. 8. Rationale: An ARIN Legacy resource holder is an organization which was issued number resources prior to the formation of ARIN and whose registration information was not transferred to another RIR through the Early Registration Transfer Project (http://www.arin.net/registration/erx). Legacy resource holders were issued number resources through an informal process. This policy proposal attempts to bring these legacy resource holders into a formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of the IP numbering resources for many of the legacy record holders. Some legacy resource holders have expressed concerns about committing to a registration services agreement when the legacy resource holder cannot be assured that they will be permitted to retain and their resources for the long-term. This policy proposal also does not preclude existing legacy space holders, who may have signed another version of the registration services agreement from having the same commitment level. It is suggested that the Board of Trustees formalize the annual maintenance fees for legacy resource holders at a level similar to the $100 USD per year for end-sites. This policy sets in place a notification period of 18 months to contact all legacy resource holders and creates an incentive for the holders to formalize their relationship with ARIN. The dates in this policy proposal were arbitrarily chosen based upon an expected ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees by December 31, 2007. If this policy is implemented after December 31, 2007, the trigger dates in the policy should be adjusted appropriately. Given the informal relationship under which the resources were granted, ARIN current maintains the records including WHOIS and in-addr.arpa delegations in a best-effort fashion. Many believe that ARIN may not be obligated to maintain these records. ARIN has experienced some difficulty maintaining these records. Legacy records have been a popular target for hijackers, in part due to the out of date information contained in these records. Having up to date contact information would assist ARIN and ISP's in insuring the stability of the Internet. This policy proposal sets a termination date for in-addr.arpa delegation services for legacy resource record holders who have not formalized their relationship with ARIN through a registration services agreement. The 6 month period of delegation record removal was intended to provide ARIN the flexibility of removing the records on a gradual plan during second half of 2009 and to avoid a large change on a single day. Legacy resource holders who sign a registration services agreement would continue to receive all the services that are currently provided by ARIN plus they would be eligible for any future services that ARIN may offer, such as cryptographic signing of resource records. 9. Timetable for implementation: As stated in policy 10. Meeting presenter: Andrew Dul END OF TEMPLATE From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 6 13:13:51 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:13:51 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> References: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: While I like the intent of the policy, I would oppose this policy as written. 1. While a bit softer, it's still somewhat of a strong-arm approach to the legacy issue and I think ARIN would get farther with outreach than tactics like this. 2. I would encourage Andrew to work with Leo and get something closer to Leo's proposal on the table as a policy proposal. 3. I'm not convinced legacy holders will have any desire or reason to pay fees to ARIN even with this policy. 4. Prohibiting changes to records is an absolute mistake. We do not want to further discourage legacy holders from keeping their records up to date. Owen On Jul 6, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Andrew Dul wrote: > I've been working on this policy with a few people from the AC for > a couple of months. Given today's discussion on the PPML, it > seemed like an appropriate time to submit it to the policy process. > > ============== > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Authentication of Legacy Resources > 2. Author > a. name: Andrew Dul > b. email: andrew.dul at quark.net > c. telephone: +1 206-359-8130 > d. organization: Perkins Coie LLP > 3. Proposal Version: 1.0 > 4. Submission Date: 07012007 > 5. Proposal type: New > 6. Policy term: Permanent > 7. Policy statement: > > Add new NRPM section 4.9 - Legacy Records > > Legacy resource record holders shall be permitted to sign an > registration services agreement which permits the organization > which is currently using the resources as of January 1, 2007 to > continue to use those resources as long as a registration services > agreement is signed by the organization and the organization is not > past-due on their annual maintenance fee. ARIN will evaluate and > verify the chain of custody of any resource records prior to > executing a registration services agreement with an organization. > > If a legacy resource holder requests additional IPv4 resources all > IPv4 resources (legacy and non-legacy) shall be evaluated to > determine utilization for additional assignments under NRPM > sections 4.2 or 4.3. > > ARIN shall use all reasonable methods to attempt to contact legacy > record holders starting on January 1, 2008. > > ARIN shall also post information on the public website regarding > this outreach to legacy resource holders. > > No changes shall be made to legacy resource records which are not > covered by a registration services agreement after December 31, 2007. > > Add new NRPM section 7.3 - Legacy Reverse Delegation Records > > Legacy IP address record holders who have not signed a registration > services agreement with ARIN will have their name server > delegations for the in-addr.arpa zone removed starting on June 30, > 2009. All name server delegations shall be removed from the in- > addr.arpa zone by December 31, 2009. > > If an individual contacts ARIN and claims to represent a legacy > record holder after the removal of an organization's name server > delegations, the individual shall be permitted to request a one- > time 6 month reinstatement of their name server delegations. This > 6 month period is intended to allow an organization to work in good > faith to establish a registration services agreement. > > 8. Rationale: > > An ARIN Legacy resource holder is an organization which was issued > number resources prior to the formation of ARIN and whose > registration information was not transferred to another RIR through > the Early Registration Transfer Project (http://www.arin.net/ > registration/erx). Legacy resource holders were issued number > resources through an informal process. This policy proposal > attempts to bring these legacy resource holders into a formal > agreement with ARIN, the manager of the IP numbering resources for > many of the legacy record holders. > > Some legacy resource holders have expressed concerns about > committing to a registration services agreement when the legacy > resource holder cannot be assured that they will be permitted to > retain and their resources for the long-term. This policy proposal > also does not preclude existing legacy space holders, who may have > signed another version of the registration services agreement from > having the same commitment level. It is suggested that the Board > of Trustees formalize the annual maintenance fees for legacy > resource holders at a level similar to the $100 USD per year for > end-sites. > > This policy sets in place a notification period of 18 months to > contact all legacy resource holders and creates an incentive for > the holders to formalize their relationship with ARIN. The dates > in this policy proposal were arbitrarily chosen based upon an > expected ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees by December 31, > 2007. If this policy is implemented after December 31, 2007, the > trigger dates in the policy should be adjusted appropriately. > > Given the informal relationship under which the resources were > granted, ARIN current maintains the records including WHOIS and in- > addr.arpa delegations in a best-effort fashion. Many believe that > ARIN may not be obligated to maintain these records. ARIN has > experienced some difficulty maintaining these records. Legacy > records have been a popular target for hijackers, in part due to > the out of date information contained in these records. Having up > to date contact information would assist ARIN and ISP's in insuring > the stability of the Internet. > > This policy proposal sets a termination date for in-addr.arpa > delegation services for legacy resource record holders who have not > formalized their relationship with ARIN through a registration > services agreement. The 6 month period of delegation record > removal was intended to provide ARIN the flexibility of removing > the records on a gradual plan during second half of 2009 and to > avoid a large change on a single day. > > Legacy resource holders who sign a registration services agreement > would continue to receive all the services that are currently > provided by ARIN plus they would be eligible for any future > services that ARIN may offer, such as cryptographic signing of > resource records. > > 9. Timetable for implementation: As stated in policy > 10. Meeting presenter: Andrew Dul > > END OF TEMPLATE > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From mack at exchange.alphared.com Fri Jul 6 13:53:44 2007 From: mack at exchange.alphared.com (mack) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:53:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F8417F92DE3E@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> One way to add incentive to legacy address holders would be to withdraw reverse DNS support. We can assume most legacy address holders use that space for a mail server. Most mail servers are configured to require a matching reverse DNS before they will accept mail from an ip address. This is particularly true for SPF records and other mail authentication schemes. I am sure there are other applications that similarly require reverse DNS. Withdrawing reverse DNS would be a moderately strong motivator for legacy address holders with a large number of mail servers. Losing e-mail is very costly for most businesses. This could very easily cover the cost of coming into compliance for some percentage of legacy address holders. When e-mail stops working people pay attention. This is not as draconian as dropping them from whois or reissuing their space. Combined with an appropriate carrot such as fee waivers this could be effective. This of course should be after some outreach is attempted. A percentage of legacy space is definitely abandon and there should be some effort to reclaim it. This could be a preliminary step in reclamation. LR Mack McBride Network Administrator Alpha Red, Inc. From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jul 6 14:05:05 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:05:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <00ac01c7bfe3$49f7da90$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> <00ac01c7bfe3$49f7da90$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: At 10:28 AM -0500 7/6/07, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >Merely signing an RSA does not bring legacy resources under the domain of >ARIN policy nor cause fees to be assessed. This should probably be >explicitly stated in policy somewhere. If one were to sign the standard RSA, I expect you'd consider yourself then subject to the policies adopted by public policy process. Section 7 of said document doesn't leave a lot of room for alternative interpretation. That's not to prevent ARIN from having an RSA which has different terms for this purpose if that be the desire of the community, but it would need to be be clearly spelt out and would come with its share of pluses and minuses. /John From ipgoddess at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 14:08:47 2007 From: ipgoddess at gmail.com (Stacy Taylor) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:08:47 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <1c16a4870707061108i2c045ae0reb7613e55fa5fc9f@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, Of all the ideas we've had about legacy space holders, I like this one the best. At the very least, a link on the main page about what legacy space mean to ARIN and the community would be a great start. Extending a handshake is always better than hitting someone with a bat. Stacy On 7/6/07, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:31:33PM -0400, Keith W. Hare wrote: > > I've been the technical point of contact for our IPv4 /24 address for > > some time. I don't ever remember seeing anything from ARIN asking us to > > sign an RSA and pay a yearly fee. So, I've refused to respond to an > > invitation I haven't received. > > > > I went to the ARIN web site to see what I would have to do to sign an > > RSA for our IPv4 /24. I don't immediately see anything that says "If > > you are a legacy address holder, this is what you do..." So, I've > > refused to follow a process that isn't visible. > > Keith makes an interesting point. Should ARIN create a web page > clearly linked off the home page with instructions on how to sign > an RSA and become a Member for legacy holders? They could then > mass-mail all of the legacy holders with the web page. > > For all of our attempts to do things with policy, is one of the right > things to do to get the community behind a suggestion that ARIN attempt > some very direct outreach to the legacy holders? > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > -- :):) /S From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 6 14:22:56 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:22:56 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F8417F92DE3E@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F8417F92DE3E@exchange4.exchange.alphared.local> Message-ID: <8CCA6D1D-6206-465E-B925-E617E25F569C@delong.com> What would prevent the legacy holders from coming together and asking IANA to delegate those in-addrs to an alternate server? Owen On Jul 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, mack wrote: > One way to add incentive to legacy address holders would be to > withdraw > reverse DNS support. > > We can assume most legacy address holders use that space for a mail > server. > Most mail servers are configured to require a matching reverse DNS > before > they will accept mail from an ip address. This is particularly > true for > SPF records and other mail authentication schemes. I am sure there > are other applications that similarly require reverse DNS. > > Withdrawing reverse DNS would be a moderately strong motivator for > legacy > address holders with a large number of mail servers. Losing e-mail > is very > costly for most businesses. This could very easily cover the cost > of coming > into compliance for some percentage of legacy address holders. > When e-mail > stops working people pay attention. > > This is not as draconian as dropping them from whois or reissuing > their space. > Combined with an appropriate carrot such as fee waivers this could > be effective. > > This of course should be after some outreach is attempted. > A percentage of legacy space is definitely abandon and there should > be some > effort to reclaim it. This could be a preliminary step in reclamation. > > LR Mack McBride > Network Administrator > Alpha Red, Inc. > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jul 6 14:36:26 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:36:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <8CCA6D1D-6206-465E-B925-E617E25F569C@delong.com> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F8417F92DE3E@exchange4.exchange.alphared.lo cal> <8CCA6D1D-6206-465E-B925-E617E25F569C@delong.com> Message-ID: At 11:22 AM -0700 7/6/07, Owen DeLong wrote: >What would prevent the legacy holders from coming together and >asking IANA to delegate those in-addrs to an alternate server? The IANA could easily do exactly that... Of course, the IANA might also ask each of them about their actual utilization, and then read to them from RFC 2050: "IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met. The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4 address space." It would be awesome if they'd all come together in one spot... I'm sure something interesting would happen. /John From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Jul 6 14:38:04 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:38:04 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> <00ac01c7bfe3$49f7da90$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <021401c7bffc$fb7d5fb0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "John Curran" > At 10:28 AM -0500 7/6/07, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> Merely signing an RSA does not bring legacy resources under >> the domain of ARIN policy nor cause fees to be assessed. >> This should probably be explicitly stated in policy somewhere. > > If one were to sign the standard RSA, I expect you'd consider > yourself then subject to the policies adopted by public policy > process. Section 7 of said document doesn't leave a lot of > room for alternative interpretation. OTOH, sections 6 and 8 do leave a lot of room for debate because they only refer to "resources ... received from ARIN". One may read section 7 as saying policy is binding on legacy blocks, but if legacy holders aren't required to pay for them and are exempt from revocation, in practice there is no mechanism to force compliance with policy and therefore legacy holders aren't truly subject to it. As Mao said, power grows from the barrel of a gun. > That's not to prevent ARIN from having an RSA which has > different terms for this purpose if that be the desire of the > community, but it would need to be be clearly spelt out and > would come with its share of pluses and minuses. I can't say your interpretation is wrong, given your position, but I'd suggest that the text isn't as clear as it should be. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From Keith at jcc.com Fri Jul 6 14:44:09 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:44:09 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Message-ID: <15ebe21de99b7db1ce4d3df9ef7bd069468e8d8d@jcc.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of mack > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:54 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > One way to add incentive to legacy address holders would be > to withdraw reverse DNS support. It is premature to spend time devising threats to legacy address holders who haven't accepted an invitation that has not yet been issued. Keith From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Jul 6 14:50:06 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:50:06 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <15ebe21de99b7db1ce4d3df9ef7bd069468e8d8d@jcc.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> Strongly agreed.. let's try friendly means before we get belligerent.. who knows, if we invite them to the picnic and ask them nicely to dance they might actually like the idea.. Kevin :$s/worry/happy/g > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Keith W. Hare > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:44 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf > > Of mack > > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:54 PM > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > > > One way to add incentive to legacy address holders would be to > > withdraw reverse DNS support. > > It is premature to spend time devising threats to legacy > address holders who haven't accepted an invitation that has > not yet been issued. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Jul 6 14:55:33 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:55:33 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F8417F92DE3E@exchange4.exchange.alphared.lo cal> References: <859D2283FD04CA44986CC058E06598F8417F92DE3E@exchange4.exchange.alphared.lo cal> Message-ID: At 12:53 -0500 7/6/07, mack wrote: >One way to add incentive to legacy address holders would be to withdraw >reverse DNS support. This is 540 degrees from the right direction. Representing legacy holders in the registry benefits members as much as the legacy address holders. If the legacy space is not in the registry, it becomes "mystery space" and that is not helpful. Penalizing legacy space holders for their early adoption is an inappropriate way to thank them for being pioneers - okay, maybe they aren't the pioneers now, but the somewhere along the way the pioneer experience and burden has probably come along with the legacy space. Legacy holders ought to neither be coerced nor badgered into becoming part of the RSA'd crowd. They got the space they have "fair and square" and (probably) had to pay their dues in experience. The "burden" of them being in the registry ought to borne by those of us who rely on the registry (in the sense of "garbage in, garbage out"). Don't penalize database updates. All that will do is discourage anyone from putting accurate and up to date data in the database. If there is a real need for legacy holders to sign RSA's and let their space be treated as RIR allocated space, then the real need can be translated into a benefit to offer the legacy holders. Why would I voluntarily take on responsibility (signing the RSA) and cost (a maintenance fee) unless I get something in return? I am all for making the process of joining ARIN clear. I'm all for encouraging legacy resources to be brought under ARIN's policies. I'm all for outreach, a membership drive. But I am against any pressure or penalizing tactics to accomplish this. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Think glocally. Act confused. From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jul 6 15:18:23 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:18:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> Message-ID: At 1:50 PM -0500 7/6/07, Kevin Kargel wrote: > Strongly agreed.. let's try friendly means before we get belligerent.. >who knows, if we invite them to the picnic and ask them nicely to dance >they might actually like the idea.. > >Kevin > > > It is premature to spend time devising threats to legacy >> address holders who haven't accepted an invitation that has > > not yet been issued. >> > > Keith And actually, I agree as well that we should engage in outreach of legacy space holders in order to encourage address space usage and improved accuracy of our record keeping. It's the right thing to do, even if the adoption rate turns out to be low. My only purpose in sending the extract from RFC 2050 was simply to point out that the intent of the first IANA (Jon Postel) on this topic is rather clear, even before the formation of ARIN... one of the three tenets of address space management is conservation, via the fair distribution according to operational needs and via the prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the IP address space. One may not have signed an agreement with an RIR which says such, but that doesn't mean it wasn't implicit in your participation in the Internet. /John From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 6 15:45:56 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 03:45:56 +0800 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> Message-ID: <468E9BF4.3080309@psg.com> > My only purpose in sending the extract from RFC 2050 was simply to > point out that the intent of the first IANA (Jon Postel) on this > topic is rather clear, even before the formation of ARIN... one of > the three tenets of address space management is conservation, via the > fair distribution according to operational needs and via the > prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the IP > address space. One may not have signed an agreement with an RIR > which says such, but that doesn't mean it wasn't implicit in your > participation in the Internet. 2050 was after most of what we call legacy was allocated. it was well into the nsi years, and one year before arin. most was allocated by the early '90s. i not do decry prudence. but the social contract was much less clear when most of legacy space was being handed out. randy From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jul 6 16:11:32 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:11:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <468E9BF4.3080309@psg.com> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> <468E9BF4.3080309@psg.com> Message-ID: At 3:45 AM +0800 7/7/07, Randy Bush wrote: > > My only purpose in sending the extract from RFC 2050 was simply to >> point out that the intent of the first IANA (Jon Postel) on this >> topic is rather clear, even before the formation of ARIN... one of >> the three tenets of address space management is conservation, via the >> fair distribution according to operational needs and via the >> prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the IP >> address space. One may not have signed an agreement with an RIR >> which says such, but that doesn't mean it wasn't implicit in your >> participation in the Internet. > >2050 was after most of what we call legacy was allocated. it was well >into the nsi years, and one year before arin. most was allocated by the >early '90s. Randy, I agree, but note that RFC 2050's authorship includes most of the folks who performed those allocations (and earlier ones), including Jon. The allocation paperwork trail certainly could have been better, but it's hard to argue on the intent of RFC2050, which explicitly calls forth the right of the IANA to invalidate right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. If someone wants to claim that they received their assignment in the early days and that it carries no social obligations whatsoever, they're free to do so. Jon's not here to argue, and we didn't see fit to make it explicit in the forms, so it's an easy position to defend (at least from a legal perspective). /John From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 6 16:36:41 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:36:41 +0800 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> <468E9BF4.3080309@psg.com> Message-ID: <468EA7D9.1090607@psg.com> >> 2050 was after most of what we call legacy was allocated. it was well >> into the nsi years, and one year before arin. most was allocated by the >> early '90s. > > Randy, I agree, but note that RFC 2050's authorship includes most of > the folks who performed those allocations (and earlier ones), including > Jon. The allocation paperwork trail certainly could have been better, > but it's hard to argue on the intent of RFC2050, which explicitly calls > forth the right of the IANA to invalidate right to invalidate any IP > assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address > space no longer exists. > > If someone wants to claim that they received their assignment in the > early days and that it carries no social obligations whatsoever, they're > free to do so. Jon's not here to argue, and we didn't see fit to make it > explicit in the forms, so it's an easy position to defend (at least from a > legal perspective). the problem is that there was no perceived or legal obligation until maybe '94-ish. otherwise we would have not had such a damned uphill war to get cidr rolled. if there was a culture of conservation, would we have tossed out Bs and As just like we are tossing out /32s in ipv6 space now? randy From reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Fri Jul 6 17:39:39 2007 From: reid at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Brian Reid) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:39:39 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> <468E9BF4.3080309@psg.com> Message-ID: <40EE810DB60CEA9B7910777D@scarborough.isc.org> I am a legacy address holder. I didn't even know this until Leo Bicknell explained the concept to me last week. Until then I just thought I had a /24 that I was issued by Kim Hubbard of nic.ddn.mil in February 1992 that I've been using and depending on ever since. Since I've had a "legacy" assignment, I didn't think I needed to know or care much about ARIN when it was founded, except to be suspicious of it out of fear that it might be like ICANN. I think I had 3 or maybe 4 beers with Jon Postel over the years, and I met Joyce Reynolds a couple of times. I was a peripheral member of a long-gone community, and the creation of ARIN was politics that I didn't watch. I spent years wondering if I would someday be sent an invoice for my /24. I had a vague notion of what an RIR is, enough to realize that whatever an RIR was, I didn't need to care. I got another /24 in December 1993, this time from "netreg at internic.net", which I haven't used as much, and which is not currently routed because I work around people who are forever worrying that the core routing tables are too big, so as my small contribution to draining the swamp, I don't announce routes to it outside my house and my brother's house in Maine. If anybody ever tried to force my hand by cutting off in-addr delegation, I would do my best to fight back and fight dirty. If you shoot first, then you deserve what happens to you. Despite having been subscribed to PPML for months, I have no idea what an RSA is, though I know both Rivest and Adleman. If it is non-threatening and doesn't contain dangerous clauses that might cause me to lose my allocation, either by having it taken away from me or by raising the price to something that I could no longer afford, I'd probably be willing to sign it. What I want, and what I suspect that others like me would want, is something like a New York rent-controlled lease, that gives me safety by putting a lid on rent hikes, and lets me keep it as long as I continue to live there. I don't have the slightest idea what it costs these days to get a /24, or if it's even possible. I just used a search engine to look up "arin rsa" and I see what that is. Whether or not I'd be willing to sign such a thing would depend entirely on whether or not I trusted ARIN, which at the moment I do. I intensely distrust ICANN because of its imperial secrecy, and I've seen it behave badly for years; I have a vague fear that ARIN might drift towards becoming like ICANN, but as long as ARIN remains a trustworthy and relatively transparent and non-corrupt organization, I think I would have no issue in signing an RSA. The problem is just one of education. I've never needed to know or care about any of this stuff, and before I sign anything I need to know what it means. I can't understand what an ARIN RSA means without understanding ARIN and its place in the world, which means I have to learn a lot more about global politics than I'm accustomed to doing in a year not divisible by 4. Brian Reid Palo Alto, California, USA From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jul 6 18:01:58 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:01:58 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <40EE810DB60CEA9B7910777D@scarborough.isc.org> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670711D@mail> <468E9BF4.3080309@psg.com> <40EE810DB60CEA9B7910777D@scarborough.isc.org> Message-ID: At 2:39 PM -0700 7/6/07, Brian Reid wrote: >I just used a search engine to look up "arin rsa" and I see what that is. Whether or not I'd be willing to sign such a thing would depend entirely on whether or not I trusted ARIN, which at the moment I do. That's encouraging, at least. >as ARIN remains a trustworthy and relatively transparent and non-corrupt organization, I think I would have no issue in signing an RSA. In any case, keep a healthy dose of suspicion handy at all times, as having lots of skeptics watching is the one of the few things that helps keep community-based organizations on the right path... >The problem is just one of education. I've never needed to know or care about any of this stuff, and before I sign anything I need to know what it means. That sounds like an existence proof on the need for outreach; now we just need to figure out the right method and message. Thanks! /John From peter at boku.net Fri Jul 6 18:11:53 2007 From: peter at boku.net (Peter Eisch) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:11:53 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <40EE810DB60CEA9B7910777D@scarborough.isc.org> Message-ID: I too am a legacy /24 multi-homed user/holder. I got on ppml as my ASN came from ARIN a number of years ago. I too had no clue what RSA did or didn't mean until I got an end-user assignment for "work." The revolt-like comments with all the levity of torching the homes of legacy holders is, in a way humorous. The energy of youth can often be endearing if not tempered. I've been preparing for a couple of months to apply for an IPv6 End User Assignment but I have other projects that have been sucking my time dry. (Not time to apply, but the time to implement.) If I were approved and the fees were paid, would I be able to convert my legacy network into "good standing?" From Andrew's recent proposal I can't tell if this would meet the requirements. peter From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Sun Jul 8 17:04:23 2007 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:04:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Message-ID: <46915157.4030506@cjbsys.bdb.com> There has been a lot of reference to RFC 2050 for address assignment requirements and how we legacy people are under those requirements. RFC 2050 was issued in Nov 1996 and superseded RFC 1466 (May of 1993) which referenced RFC 1174 (Aug 1990) which appears to be the first to officially discuss address assignments. If you look at http://www.bdb.com/~cliffb/bdb_netreg.jpg, you'll see a copy of my address assignment which was issued in March of 1990. Not being funny, I don't think any of those RFCs apply to me. The assignment letter was a nice simple document in keeping with the times but there was no mention of requirements, usage and rules regarding revocation, fees etc. Having said that, I can see benefits to being an ARIN member. If ARIN can develop an RSA that says we'll charge you a nominal non-changing fee and not try to take your address space way as long as you continue to use it. Further, if ARIN is absorbed or otherwise changed, the agreement remains in place unchanged or is rendered null and void and we're back to legacy status. ( to avoid ICANN/NetSol problems) Do I really want to spend the money? Of course not, but I think it would probably be reasonable to contribute to the operation of ARIN. I much prefer the way ARIN is run over the DNS debacle. I feel like I've made a pact with the devil every time I have to go through the DNS renewal process. I've been quite impressed with most of the discussions and attitudes here and even though I don't grasp all the nuances of some of the arguments, I'm learning I obviously disagree with those who think ARIN should in some way force legacy users to join but strongly agree with those who want to invite us to join. I don't think you have a leg to stand on to make us join or take the addresses but if you approach us in a reasonable manner, I think you'll get a reasonable number to join. I'd like to claim I was smart enough to have done this all on my own back then but I got some good advice from people at the University of Maryland and the DC DEC Unilug so thanks to Mike Petry, Louis Mamakos and Fred Avolio. Their advice and guidance has stood the test of time. Cliff Bedore cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From bicknell at ufp.org Sun Jul 8 18:56:27 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:56:27 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <46915157.4030506@cjbsys.bdb.com> References: <46915157.4030506@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <20070708225627.GA59661@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Cliff Bedore wrote: > officially discuss address assignments. If you look at > http://www.bdb.com/~cliffb/bdb_netreg.jpg, you'll see a copy of my > address assignment which was issued in March of 1990. Not being funny, I want to thank you for posting the letter. I suspect more than a few people have lost their letter, and even if they have it haven't bothered to scan it in. For those who didn't get a network in 1990 this is a valuable part of history. I'd also like to show you what ARIN brings to the table. I'm sure you continue to reach the ARPA-Internet and DDN-Internet through a BBN supplied gateway so you're in compliance with this letter. Do you connect to a core gateway directly, or are you still running EGP? Humm, I'm guessing not; and of course I'm being totally sarcastic. If I were a legacy holder, I'd be worried. If I take the position you outlined (RFC's after I got my netblock don't apply, etc) then I have a great peice of paper allowing me to connect to the ARPA-Internet, or the DDN-Internet, or the NSF-Internet....none of which exist anymore. After all, the commercial Internet came after all that, so the legacy assignment must not apply to that use, right? But if I take the opposite position, that the letter carries forward and applies to today's commercial internet, then by extensions shouldn't all current RFC's under which the network is operated applied? Don't you automatically get sucked into RFC 2050? How can you pick and choose which parts of the modernized Internet apply? Most importantly, if someone, anyone were to go to court on either point of view it's likely the court would decide which applies. Which one would you prefer happens? You're not going to get any choice, unless by chance you're the one with the lawsuit. What would happen to you if the court ruled your legacy assignment doesn't mean squat in today's Internet? What if they ruled you had to comply with all current ARIN practices, including utilization requirements? However, by signing an RSA with ARIN you can get a current, up to date piece of paper, with real contractual terms going forward that back up a claim that the space is for your use. Even if some other random person out there sues and establishes one way or the other how legacy space should be treated you have no risk, being covered and up to date. You know what rules you have to follow, and you have a document that the community agrees supports your ability to use the address space That's the real reason legacy holders should want to update to a current agreement. It takes away risk. It's been said here many times, no one really knows what legacy holders are entitled to, because it was never written down. If you have a business with a risk assessment group tell that to them, and see how they react. I think if ARIN and the legacy holders can find a way to find each other and get RSA's signed it's a win for both parties. Both now clearly know that their relationship is current and what it covers. -- 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: From bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com Sun Jul 8 20:17:06 2007 From: bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:17:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Message-ID: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:56:27 -0400 > From: Leo Bicknell > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 05:04:23PM -0400, Cliff Bedore= > wrote: > > officially discuss address assignments. If you look at=20 > > http://www.bdb.com/~cliffb/bdb_netreg.jpg, you'll see a copy of my=20 > > address assignment which was issued in March of 1990. Not being funny,= > =20 > > I want to thank you for posting the letter. I suspect more than a > few people have lost their letter, and even if they have it haven't > bothered to scan it in. For those who didn't get a network in 1990 > this is a valuable part of history. > > I'd also like to show you what ARIN brings to the table. > > I'm sure you continue to reach the ARPA-Internet and DDN-Internet > through a BBN supplied gateway so you're in compliance with this > letter. Do you connect to a core gateway directly, or are you still > running EGP? > > Humm, I'm guessing not; and of course I'm being totally sarcastic. > > Sarcastic or not, you materially misrepresent what the letter says. :) It says that *IF* you connect to ARPA, or DDN you musc go through a BBN gateway, or the gateway of another ASN, and that some gateway to ARPA or DDN (yours or that other ASNs) must speak EGP. If you're *not* connecting to ARPA or DDN, then those restrictions are moot. As it makes clear when it states that a _separate_ authorization_ is required to connect to ARPA-Internet or DDN-Internet. That aside, the simple fact is that neither ARIN, ICANN, or even the U.S. Dept of Commerece have any way to *enforce* any restrictions on any use of any arbitrary ranges of numbers for network addressing purposes, by _anyone_. A coalition of network (and IX) operators could decide _tomorrow_ to ignore *all* address-range "assignments" from the above-mentioned hierarchy, and only route traffic from address-blocks "blessed" by some alternative source, and there is *nothing* that the aforementioned 'authorities' could do to prevent it. The existing system works *ONLY* because of 'voluntary co-operation', because 'enlightened self-interest' indicates, *presently*, that cooperation with those agencies is desirable. In that environment, 'coercion', or 'force' is simply *not* a practical approach. Offend _enough_ people, and they'll 'take their ball, go home, and start heir _own_ game.' There's the poor 'referee' standing all alone there on the empty field, with no players, and no audience -- he can make whatever 'rules' he wants, but nobody is paying attention. Persuasion' is the only _usable_ tool. Now, if/when the time comes that major network operators 'cannot' get additional address-space assignments -they- need, because of a lack of 'unassigned' address-space, *AND* there are significant blocks of 'unannounced' space, one *will* see operators starting to use that space, regardless of what the 'authorities' decree. The end result will be a 'We'll guarantee you can talk to _our_ customers, and that *our* customers can talk to you, using these addresses, we cannot guarantee what other networks will do with traffic to/from this address-space. end-users may have to buy access from _multiple_ carriers to ensure connectivity to all their customers, and vice versa. One *cannot* 'legislate' this end-game out of existence. One cannot *prevent* it from occuring. The _best_ one can do is offer a 'better alternative' and 'pray' that enough people adopt it to keep the endgame from reaching crisis proportions. The _only_ tool available is 'persuasion'. From paul at vix.com Sun Jul 8 20:43:49 2007 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:43:49 +0000 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:36 -0400." <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <10722.1183941829@sa.vix.com> > > i think the reason there are no instructions is that we don't know what > > they should say. ... > > ... along the lines of: > > "As an original owner of a legacy address space block you may > continue to use the address space forever for your own purposes. > As a legacy holder you will not be subjected to ARIN's policies for > legacy space holders for the legacy blocks only, and will not be > subject to audit by ARIN for those legacy blocks. here, you make it seem that if someone has a legacy /16 at 1% utilization it will not affect their ability to apply for new RSA space. is that what you intend? > Any sale, lease, or transfer of the block or a portion of the block > to a party outside the original owners control will require that > the new recipient sign a current RSA and agree to abide by all of > ARIN's policies for address space assignment. this is redundant to current policy, and should be marked "as a reminder". > Failure to maintain contact information for the block, or to pay > the $100 per year maintenance fee will result in forfeiture of the > block. The $100 per year fee will never change." so you're telling a family who owns a new york city taxi medallion that they can no longer pass it from generation to generation, nor sell it on ebay for USD 500K, and you expect them to sign this why exactly? > Quite simply, an original legacy holder gets their (so claimed) > implied contract put on paper, and we codify in that paper that it > is in fact a non-transferable agreement. I think for the legacy > holders to have a formal contract with that written down would be > seen as a huge win for them, and would constitute giving them > something. At the same time, they would be under an RSA, and ARIN > would have a legal stick to help curtail any black market in IP's > that may appear. i'm all for protecting the DFZ from the deaggregation implicit in a black market. but negotiating the terms is going to be tricky for a number of reasons. From mysidia at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 21:02:08 2007 From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:02:08 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> References: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> Message-ID: <6eb799ab0707081802m6631f17ej60d9480a4a37d8dc@mail.gmail.com> I'll agree that force can't make providers to follow a specific policy, that is, in the face of address exhaustion, unless they have signed some agreement that requires them to, as some might have. > It says that *IF* you connect to ARPA, or DDN you musc go through a BBN > gateway, or the gateway of another ASN, and that some gateway to ARPA or > DDN (yours or that other ASNs) must speak EGP. > If you're *not* connecting to ARPA or DDN, then those restrictions are moot. > > As it makes clear when it states that a _separate_ authorization_ is required > to connect to ARPA-Internet or DDN-Internet. Exactly. The effect of that final note is that the letter itself does not appear to actually give authorization to connect and use the numbers on either of the two networks. Presence in the registry and authorization to connect the numbers are two different things, that came from different authorities. If you weren't to follow whatever basic requirements were imposed at the time by the relevant authorities, it is very possible connecting the numbers would not have been authorized, even if the registry had set aside those numbers. Or if you stopped following whatever rules were required, authorization to continue to connect the numbers could have been revoked by the provider (I.E. the ISP may have refused to renew service). Similarly, the registry could have notified you and de-assigned those numbers in their database later if the determined they hadn't been used; the letter doesn't promise they wouldn't, it only states that "this is the new class and network number for X network," i.e. we have currently given this network some numbers. That statement alone doesn't promise there will be no future renumbering or removal from a database. Very likely the separate authority allowing a user to connect those numbers would examine the registry database, so they would have the assurance of uniqueness for their network that the registry provides. Prior to choosing to allow you to connect the numbers. However, yes, the option was always there for them to prefer a different registry over IANA, or to allow numbers to be connected, even if there was no registry entry, or even to refuse to authorize connecting the numbers, even if the they had been registered. If you signed a contract with your provider assuring you could permanently connect, then, perhaps the use of that addressing is permanent for that provider's network. However, if the other providers they interconnect with don't always continue to agree (about authorizing your provider to connect those numbers), then the effective scope of that assignment might indeed be less than world-wide. That's where the registry, and even ARIN is providing a service to even legacy holders. It serves as a publicly visible record, that X organization was the first to be assigned and to keep assigned the address space. In case of different providers sending conflicting information, it helps the rest of the world determine which connection of the numbers (which route) is more legitimate, and possibly continue to communicate with you... Without this resource, the legacy holder may be more likely to lose the use of their addresses to whoever else is trying to use the addresses (the providers with conflicting connections not having the convenience of a registry to decide who should get to use the address and if something should get blocked or not). -- -J From bicknell at ufp.org Sun Jul 8 21:09:39 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:09:39 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> References: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> Message-ID: <20070709010939.GA66547@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 07:17:06PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: > Sarcastic or not, you materially misrepresent what the letter says. :) > > It says that *IF* you connect to ARPA, or DDN you musc go through a BBN > gateway, or the gateway of another ASN, and that some gateway to ARPA or > DDN (yours or that other ASNs) must speak EGP. > > If you're *not* connecting to ARPA or DDN, then those restrictions are moot. Actually, I believe you got what I was trying to get across perfectly. > Now, if/when the time comes that major network operators 'cannot' get additional > address-space assignments -they- need, because of a lack of 'unassigned' > address-space, *AND* there are significant blocks of 'unannounced' space, > one *will* see operators starting to use that space, regardless of what > the 'authorities' decree. Exactly. Back to the original poster's argument that he was not bound by RFC 2050 because his allocation predates RFC 2050. If the operators, 99.9% of which are bound by 2050 decide those principals should apply to legacy space they will apply. It's not hard to envision a future where operators require holders of large blocks to show they are efficiently utilizing them prior to connection to return them to ARIN simply because there is no more IPv4 space and that's the only way the industry as a whole can create a more. Is it likely, I sure hope not. But it's far from impossible as well. > The _only_ tool available is 'persuasion'. Yes, but persuasion comes in many forms. While at the end of the day it may be all ARIN does is some begging, ISP's may force the issue by dropping routes. The government may step in and "fix" the situation as part of saving the national infrastructure from terrorists or some other nonsense. Which comes back to my point. If I were a legacy holder I would see those as significant risks. If we get to a point where Microsoft and Google and IBM and GM say that they can't do business because there are no more IPv4 addresses and you're one of the people who has a letter from someone who can't be found anymore, that isn't even on stationary, and only talks about networks that ceased to exist 15 years ago who do you think is going to win and who is going to loose? If I was a legacy holder of a smaller block (the /8 people are a different story, but small in number) I would be jumping to comply with current rules (which isn't all that hard) and sign an RSA. In particular, if I were a legacy holder that can't find my original letter and/or e-mail (and I bet there's a few) I would be beating down a path to ARIN's door to get a signed document dated this year saying I have an assignment under current rules. In short, legacy holders are (in my opinion) running a huge risk by not staying current with the changing process. I would like to persuade them to work in their own best interest, which I think is also in ARIN's best interest. There's also a significant second part of this problem that we keep ignoring. Estimates exist saying 10-20% of the legacy space is no longer in use by anyone. It was given to someone who is now dead, or to a corporation that no longer exists. It's not routed, and in some cases hasn't been over over 10 years. I doubt very many people would object to putting a dead person's address space back in the free pool. Surely being given the block does not mean we must keep it reserved in case of reincarnation. Who has the authority to recover those blocks? Put the other way, who has the authority to demand a legacy holder simply stand up and say "yep, still here, still in use", as that's the only way it's going to happen. Surely we haven't put all these addresses in the virtual bit-bucket because of some implied "no one will ever ask you later if you're still using it" clause. But can ARIN do that? IANA? Does the government have to come back and do it, since they gave it out? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JOHN at egh.com Sun Jul 8 21:47:07 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:47:07 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <20070709010939.GA66547@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <1070708212338.36955G-301000@Ives.egh.com> GD it. Why can't I reply properly to this? Some where you say "All I need to do is sign an RSA and pay my $100 per year, and I get to keep my addresses for ever." Is this really true? I have a legacy class C (/24) that used to be connected to the Internet but no longer is. Our orignal ISP (TIAC, hi there Martin), published a route to us. Later we switched to another, larger regional ISP which also published a route to our class C. About a year ago we switched ISPs again, and now have a handful of ISP-assigned addresses, and use outbound NAT to reach the Internet and inbound PAT to reach our servers from the Internet. But here's the rub, we also have 3 private connections to 3 of our customers, 2 via SSH tunnels over the Internet and 1 via a private T1 circuit. All 3 private connections are firewalled at both ends to allow a certain subset of our original class C hosts to connect to various subsets of our customers' hosts via various protocols. If we were to renumber using RFC1918 numbers, we would have to ensure none of our hosts collided with any of the 3 different, competing customers, all of whom have their own RFC1918 usage, and, much harder, ensure we also don't collide with any of those customers' future use of RFC1918, nor any future customers we network with, nor with any other vendors or customers they our customers eventually network with. This is on top of the pain of coordinating a renumbering with 3 other parties. But we only have about 100 assigned addresses at the moment. Probably about 30 of these need to be accessible to the customers' networks. So I don't think we would qualify for a /24 PI under the current rules. Not because we don't need provider-independent addresses, but because we don't need enough of them. Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- signing holder. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 -------------- next part -------------- In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 07:17:06PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: > Sarcastic or not, you materially misrepresent what the letter says. :) > > It says that *IF* you connect to ARPA, or DDN you musc go through a BBN > gateway, or the gateway of another ASN, and that some gateway to ARPA or > DDN (yours or that other ASNs) must speak EGP. > > If you're *not* connecting to ARPA or DDN, then those restrictions are moot. Actually, I believe you got what I was trying to get across perfectly. > Now, if/when the time comes that major network operators 'cannot' get additional > address-space assignments -they- need, because of a lack of 'unassigned' > address-space, *AND* there are significant blocks of 'unannounced' space, > one *will* see operators starting to use that space, regardless of what > the 'authorities' decree. Exactly. Back to the original poster's argument that he was not bound by RFC 2050 because his allocation predates RFC 2050. If the operators, 99.9% of which are bound by 2050 decide those principals should apply to legacy space they will apply. It's not hard to envision a future where operators require holders of large blocks to show they are efficiently utilizing them prior to connection to return them to ARIN simply because there is no more IPv4 space and that's the only way the industry as a whole can create a more. Is it likely, I sure hope not. But it's far from impossible as well. > The _only_ tool available is 'persuasion'. Yes, but persuasion comes in many forms. While at the end of the day it may be all ARIN does is some begging, ISP's may force the issue by dropping routes. The government may step in and "fix" the situation as part of saving the national infrastructure from terrorists or some other nonsense. Which comes back to my point. If I were a legacy holder I would see those as significant risks. If we get to a point where Microsoft and Google and IBM and GM say that they can't do business because there are no more IPv4 addresses and you're one of the people who has a letter from someone who can't be found anymore, that isn't even on stationary, and only talks about networks that ceased to exist 15 years ago who do you think is going to win and who is going to loose? If I was a legacy holder of a smaller block (the /8 people are a different story, but small in number) I would be jumping to comply with current rules (which isn't all that hard) and sign an RSA. In particular, if I were a legacy holder that can't find my original letter and/or e-mail (and I bet there's a few) I would be beating down a path to ARIN's door to get a signed document dated this year saying I have an assignment under current rules. In short, legacy holders are (in my opinion) running a huge risk by not staying current with the changing process. I would like to persuade them to work in their own best interest, which I think is also in ARIN's best interest. There's also a significant second part of this problem that we keep ignoring. Estimates exist saying 10-20% of the legacy space is no longer in use by anyone. It was given to someone who is now dead, or to a corporation that no longer exists. It's not routed, and in some cases hasn't been over over 10 years. I doubt very many people would object to putting a dead person's address space back in the free pool. Surely being given the block does not mean we must keep it reserved in case of reincarnation. Who has the authority to recover those blocks? Put the other way, who has the authority to demand a legacy holder simply stand up and say "yep, still here, still in use", as that's the only way it's going to happen. Surely we haven't put all these addresses in the virtual bit-bucket because of some implied "no one will ever ask you later if you're still using it" clause. But can ARIN do that? IANA? Does the government have to come back and do it, since they gave it out? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Jul 8 22:08:21 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:08:21 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> References: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> Message-ID: At 7:17 PM -0500 7/8/07, Robert Bonomi wrote: >The existing system works *ONLY* because of 'voluntary co-operation', because >'enlightened self-interest' indicates, *presently*, that cooperation with >those agencies is desirable. You are correct; the fact is that the Internet was built on voluntary cooperation, and making things work together was the entire reason that there was an IANA (Jon) to coordinate IP address assignments. In general, there's been fairly good cooperation among ISPs over the decades... we've managed to do lots of things (like DNS, CIDR, bogon filtering, MD5 for BGP, anycast DNS, etc.) We've also had some areas that have been more challenging (e.g. route registries, prefix filtering policies, any secure BGP, DNSSEC, routing table containment) Decision making based on distributed enlightened self-interest is what we have to work with, but let's also recognize that it's remarkable bad at handling situations that require significant coordinated efforts well in advance of any imminent crisis... >Now, if/when the time comes that major network operators 'cannot' get additional >address-space assignments -they- need, because of a lack of 'unassigned' >address-space, *AND* there are significant blocks of 'unannounced' space, >one *will* see operators starting to use that space, regardless of what >the 'authorities' decree. There's a number of interesting options at that point, and ISP's *will* do what's necessary to keep their businesses running. The challenging part is whether the enlightened self-interest will result in an actual functional result for the Internet. For example, one option would be for ISP's and deep-pocketed new endeavors to start mining the unannounced address space. This has some fairly interesting side-effects, as there's every reason for "holders" who have no other use for their space to heavily subdivide their blocks for maximum financial return. Since there is no inherent hierarchy to the space obtained in this manner (whether by ISP or end-sites), we need to expect a much higher ratio of new routes to new Internet customers. Obviously, if "enlightenment" exceeds "self-interest", the ISP community would also need to get together and come up with some guidelines for avoiding the routing table explosion, but but that's always been a hard meeting to convene (and we've no mechanism enforce the outcome). I fully agree with you; The ISP's & Internet community get to call the shots here, just as they get to set the Internet resource policies which are followed by the RIR's. I wouldn't be surprised to see the ISP community decide that it's very much in their interest to know the utilization of the unannounced blocks, whether it's so that they can later play "let's make a deal" or so that they can direct the current IANA to invalidate per RFC2050 and get the space through today's processes. >A coalition of network (and IX) operators could decide _tomorrow_ to ignore >*all* address-range "assignments" from the above-mentioned hierarchy, and >only route traffic from address-blocks "blessed" by some alternative source, >and there is *nothing* that the aforementioned 'authorities' could do to >prevent it. Perfectly true, although it certainly would be very, very exciting for the "alternative source", who would be relying entirely on some expression of collective will of the ISPs when reclaiming space... The time from appropriation to courtroom might be really quick, unless there was also an accepted community statement (formed in an open & public fashion) which provided the basis for action. /John From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Sun Jul 8 22:17:04 2007 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:17:04 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Message-ID: <46919AA0.9060004@cjbsys.bdb.com> OK I'm an independent consultant working out of my home. Why are the rest of you working on a Sunday? :-) Thanks for all the interesting perspectives on legacy owners. Cliff Bedore cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From randy at psg.com Sun Jul 8 22:27:46 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:27:46 +0800 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <46919AA0.9060004@cjbsys.bdb.com> References: <46919AA0.9060004@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <46919D22.7010203@psg.com> > I'm an independent consultant working out of my home. Why are the rest > of you working on a Sunday? :-) it's mid morning monday ranndy From mysidia at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 22:38:21 2007 From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:38:21 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <20070709010939.GA66547@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> <20070709010939.GA66547@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <6eb799ab0707081938l31e72e31m53727a9f8f286ac7@mail.gmail.com> > Who has the authority to recover those blocks? Put the other way, > who has the authority to demand a legacy holder simply stand up and > say "yep, still here, still in use", as that's the only way it's > going to happen. Surely we haven't put all these addresses in the > virtual bit-bucket because of some implied "no one will ever ask > you later if you're still using it" clause. But can ARIN do that? > IANA? Does the government have to come back and do it, since they > gave it out? I would say the responsibilities went to ICANN, and it would be the responsibility of the ICANN ASO to develop suitable policies ultimately it would be up to the ICANN board to approve or deny policies about what RIRs can do, policies about what IANA can do, etc, otherwise the policies already written apply.. I believe ICANN has deferred to the RIRs on matters like this one; from a policy making standpoint, the legacy blocks allocated to the RIRs are no different than the fresh /8s delegated to the RIRs, in that the ASO documents do not make that kind of distinction about addressing. I think "legacy addressing" is mostly a fiction RIRs have created by attempting to apply different policies to different registrants, just because the registration authority was delegated to a different entity at one time. We could have called them something different like "people who got addresses, before we required people to sign a contract in advance." As I see it, there should be some global policy action encouraged, not just any one RIR taking it upon itself to try to reclaim inactive legacy blocks, since the matter of lost legacy resources unused for decades need to be reclaimed outright regardless of region, to avoid wasting blocks of addresses, legacy blocks that are dormant and unused should be reclaimed in all regions, provided the cost of reclamation is small enough and the number of addresses likely to be reclaimed is substantial. I think what should happen, is first, for records not updated in 5 years that have no addressing advertised, add a notation to WHOIS records "Network Seems to be Inactive/Possibly Abandoned, Please contact xxxx at rir-name if you have information." In other words, make it very visible that the registry is trying to get better information about the status of that network. The last known mailing address should be tried, there is a chance the old contact information is still good. If it is good, and the contact can show they still represent the organization the addresses were assigned to, and they are using any of the legacy addresses (for example, in a private network, where rfc1918 addresses would be unsuitable), then they change from inactive/possibly abandoned to "active status". Once every year or 6 months, publish (somewhere very visible), the list of blocks and organizations with legacy address blocks that appeared to be inactive, in some very visible location, in the hopes of reaching contacts whose street address AND phone numbers had changed over the years. If there has been no definitive response (with proof that the responder is the organization the legacy assignment was made to, AND some addresses in the block are in use or will be in use) for 1 year after the publication, then return the address space to IANA or whichever RIR the block was managed by. If the addresses were claimed to not be in use (but would be in use in the future), then only extend the allowed time by another year, and refuse extensions by more than 3 years in total. -- -J From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Sun Jul 8 22:59:07 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:59:07 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Message-ID: <4691a47b.368.422a.20313@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hess" To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:38:21 -0500 > > Who has the authority to recover those blocks? Put the > > other way, who has the authority to demand a legacy > > holder simply stand up and say "yep, still here, still > > in use", as that's the only way it's going to happen. > > Surely we haven't put all these addresses in the virtual > > bit-bucket because of some implied "no one will ever ask > you later if you're still using it" clause. But can ARIN > > do that? IANA? Does the government have to come back > > and do it, since they gave it out? > > I would say the responsibilities went to ICANN, and it > would be the responsibility of the ICANN ASO to develop > suitable policies The ASO has few, but important, functions. We certify that RIR's PDP was followed WRT global policies We appoint two RIR linked individuals to ICANN BoD seats 9 and 10. We develop and execute "administrative" procedures to comply with the MoU and Attachments that the RIR's have with ICANN. The ASO AC can not create numbering policy. You should be very happy about this for a variety of reasons. Martin Hannigan ASO AC/NRO NC Member (The ASO AC and the NRO NC are effectively the same bug) From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Sun Jul 8 23:10:15 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:10:15 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Message-ID: <4691a717.15f.4238.12196@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: Leo Bicknell To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:09:39 -0400 > In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 07:17:06PM > > -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: Sarcastic or not, you > > materially misrepresent what the letter says. :) > > It says that *IF* you connect to ARPA, or DDN you musc > > go through a BBN gateway, or the gateway of another ASN, > > and that some gateway to ARPA or DDN (yours or that > > other ASNs) must speak EGP. > > If you're *not* connecting to ARPA or DDN, then those > restrictions are moot. > > Actually, I believe you got what I was trying to get > across perfectly. > > > Now, if/when the time comes that major network operators > > 'cannot' get additional address-space assignments -they- > > need, because of a lack of 'unassigned' address-space, > > *AND* there are significant blocks of 'unannounced' > space, one *will* see operators starting to use that space > > , regardless of what the 'authorities' decree. > > Exactly. Back to the original poster's argument that he > was not bound by RFC 2050 because his allocation predates > RFC 2050. If the operators, 99.9% of which are bound by > 2050 RFC 2050 is out of date and magically acknowledges it's time and place in the Internet by talking about "existing" conditions and technologies. Part of our problem is legacy thinking. -M< From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jul 9 03:41:19 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:41:19 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <46915157.4030506@cjbsys.bdb.com> References: <46915157.4030506@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: > Having said that, I can see benefits to being an ARIN member. > If ARIN can develop an RSA that says we'll charge you a > nominal non-changing fee and not try to take your address > space way as long as you continue to use it. This last is the key point. Any IP address is a shared resource because it comes from a finite shared resource pool. If an organization continues to use the resource, then it has a justification for the address space regardless of whether it was a legacy allocation or a more recent one. The problem arises with the large number of legacy allocations which do not appear to be in use where the original address holder seems to have disappeared. In addition, it is possible that some legacy holders that clearly do exist, such as Dupont, are in violation of ARIN guidelines because they do not have justification for all of the address space which they hold. This gives them special status which they do not deserve and is an example of a non-level playing field. We can no longer accept the situation in which all legacy holders are just lumped together. We need to begin sorting out the mess and reclaiming addresses which are either unused or unjustified. And if a legacy holder does not want to be part of the RIR system and actively refuses to work with us, they we need to flag that fact. IP addresses do not belong to the holder, they belong to the community and if a legacy holder is a rogue then the community should be informed about that. > Further, if ARIN > is absorbed or otherwise changed, the agreement remains in > place unchanged or is rendered null and void and we're back > to legacy status. I doubt this will happen. Since ARIN is an incorporated organization, it has to be wound up in an orderly fashion. --Michael Dillon From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Jul 9 10:10:11 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:10:11 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> References: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: At 8:33 -0800 7/6/07, Andrew Dul wrote: >I've been working on this policy with a few people from the AC for a >couple of months. Given today's discussion on the PPML, it seemed >like an appropriate time to submit it to the policy process. > >============== > >Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 >Legacy IP address record holders who have not signed a registration services >agreement with ARIN will have their name server delegations for the >in-addr.arpa zone removed starting on June 30, 2009. All name server >delegations shall be removed from the in-addr.arpa zone by December 31, 2009. Speaking as a member of ARIN (persumably in good standing but I can't say as I don't sign the checks here) I beg that this is not done. I rely upon ARIN maintaining and publishing information on the allocation of address space. What is more important to me, as a paying member, is complete, accurate, and up to date information. What is not important to me i whether the information is about an organization in good, bad, or indifferent standing with ARIN. We should always highlight the responsible/authorized party for address space. Members of ARIN benefit from this. Please don't hide network registrations. (Yes, maybe the WhoIs is there, but still, the registrant in the reverse map is not the reliant party.) Some questions about the rationale: >8. Rationale: > > This policy proposal attempts to bring these legacy resource holders into a >formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of the IP numbering resources for many >of the legacy record holders. Why do this? I wish we could list the reasons why it is so essential to the membership to make sure legacy holders are members too, so essential we are willing to drop information about this space if we don't get what we want. Perhaps you would rather prevent DNS queries from the free-loading legacy holders from being answered? "I want the dirt about the legacy space, but if they don't want to pay, they shouldn't get to look stuff up about me." >Some legacy resource holders have expressed concerns about committing to a >registration services agreement when the legacy resource holder cannot be >assured that they will be permitted to retain and their resources for the >long-term. This policy proposal also does not preclude existing legacy >space holders, who may have signed another version of the registration >services agreement from having the same commitment level. It is suggested >that the Board of Trustees formalize the annual maintenance fees for legacy >resource holders at a level similar to the $100 USD per year for end-sites. I have yet to see a good reason why I would (if I were in position to do so), choose to pay $100/year to keep what I already have or continue to pay nothing for what I already have. >Given the informal relationship under which the resources were granted, ARIN >current maintains the records including WHOIS and in-addr.arpa delegations >in a best-effort fashion. Many believe that ARIN may not be obligated to >maintain these records. ARIN has experienced some difficulty maintaining >these records. Legacy records have been a popular target for hijackers, in >part due to the out of date information contained in these records. Having >up to date contact information would assist ARIN and ISP's in insuring the >stability of the Internet. ARIN is obligated to encourage this - up to date record keeping. The members of ARIN are expecting ARIN to do this as part of its role in maintaining uniqueness in address resource utilization. ARIN does rely on the registrants to perform this as the staff does not trawl the data for accuracy. ARIN ought to be encouraging updates, ought to be lowering any barrier to voluntary updates. Creating a barrier to having up to date information is the wrong course of action. I realize that we believe that there is an incremental cost associated with legacy space. If the cost of maintaining a record is great, I would be satisfied with giving it a label of "legacy allocation, information unknown". I would like better information, so even if the legacy holder refuses to submit to an agreement or pay, I would expect ARIN to be willing to accommodate the update. (Assuming there is no question of authenticity of the claim.) >Legacy resource holders who sign a registration services agreement would >continue to receive all the services that are currently provided by ARIN >plus they would be eligible for any future services that ARIN may offer, >such as cryptographic signing of resource records. I think that we ought to make it clear that legacy is legacy and we have no expectation of reclaiming and reassigning it. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Think glocally. Act confused. From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Mon Jul 9 11:24:44 2007 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:24:44 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders Message-ID: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272F95C@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> I believe the web link with markers like Owens broken down would be a great thing. As for Owen's details, I think they are good but need work. And it would also be great to get input from our BOT and Legal. So how about we first start off easy and just create a link for any Legacy Users that just want to cooperate like the rest of us (yes I believe there is a possibility this could happen). Then work on the links and details for those Legacy holders that still need to have their special legacy status (if a bullet point slide from 10 years ago really is legally binding). Cheers! Marla Azinger -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:44 PM To: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders > > i think the reason there are no instructions is that we don't know what > > they should say. ... > > ... along the lines of: > > "As an original owner of a legacy address space block you may > continue to use the address space forever for your own purposes. > As a legacy holder you will not be subjected to ARIN's policies for > legacy space holders for the legacy blocks only, and will not be > subject to audit by ARIN for those legacy blocks. here, you make it seem that if someone has a legacy /16 at 1% utilization it will not affect their ability to apply for new RSA space. is that what you intend? > Any sale, lease, or transfer of the block or a portion of the block > to a party outside the original owners control will require that > the new recipient sign a current RSA and agree to abide by all of > ARIN's policies for address space assignment. this is redundant to current policy, and should be marked "as a reminder". > Failure to maintain contact information for the block, or to pay > the $100 per year maintenance fee will result in forfeiture of the > block. The $100 per year fee will never change." so you're telling a family who owns a new york city taxi medallion that they can no longer pass it from generation to generation, nor sell it on ebay for USD 500K, and you expect them to sign this why exactly? > Quite simply, an original legacy holder gets their (so claimed) > implied contract put on paper, and we codify in that paper that it > is in fact a non-transferable agreement. I think for the legacy > holders to have a formal contract with that written down would be > seen as a huge win for them, and would constitute giving them > something. At the same time, they would be under an RSA, and ARIN > would have a legal stick to help curtail any black market in IP's > that may appear. i'm all for protecting the DFZ from the deaggregation implicit in a black market. but negotiating the terms is going to be tricky for a number of reasons. _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From dlw+arin at tellme.com Mon Jul 9 11:39:36 2007 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:39:36 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272F95C@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> References: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272F95C@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt> Message-ID: <20070709153936.GB24890@shell01.corp.tellme.com> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:24:44AM -0400, Azinger, Marla wrote: > I believe the web link with markers like Owens broken down would be a great thing. I agree. There's little reason to believe that a stick will be more effective than a carrot at this point. I find it interesting that we've had a few legacy holders pop up to provide input, which is refreshing and exceedingly useful. I also find it interesting that all of them seem to be holders of class C space. I suspect that the class C swamp is not the real point of interest in this conversation, however, and I'm wondering if any of the A or B holders have any opinion on the direction this is heading. It also occured to me that the modern definitions that most closely apply for class A and class C space are almost certainly "allocation" and "assignment", respectively. It's hard to imagine an allocation of a /24, especially from that earlier era. As usual, the class B space is the troubling one when it comes to definitions. I also had the throught that if/when a stick does get applied, it should be done in such a way that we get the most bang for the buck. Within the class C space, I would support a general amnesty for anyone holding a /22 equivalent or less. Let them sign an RSA that indicates that they have a PI assignment of their existing space. As long as they have actual use for the space, they can keep it at the normal low rate for such things. (We could also encourage someone holding two or four swamp class C addresses to return them in exchange for contiguous /23 or /22 assignments.) I'd still prefer to avoid the "stick" and stay with the carrot, though. -David From info at arin.net Mon Jul 9 11:46:20 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:46:20 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> References: <20070706163335.831.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: <4692584C.6040509@arin.net> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on ARIN's website. The AC will review this proposal and may decide to: 1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is presented; 2. Work with the author to: a) clarify the language or intent of the proposal; b) divide the proposal into two (2) or more proposals; or c) combine the proposal with other proposals; or, 3. Not accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal. The AC will review this proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting. If the AC accepts the proposal, then it will be posted as a formal policy proposal to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting. If the AC does not accept the proposal, then the AC will explain that decision; and at that time the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the petition fails, then the proposal will be closed. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Andrew Dul wrote: > I've been working on this policy with a few people from the AC for a couple of months. Given today's discussion on the PPML, it seemed like an appropriate time to submit it to the policy process. > > ============== > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Authentication of Legacy Resources > 2. Author > a. name: Andrew Dul > b. email: andrew.dul at quark.net > c. telephone: +1 206-359-8130 > d. organization: Perkins Coie LLP > 3. Proposal Version: 1.0 > 4. Submission Date: 07012007 > 5. Proposal type: New > 6. Policy term: Permanent > 7. Policy statement: > > Add new NRPM section 4.9 - Legacy Records > > Legacy resource record holders shall be permitted to sign an registration services agreement which permits the organization which is currently using the resources as of January 1, 2007 to continue to use those resources as long as a registration services agreement is signed by the organization and the organization is not past-due on their annual maintenance fee. ARIN will evaluate and verify the chain of custody of any resource records prior to executing a registration services agreement with an organization. > > If a legacy resource holder requests additional IPv4 resources all IPv4 resources (legacy and non-legacy) shall be evaluated to determine utilization for additional assignments under NRPM sections 4.2 or 4.3. > > ARIN shall use all reasonable methods to attempt to contact legacy record holders starting on January 1, 2008. > > ARIN shall also post information on the public website regarding this outreach to legacy resource holders. > > No changes shall be made to legacy resource records which are not covered by a registration services agreement after December 31, 2007. > > Add new NRPM section 7.3 - Legacy Reverse Delegation Records > > Legacy IP address record holders who have not signed a registration services agreement with ARIN will have their name server delegations for the in-addr.arpa zone removed starting on June 30, 2009. All name server delegations shall be removed from the in-addr.arpa zone by December 31, 2009. > > If an individual contacts ARIN and claims to represent a legacy record holder after the removal of an organization's name server delegations, the individual shall be permitted to request a one-time 6 month reinstatement of their name server delegations. This 6 month period is intended to allow an organization to work in good faith to establish a registration services agreement. > > 8. Rationale: > > An ARIN Legacy resource holder is an organization which was issued number resources prior to the formation of ARIN and whose registration information was not transferred to another RIR through the Early Registration Transfer Project (http://www.arin.net/registration/erx). Legacy resource holders were issued number resources through an informal process. This policy proposal attempts to bring these legacy resource holders into a formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of the IP numbering resources for many of the legacy record holders. > > Some legacy resource holders have expressed concerns about committing to a registration services agreement when the legacy resource holder cannot be assured that they will be permitted to retain and their resources for the long-term. This policy proposal also does not preclude existing legacy space holders, who may have signed another version of the registration services agreement from having the same commitment level. It is suggested that the Board of Trustees formalize the annual maintenance fees for legacy resource holders at a level similar to the $100 USD per year for end-sites. > > This policy sets in place a notification period of 18 months to contact all legacy resource holders and creates an incentive for the holders to formalize their relationship with ARIN. The dates in this policy proposal were arbitrarily chosen based upon an expected ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees by December 31, 2007. If this policy is implemented after December 31, 2007, the trigger dates in the policy should be adjusted appropriately. > > Given the informal relationship under which the resources were granted, ARIN current maintains the records including WHOIS and in-addr.arpa delegations in a best-effort fashion. Many believe that ARIN may not be obligated to maintain these records. ARIN has experienced some difficulty maintaining these records. Legacy records have been a popular target for hijackers, in part due to the out of date information contained in these records. Having up to date contact information would assist ARIN and ISP's in insuring the stability of the Internet. > > This policy proposal sets a termination date for in-addr.arpa delegation services for legacy resource record holders who have not formalized their relationship with ARIN through a registration services agreement. The 6 month period of delegation record removal was intended to provide ARIN the flexibility of removing the records on a gradual plan during second half of 2009 and to avoid a large change on a single day. > > Legacy resource holders who sign a registration services agreement would continue to receive all the services that are currently provided by ARIN plus they would be eligible for any future services that ARIN may offer, such as cryptographic signing of resource records. > > 9. Timetable for implementation: As stated in policy > 10. Meeting presenter: Andrew Dul > > END OF TEMPLATE > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > From jmorrison at bogomips.com Mon Jul 9 13:32:25 2007 From: jmorrison at bogomips.com (John Paul Morrison) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:32:25 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation Message-ID: <46927129.3050307@bogomips.com> I am not in favor of this (or any) proposal which attempts to reclaim IPv4 address space. However, I do like the approach of waiving fees for new IPv6 registrants as a way to encourage adoption of IPv6, but any attempt to reclaim IPv4 addresses will be divisive, unenforceable, and ultimately pointless: the quicker we run out of IPv4 addresses, the quicker we can move on to IPv6. From jmorrison at bogomips.com Mon Jul 9 13:42:08 2007 From: jmorrison at bogomips.com (John Paul Morrison) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:42:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources Message-ID: <46927370.9040609@bogomips.com> I am not in favor of this proposal as it is pointless. IPv4 is going to go away anyway, so it's a waste of time and resources to chase people down and clean up the paperwork from the pre-historic Internet. Anyone who needs new or changed assignments can deal with an RSA at that time, while legacy assignments will simply wither on the vine. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 14:17:14 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:17:14 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <1070708212338.36955G-301000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >John Santos >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM >To: Leo Bicknell >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- >signing holder. > I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4. So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still in exactly the same circumstances. You customers will still be natting under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now. So what are you going to do then Mr. Smarty? You won't have any legacy class C to fall back on since there isn't an equivalent in IPv6? People can always justify not even trying to follow the rules. Ted PS Cisco wrote back-to-back translation to solve exactly this issue. From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jul 9 14:38:02 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:38:02 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <46927370.9040609@bogomips.com> References: <46927370.9040609@bogomips.com> Message-ID: > I am not in favor of this proposal as it is pointless. IPv4 > is going to go away anyway, IPv4 is not going to go away for at least a generation, if ever. The thing that is about to START disappearing is the public IPv4 Internet because there are no longer enough free IPv4 addresses for this public Internet to continue growing. > so it's a waste of time and > resources to chase people down and clean up the paperwork > from the pre-historic Internet. Anyone who needs new or > changed assignments can deal with an RSA at that time, while > legacy assignments will simply wither on the vine. It is entirely possible that through a combination of actions involving deployment of IPv6, deployment of IPv4-IPv6 gateway services, and RIR address reclamation, we may never actually run out of IPv4 addresses, just get very close to that point. Therefore, any and all address reclamation efforts by ARIN are useful to the entire community. If we ever get to a point where it is clear that address reclamation will not stem the tide, I may change my opinion. But for now, we need to reclaim as much legacy space as we can since we know that lots of this space is unused. --Michael Dillon From dean at av8.com Mon Jul 9 16:13:16 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:13:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <20070709153936.GB24890@shell01.corp.tellme.com> Message-ID: You want class B contacts? I am the contact on a legacy class B for the Open Software Foundation (1989 delegation). Av8 Internet is a paid-up ARIN member, and pays for ASN 11784 and the 198.3.136/21 block. I think this idea is a subterfuge for snarky purposes. There is some more background to this discussion: Paul Vixie/SORBS have, since 2003, claimed falsely and dishonestly that 130.105/16 and 198.3.136/21 are hijacked. These were the same tactics that were used by ORBS. Recall that ORBS was shut by court order for contempt, after it refused a court order to remove false listings. ORBS lost 3 defamation suits. Matthew Sullivan, the claimed operator of SORBS, claims to have no assets to pay damages for defamation, and seeks AV8 to expend money to sue him. The goal is to increase the expenses of Av8 Internet, and that Av8 Internet will be unable to justly recover---the goal is further harm to Av8 Internet) See http://www.iadl.org/, particularly pages on SORBS and MAPS. They attack me because I've exposed the truth about them, or rather, exposed their lies and hypocrisy (e.g. anti-spammers who spam for abuse and profit) There aren't very many legacy B's or legacy A's that aren't in use, and so there is very little, if any, possibility of any reclamation whatsoever. I agree that legacy C's are of no concern to people in this discussion. In fact, there seems to be no genuine problem to solve, yet a lot of discussion about what tools to use to solve the non-existing problem. Essentially, I suspect they are trying to do to Av8 what they did to Kremen. Which is why I am thinking of filing a Motion to Reconsider in the Kremen case. The Kremen result, dismissal on a technicality, was a very unjust result. The case was a 'big deal' on Internet governance and public policy that should not be dismissed on a technicality when ARIN had unclean hands in the matter. I talked with Kremen's lawyer this morning. He didn't know that ASN 11082 and 11084 still belonged to ARIN, or that ARIN had transfered ASN 11083 individually to LACNIC while the ASN was under dispute. These subsequent transfers are additional events further harming Kremen that ought to restart the clocks for the statutes of limitations. The untruthful and/or misleading statements about the nature of the transfers should also restart the clocks. There is indeed a settlement with Kremen as John Curran reported, which isn't public. Kremen could even be satisfied with the result, as Curran seemed to imply. But I am very concerned about the policy implications of the decision and the way it was handled. The public interest is not well served by allowing anarchists to prevail with unclean hands---Anarchists who refuse to implement court orders, who transfer assets under dispute and who then untruthfully report those assets aren't under their control all while conducting frivolous negotiations asserting for example that ARIN wasn't notified until 2003. The principle of Estoppel should prevent ARIN from subsequently claiming that the violations began in 2001, contrary to its earlier assertions that no notice was received and hence no violations accrued until 2003. --Dean On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, David Williamson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:24:44AM -0400, Azinger, Marla wrote: > > I believe the web link with markers like Owens broken down would be a great thing. > > I agree. There's little reason to believe that a stick will be more > effective than a carrot at this point. > > I find it interesting that we've had a few legacy holders pop up to > provide input, which is refreshing and exceedingly useful. I also find > it interesting that all of them seem to be holders of class C space. I > suspect that the class C swamp is not the real point of interest in > this conversation, however, and I'm wondering if any of the A or B > holders have any opinion on the direction this is heading. > > It also occured to me that the modern definitions that most closely > apply for class A and class C space are almost certainly "allocation" > and "assignment", respectively. It's hard to imagine an allocation of > a /24, especially from that earlier era. As usual, the class B space > is the troubling one when it comes to definitions. > > I also had the throught that if/when a stick does get applied, it > should be done in such a way that we get the most bang for the buck. > Within the class C space, I would support a general amnesty for anyone > holding a /22 equivalent or less. Let them sign an RSA that indicates > that they have a PI assignment of their existing space. As long as > they have actual use for the space, they can keep it at the normal low > rate for such things. (We could also encourage someone holding two or > four swamp class C addresses to return them in exchange for contiguous > /23 or /22 assignments.) > > I'd still prefer to avoid the "stick" and stay with the carrot, though. > > -David > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML at arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From drc at virtualized.org Mon Jul 9 16:22:22 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:22:22 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <46927370.9040609@bogomips.com> References: <46927370.9040609@bogomips.com> Message-ID: <65EEB431-2BBC-4284-AD33-940AEA3B6F4A@virtualized.org> On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:42 AM, John Paul Morrison wrote: > IPv4 is going to go away anyway, Why do you think this? Rgds, -drc From billf at powerset.com Mon Jul 9 16:31:18 2007 From: billf at powerset.com (bill fumerola) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:31:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: <016b01c7bf43$adff4410$1efc5dd8@HCMC.local> Message-ID: <20070709203118.GJ9951@elvis.mu.org> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin simply removing > these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does something foolish. as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder. the legacy holders probably know how to contact themselves. ARIN's mission is stewardship, your mission seems to be vengeance. this attitude is obvious across other mailing lists as well. (c.f. basically accusing cisco of crimes against humanity on cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net). just officially submit a proposal so it can die a quick, public death. -- bill From billf at powerset.com Mon Jul 9 16:31:43 2007 From: billf at powerset.com (bill fumerola) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:31:43 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20070705213110.GN9951@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:09:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin > >simply removing > >> these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? > > > >who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community > >trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does > >something foolish. > > > >as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're > >legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more > >useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder. > > For now. What about post-IPv4 runout? i think you assume that ARIN's IPv4 services will change in some major way when that happens. i don't believe the memebership would want that change and the IPv6 fees at that point would cover maintanence of those 'legacy' systems. i'd imagine ripping the IPv4 components would be more costly than just maintaining them after any sort of: ipv4 runout of addresses by ARIN, ipv6 eclipse of ipv4, ipv4 runout of addresses by IANA, etc. i would want to see the same level of service provided. no difference between legacy pre-ARIN holders and paid members. -- bill From andrew.dul at quark.net Mon Jul 9 17:04:34 2007 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:04:34 -0800 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources Message-ID: <20070709210434.21326.qmail@hoster908.com> > -------Original Message------- > From: Edward Lewis > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources > Sent: 09 Jul '07 06:10 > > At 8:33 -0800 7/6/07, Andrew Dul wrote: > >============== > > > >Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 > > >Legacy IP address record holders who have not signed a registration services > >agreement with ARIN will have their name server delegations for the > >in-addr.arpa zone removed starting on June 30, 2009. All name server > >delegations shall be removed from the in-addr.arpa zone by December 31, 2009. > > Speaking as a member of ARIN (persumably in good standing but I can't > say as I don't sign the checks here) I beg that this is not done. > > I rely upon ARIN maintaining and publishing information on the > allocation of address space. What is more important to me, as a > paying member, is complete, accurate, and up to date information. > What is not important to me i whether the information is about an > organization in good, bad, or indifferent standing with ARIN. > > We should always highlight the responsible/authorized party for > address space. Members of ARIN benefit from this. Please don't hide > network registrations. (Yes, maybe the WhoIs is there, but still, > the registrant in the reverse map is not the reliant party.) While I agree that we shouldn't be taking away information, the fact that approx. 50% of the legacy records have not been updated since ARIN's inception tells me that more needs to be done to make sure that the records are updated as best as possible. This policy is an attempt to conduct an outreach to legacy resource holders with some consequences for not taking any action. By setting a sunset time line for Legacy reverse DNS records we hopefully can accomplish two goals. 1. Formalize the relationship between the ARIN and active legacy address holders. 2. Start the process of marking address space that is no-longer in active use. The goal here is not reclamation but rather updating the database with accurate information from Legacy holders and continuing that relationship long-term. > > Some questions about the rationale: > > >8. Rationale: > > > > This policy proposal attempts to bring these legacy resource holders into a > >formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of the IP numbering resources for many > >of the legacy record holders. > > Why do this? I wish we could list the reasons why it is so essential > to the membership to make sure legacy holders are members too, so > essential we are willing to drop information about this space if we > don't get what we want. Perhaps you would rather prevent DNS queries > from the free-loading legacy holders from being answered? There are a lot of reasons that have been discussed. I'll just name some that I have heard, there are probably others. - Legitimize & confirm legacy holders right to use space they were assigned - Remove ambiguity about the status of legacy holder's address space - Create a relationship with legacy holders, including a yearly "touch-point" to help insure that records are up-to-date - ARIN currently provides services to legacy holders for "free", as ARIN is a cost-recovery non-profit, some believe that all address space holders should share in the costs of providing these services. - Preventing the in-addr DNS queries from returning answers is an interesting concept, and not one that I have considered. If people think this is a better method than removing the delegations to motivate legacy holders to create a formal agreement with ARIN, I'd be open to modifying the policy. My initial concern with this approach would be that this approach could be more operationally difficult to deal with. It is pretty easy to understand why a query returns no records if there isn't a valid set of NS records for a zone. If your query was answered or not depending on the source of your query, that could be hard to troubleshoot and understand for the operational community. > > "I want the dirt about the legacy space, but if they don't want to > pay, they shouldn't get to look stuff up about me." > > >Some legacy resource holders have expressed concerns about committing to a > >registration services agreement when the legacy resource holder cannot be > >assured that they will be permitted to retain and their resources for the > >long-term. This policy proposal also does not preclude existing legacy > >space holders, who may have signed another version of the registration > >services agreement from having the same commitment level. It is suggested > >that the Board of Trustees formalize the annual maintenance fees for legacy > >resource holders at a level similar to the $100 USD per year for end-sites. > > I have yet to see a good reason why I would (if I were in position to > do so), choose to pay $100/year to keep what I already have or > continue to pay nothing for what I already have. The best reason I have seen is that it legitimizes an organizations right to use specific IP address resources. There is no ambiguity or risk that the resources could be reused, reissued, or records otherwise invalidated. > > >Given the informal relationship under which the resources were granted, ARIN > >current maintains the records including WHOIS and in-addr.arpa delegations > >in a best-effort fashion. Many believe that ARIN may not be obligated to > >maintain these records. ARIN has experienced some difficulty maintaining > >these records. Legacy records have been a popular target for hijackers, in > >part due to the out of date information contained in these records. Having > >up to date contact information would assist ARIN and ISP's in insuring the > >stability of the Internet. > > ARIN is obligated to encourage this - up to date record keeping. The > members of ARIN are expecting ARIN to do this as part of its role in > maintaining uniqueness in address resource utilization. ARIN does > rely on the registrants to perform this as the staff does not trawl > the data for accuracy. ARIN ought to be encouraging updates, ought > to be lowering any barrier to voluntary updates. Creating a barrier > to having up to date information is the wrong course of action. I agree that creating barriers in general is not a good idea. I would certainly like to see ARIN do an outreach specifically to legacy holders. My attempt with this policy was to create an incentive (loss of current in-addr service) to encourage the establishing of a formal relationship and the ongoing relationship that would help keep the records as up-to-date. In addition I see additional incentives in affirming an organizations right to use number resources granted prior to the formation of ARIN. I would also point out that APNIC passed a policy which was similar to the first section of this proposed policy. http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-018-v001.html From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 17:51:16 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:51:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >bill fumerola >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:32 PM >To: 'ARIN PPML' >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 05:09:59PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin >> >simply removing >> >> these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? >> > >> >who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community >> >trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does >> >something foolish. >> > >> >as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're >> >legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more >> >useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder. >> >> For now. What about post-IPv4 runout? > >i think you assume that ARIN's IPv4 services will change in some major >way when that happens. i don't believe the memebership would want that >change and the IPv6 fees at that point would cover maintanence of those >'legacy' systems. i'd imagine ripping the IPv4 components would be more >costly than just maintaining them after any sort of: ipv4 runout of >addresses by ARIN, ipv6 eclipse of ipv4, ipv4 runout of addresses by >IANA, etc. > >i would want to see the same level of service provided. no difference >between legacy pre-ARIN holders and paid members. So then if the membership doesen't want IPv4 to be removed from the registries, then what is going to be created is a situation where nobody has any incentive to remove their IPv4 reachability, nor remove the ability for their customers to reach IPv4 sites. In short, IPv4 will NEVER "go away" Your proposing a future were we add IPv6, and nobody ever gives up IPv4 resources. So the Internet merely becomes an Internet of both IPv6 and IPv4, not an Internet of IPv4 only or an Internet of IPv6 only. I'm not debating we could or couldn't do this technically. However, if we do this, then don't you see that ALL IPv4 holders, not just the legacy ones, will never have any incentive to drop IPv4. If all of that is OK with you, then why would an existing paying IPv4 holder today who doesen't need numbering, want to bother going to IPv6? After all you just said everyone will be maintaining their IPv4, so what need is there for an IPv4 holder to load up IPv6? The only incentive I see would be to reach a network that is IPv6 ONLY, such as a network that needs numbering post-IPv4 runout. This puts a terrible burden on these networks because since they are new, they cannot be reached by a lot of the Internet, and it is not likely that they can provide enough of an incentive to get IPv4-only holders to update to reach them. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 17:55:03 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:55:03 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <20070709203118.GJ9951@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >bill fumerola >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:31 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:08:19PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> OK, then how exactly is this fact an argument AGAINST arin >simply removing >> these records out of it's whois? Which is what I am suggesting? > >who does that hurt? the legacy holders or the rest of the community >trying to use a tool to find out who to contact when that netblock does >something foolish. > If the rest of the community is IPv6 only they won't need to worry about what some misconfigured IPv4 is doing. >as a paying ARIN member, i want ARIN to keep track of as much as they're >legally, financially, technically allowed to. that WHOIS service is more >useful to me, the paying ARIN member, not the legacy holder. What use are records that aren't updated? What incentive does a legacy holder have to maintain these updates? Holders that are under an RSA are obligated by contract to maintain accurate contact info. Legacy holders have no such obligation. >the legacy >holders probably know how to contact themselves. > >ARIN's mission is stewardship, your mission seems to be vengeance. I see you like to use loaded emotional words to make arguments of emotion against a logical proposal. I guess that means you have no answer to the logical questions. Ted From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Jul 9 18:17:11 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:17:11 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: <10722.1183941829@sa.vix.com> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <10722.1183941829@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <20070709221711.GA72988@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 12:43:49AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > here, you make it seem that if someone has a legacy /16 at 1% utilization > it will not affect their ability to apply for new RSA space. is that what > you intend? That was what the text as written allowed. One of the points of hallway conversation is the difference between what it might take to reclaim a block, and what it would take to get more space. I tend to lean a bit more towards never reclaiming a "legacy" block, even if only 1% in use, but requiring a holder to use all of the block before applying for more space. What can we get people to agree to as terms? > so you're telling a family who owns a new york city taxi medallion that > they can no longer pass it from generation to generation, nor sell it on > ebay for USD 500K, and you expect them to sign this why exactly? What makes anyone think today legacy addresses pass generation to generation, or can be sold on eBay? eBay won't let you sell IP addresses, sighting appropriate RFC's. Legacy addresses, if you read the documents were assigned to specific people for specific networks. What argument could be made that they should be transferable to that person's children? > i'm all for protecting the DFZ from the deaggregation implicit in > a black market. but negotiating the terms is going to be tricky for > a number of reasons. The clocks a-tickin. Two years and the legacy holders, ARIN, and the community will all be rolling the dice as this unfolds. We have to lay out some decent terms quickly and hope most people sign up, otherwise it's going to be too late to matter. If we don't all come to some agreement soon I'm sure a court will impose situation that no one likes if things go badly. Most interestingly, neither outreach for RSA modifications are policy matters, so that really puts the pressure squarely on the BOD. -- 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: From paul at vix.com Mon Jul 9 18:30:36 2007 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:30:36 +0000 Subject: [ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:17:11 -0400." <20070709221711.GA72988@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20070706135227.GB54239@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <30818.1183733866@sa.vix.com> <20070706153836.GA60747@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <10722.1183941829@sa.vix.com> <20070709221711.GA72988@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <55228.1184020236@sa.vix.com> > Most interestingly, neither outreach for RSA modifications are policy > matters, so that really puts the pressure squarely on the BOD. yup. From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Jul 9 18:34:06 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:34:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab0707081938l31e72e31m53727a9f8f286ac7@mail.gmail.com> References: <200707090017.l690H6u8018571@s25.firmware.com> <20070709010939.GA66547@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6eb799ab0707081938l31e72e31m53727a9f8f286ac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070709223406.GB72988@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:38:21PM -0500, James Hess wrote: > As I see it, there should be some global policy action encouraged, not just any > one RIR taking it upon itself to try to reclaim inactive legacy > blocks, since the > matter of lost legacy resources unused for decades need to be reclaimed > outright regardless of region, to avoid wasting blocks of addresses, legacy > blocks that are dormant and unused should be reclaimed in all regions, You are aware that at least APNIC passed a policy to require all of the legacy space holders in their region to sign a current RSA and (as far as I can tell) abide by all current APNIC rules? http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-018-v001.html When the records were transferred to RIPE, RIPE made the statement that to modify them the user would have to sign a RIPE service agreement. I can't find anyone that states the success level they have had with that policy. http://www.arin.net/registration/erx/faq.html I can't quickly find any information on the ERX activities to LACNIC or AfriNIC. In terms of global policy though, at least two RIR's have already taken action on their own, and the action is to sign a current contract and abide by all current rules. I'm not sure those RIR's would be interested a global policy that does something different at this point. -- 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: From JOHN at egh.com Mon Jul 9 18:58:46 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:58:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1070709185229.11438A-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of > >John Santos > >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM > >To: Leo Bicknell > >Cc: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > > > > >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything > >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- > >signing holder. > > > > I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a > situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4. > > So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are > demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still > in exactly the same circumstances. You customers will still be natting > under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now. > > So what are you going to do then > Mr. Smarty? You won't have any legacy class C to fall back on since > there isn't an equivalent in IPv6? What a jerk!!! I described precisely and accurately as I could my exact situation. If you think it is invented, then you are totally full of it. > People can always justify not even trying to follow the rules. Bull. I followed the rules, as written, in 1993. > > Ted > > PS Cisco wrote back-to-back translation to solve exactly this issue. > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 19:07:16 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:07:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <09f501c7bf95$c5f15bb0$6701a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:10 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; James Jun; 'ARIN PPML' >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal > > >Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >> I guarenteee to you that Leatherman Tool Group IS NOT >> paying ARIN a dime, has NEVER paid them a dime. Yet, >> ARIN is still tracking this so ARIN obviously considers this >> legacy holder still their responsibility. >> ... >> Letting legacy holders get away witout funding the RIR that >> tracks them is in my opinion, far crazier than any rules I've >> proposed. Yet, you accept it. > >That is primarily because it benefits ARIN's paying members to know who's >using that space. WHOIS primarily benefits people _other than_ the >registrant. The same argument could be made for reverse DNS >service, though >that's not quite as clear-cut. > >"Tracks" is also not quite accurate; ARIN is dependent on the registrants >keeping their data up to date. Half of them haven't bothered to do so in >the last decade, and ARIN isn't out there hunting them down. The >amount of >money spent on legacy folks is minimal, since the systems need to be built >and maintained for non-legacy folks anyways. It's a negligible >incremental >cost. > True, but the cost to run the system is spread out over only the non-legacy folks. If the cost was spread out over all holders, legacy or not, then it would be cheaper for non-legacy holders. Assuming your a non-legacy holder, are you objecting to a fee reduction for your numbering? Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 19:17:14 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:17:14 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <20070709223406.GB72988@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Leo Bicknell >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:34 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > >In a message written on Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:38:21PM -0500, >James Hess wrote: >> As I see it, there should be some global policy action >encouraged, not just any >> one RIR taking it upon itself to try to reclaim inactive legacy >> blocks, since the >> matter of lost legacy resources unused for decades need to be reclaimed >> outright regardless of region, to avoid wasting blocks of >addresses, legacy >> blocks that are dormant and unused should be reclaimed in all regions, > >You are aware that at least APNIC passed a policy to require all >of the legacy space holders in their region to sign a current RSA >and (as far as I can tell) abide by all current APNIC rules? > >http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-018-v001.html > >When the records were transferred to RIPE, RIPE made the statement >that to modify them the user would have to sign a RIPE service >agreement. I can't find anyone that states the success level they >have had with that policy. > >http://www.arin.net/registration/erx/faq.html > >I can't quickly find any information on the ERX activities to LACNIC >or AfriNIC. > >In terms of global policy though, at least two RIR's have already >taken action on their own, and the action is to sign a current >contract and abide by all current rules. I'm not sure those RIR's would >be interested a global policy that does something different at this >point. I think it very likely that since such a heavy-handed, dictatorial policy has worked for them, that the global response would be to adopt it since it is apparently working, and require all legacy space holders in ARIN's region to sign a current RSA. Ted From dean at av8.com Mon Jul 9 19:24:56 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070709210434.21326.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: Someone already said that ARIN is just the steward of records. I'd like to add to that and point out that ARIN doesn't own the registrations records any more than SRI or NSI owned the registration books before ARIN existed. Even more specifically, ARIN is an agent of the IANA, which is now a function of the US Department of Commerce. Legacy holders already have a relationship with the DoC through earlier agents, and do not require a new relationship with ARIN. ARIN is merely the custodian of records. In that light, there are a number of problems with the current RSA. Perhaps this custodianship should be changed once again, or at least put up for bid periodically, so we can have some new management once in a while. BTW, people also assert without any evidence that legacy records aren't correct or uptodate. This is no truth to this assertion that I can see: Legacy holders have as much interest as anyone else in keeping records uptodate. More interest, probably. Legacy holders have existed for more than 10 years, and so tend to be stable businesses understanding role contacts, and so the records don't need to be changed. Most records probably won't need to be changed for a long time to come. The recency of update has no bearing on the accuracy of the data. --Dean On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Andrew Dul wrote: > While I agree that we shouldn't be taking away information, the fact > that approx. 50% of the legacy records have not been updated since > ARIN's inception tells me that more needs to be done to make sure that > the records are updated as best as possible. This policy is an > attempt to conduct an outreach to legacy resource holders with some > consequences for not taking any action. > > By setting a sunset time line for Legacy reverse DNS records we > hopefully can accomplish two goals. 1. Formalize the relationship > between the ARIN and active legacy address holders. 2. Start the > process of marking address space that is no-longer in active use. > The goal here is not reclamation but rather updating the database with > accurate information from Legacy holders and continuing that > relationship long-term. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 19:54:33 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:54:33 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <1070709185229.11438A-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:59 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >> >John Santos >> >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM >> >To: Leo Bicknell >> >Cc: ppml at arin.net >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders >> > >> > >> >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything >> >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- >> >signing holder. >> > >> >> I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a >> situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4. >> >> So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are >> demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still >> in exactly the same circumstances. You customers will still be natting >> under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now. >> >> So what are you going to do then >> Mr. Smarty? You won't have any legacy class C to fall back on since >> there isn't an equivalent in IPv6? > >What a jerk!!! Exactly what I thought when I read your post. >I described precisely and accurately as I could >my exact situation. If you think it is invented, then you are >totally full of it. > I never said it was invented. I said you outlined a situation you think isn't solvable. Since you failed to respond to my question as to what are you going to do about IPv6, I wonder if your more mad that someone poked an obvious hole into your scenario than anything else. >> People can always justify not even trying to follow the rules. > >Bull. I followed the rules, as written, in 1993. > And I'm sure that all those people who registered variations of coca-cola domain names and had them taken away when the Domain Name System changed the rules to allow notable trademarks to take precidence, made similar arguments. This argument is as invalid as arguing you shouldn't be given a ticket by a cop for drunk driving because back in 1993 the legal limit for intoxication was higher, and while your over the 2007 limit your not over the 1993 limit. Face the facts. Your getting something for nothing. Your getting tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact, in a system that -I'm- paying for. (or more accurately, my employer, who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and so forth) You certainly don't seem appreciative of this. It seems to me that your doing nothing more than fulfilling the stereotype of the "evil legacy holder" that some people claim I'm saying exist (even though I've never made any such claim) And, as I asked before, how are you going to move your setup to IPv6? Ted From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Jul 9 21:22:55 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:22:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <20070709210434.21326.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: <20070710012255.GA2288@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 07:24:56PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > BTW, people also assert without any evidence that legacy records aren't > correct or uptodate. This is no truth to this assertion that I can see: > Legacy holders have as much interest as anyone else in keeping records > uptodate. More interest, probably. Legacy holders have existed for more > than 10 years, and so tend to be stable businesses understanding role > contacts, and so the records don't need to be changed. Most records > probably won't need to be changed for a long time to come. The recency > of update has no bearing on the accuracy of the data. ARIN staff has asserted that a large percentage of the record hijacking attempts are made on Legacy space records specifically because contact information is out of date. When ARIN staff detects these hijacking attempts they must attempt to find correct contact information, which has been reported as difficult in many cases. One of the reasons ARIN went to yearly billing was experience at ARIN and elsewhere that bills sent less frequently than once a year (the USPS mail forwarding interval, BTW have a significantly higher return as undeliverable rate. This is one of the reasons we have yearly billing, it helps keep records fresh. I'm sure ARIN staff could provide more details at the next meeting if you are interested. -- 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: From rgaglian at antel.net.uy Mon Jul 9 21:43:10 2007 From: rgaglian at antel.net.uy (Roque Gagliano) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:43:10 -0300 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B1FD542-B6BF-45E1-9A53-3E5484E93C85@antel.net.uy> >> >> I can't quickly find any information on the ERX activities to LACNIC >> or AfriNIC. In the LACNIC region there is a policy approved and ratified last year but not yet implemented. Here is the info: http://lacnic.net/documentos/lacnicix/LAC-2006-02-EN.pdf http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/propuesta-politicas.html Best regards, ------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian at antel.net.uy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davids at webmaster.com Mon Jul 9 22:07:20 2007 From: davids at webmaster.com (David Schwartz) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:07:20 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070710012255.GA2288@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > ARIN staff has asserted that a large percentage of the record > hijacking attempts are made on Legacy space records specifically > because contact information is out of date. When ARIN staff detects > these hijacking attempts they must attempt to find correct contact > information, which has been reported as difficult in many cases. I would love to see a general consensus on the outline of a mostly-carrot approach to get legacy address holders back into the fold and allow them to keep their contact information up-to-date. I see this as the biggest problem though. If the cost to legacy address holders are too high, they won't bother. The carrot of renewed legitimacy only goes so far. ARIN would have to make sure that the people contacting them to 'update' the contact information on each legacy block are in fact entitled to that block. If that is an expensive process, the cost will have to be correspondingly high. That could be the deal-killer right there. It would be nice to get some kind of estimate of how much that would have to be. David Schwartz WebMaster, Incorporated From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Mon Jul 9 22:16:31 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:16:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources Message-ID: <4692ebff.21.5665.7114@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: Leo Bicknell To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:22:55 -0400 [ snip ] > One of the reasons ARIN went to yearly billing was > experience at ARIN and elsewhere that bills sent less > frequently than once a year (the USPS mail forwarding > interval, BTW have a significantly higher return as > undeliverable rate. This is one of the reasons we have > yearly billing, it helps keep records fresh. What portion of legacy space could be classified as "stolen" or "misappropriated" and does these policies include the IANA legacy registry? > I'm sure ARIN staff could provide more details at the next > meeting if you are interested. Probably could provide some now too. From Keith at jcc.com Mon Jul 9 22:18:47 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:18:47 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Schwartz > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:07 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy > Resources > > > I would love to see a general consensus on the outline of a > mostly-carrot > approach to get legacy address holders back into the fold and > allow them to > keep their contact information up-to-date. I agree. It would be a good start to actually have a mechanism available so a legacy holder could figure out how to join up, and what the cost and other implications would be. > I see this as the biggest problem though. If the cost to > legacy address > holders are too high, they won't bother. The carrot of > renewed legitimacy > only goes so far. The cost is mostly not money. If I can't justify my address space under the current rules, I'm not sure I will sign up. There is a certain amount of freedom that one does not get with provider supplied address space. Keith W. Hare From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 9 22:20:31 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:20:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:24 PM -0400 7/9/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >Perhaps this custodianship should be changed once again, or at least put >up for bid periodically, so we can have some new management once in a >while. New management (both at the board level and at the advisory council level) is encouraged; in fact, we're approaching that time of year... (See: https://app.arin.net/election for the time line for nominations) Anything that you can do to get more qualified candidates is welcome! In terms of complete organizational replacement, there are times when such may be called for... I frankly don't think ARIN's there, but if you do and would prefer to work on an alternative model rather than evolving the current one, you have every right to do so. I'd start by gathering a group of similar minded folks, defining the problem, putting together a concrete plan to address it, and then going to one of IANA/ICANN(/DoC?) to discuss the matter. ARIN has a specific mission to accomplish with respect to stewardship and administration of Internet number resources, so if you've got a better way to accomplish it, go forth. In the end, it's making sure that the job gets done that really matters. /John From JOHN at egh.com Mon Jul 9 22:24:34 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:24:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1070709215705.10161A-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] > >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:59 PM > >To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net > >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > > > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of > >> >John Santos > >> >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM > >> >To: Leo Bicknell > >> >Cc: ppml at arin.net > >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > >> > > >> > > >> >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything > >> >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- > >> >signing holder. > >> > > >> > >> I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a > >> situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4. > >> > >> So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are > >> demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still > >> in exactly the same circumstances. You customers will still be natting > >> under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now. You don't know my customers. They strongly believe in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (In case you totally have the wrong end of the stick, my customers are *NOT* buying any sort of internet service from us. We use the internet as a tool for supporting our customers. They typically have enormous internal networks, and may eventually implement v6 on them, but there is no prospect they'll be turning off v4 for decades. Switching to v6 for this function would be a pointless waste of time for both us and them.) > >> > >> So what are you going to do then > >> Mr. Smarty? You won't have any legacy class C to fall back on since > >> there isn't an equivalent in IPv6? > > > >What a jerk!!! > > Exactly what I thought when I read your post. Shut up, he explained. > > >I described precisely and accurately as I could > >my exact situation. If you think it is invented, then you are > >totally full of it. > > > > I never said it was invented. I said you outlined a situation you think > isn't solvable. Since you failed to respond to my question as to what > are you going to do about IPv6, I wonder if your more mad that someone > poked an obvious hole into your scenario than anything else. > > >> People can always justify not even trying to follow the rules. > > > >Bull. I followed the rules, as written, in 1993. > > > > And I'm sure that all those people who registered variations of > coca-cola domain names and had them taken away when the Domain Name > System changed the rules to allow notable trademarks to take precidence, > made similar arguments. This argument is as invalid as arguing > you shouldn't be given a ticket by a cop for drunk driving because > back in 1993 the legal limit for intoxication was higher, and > while your over the 2007 limit your not over the 1993 limit. Totally bogus analogies. Why don't you propose the police go back to their records and charge with drunk driving anyone they stopped with a breathalyzer reading below what was then the threshold but is now above the threshold? > Face the facts. Your getting something for nothing. Your getting > tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact, > in a system that -I'm- paying for. (or more accurately, my employer, > who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and > so forth) You certainly don't seem appreciative of this. I never said I wasn't willing to pay my fair share for *something* (like v6 addresses.) I'm not willing to pay, agree to terms I did not originally agree to, and risk losing my /24 for no discernable benefit to me. > > It seems to me that your doing nothing more than fulfilling the > stereotype of the "evil legacy holder" that some people claim I'm > saying exist (even though I've never made any such claim) Yet another ad hominen attack. You really have nothing to stand on except your own prejudices, do you? > > And, as I asked before, how are you going to move your setup to > IPv6? > I didn't answer this before because I don't spout nonsense off the top of my head, unlike some people I could name, and I need to do a bit of research before answering, but at least three possibilities come to mind: 1) I believe there is a class of addresses that can be generated from IPv4 addresses, and I can just use those. 2) Apply for v6 addresses through the normal process. 3) If I don't qualify for 2 because my network is too small, then form a cooperative with some of the 20,000 other legacy class C holders, pointlessly duplicating the work of ARIN, etc. but aquiring enough v6 addresses for all of us. If any of this is wrong, or unworkable, *you* are the one who insisted on an answer... If you're so damn smart, what would you do? > Ted > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 22:26:59 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:26:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Dean Anderson >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM >To: Andrew Dul >Cc: ppml at arin.net; Edward Lewis >Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources > > >Someone already said that ARIN is just the steward of records. I'd like >to add to that and point out that ARIN doesn't own the registrations >records any more than SRI or NSI owned the registration books before >ARIN existed. Even more specifically, ARIN is an agent of the IANA, >which is now a function of the US Department of Commerce. Legacy holders >already have a relationship with the DoC through earlier agents, and do >not require a new relationship with ARIN. ARIN is merely the custodian >of records. In that light, there are a number of problems with the >current RSA. > >Perhaps this custodianship should be changed once again, or at least put >up for bid periodically, so we can have some new management once in a >while. > And the very frist thing that any company that "won" such a bid would do is go search for new sources of revenue. As the legacy holders aren't paying, those whould be the very first ones they would go after. I would assume based on this that all the legacy holders would quash such a move. Of course, if you know of a way to fulfill the same function as ARIN for no money, you will have everyone signing up in a heartbeat. Ted From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 9 22:40:52 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:40:52 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:26 PM -0700 7/9/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >Of course, if you know of a way to fulfill the same function as ARIN >for no money, you will have everyone signing up in a heartbeat. One little nit: fulfill the same *functions* as ARIN - Records and updates and in-addr and new assignments&allocations&transfers are just a tiny bit of the job, as you also need to have the open process, public meetings, interface with other RIR's/ICANN/IANA, response to law enforcement, handling contracts, running fair and open elections, supporting the ASO, and coordinate dozens of policy proposals actions... Oh year, this year you might also want to do some outreach to the community regarding IPv6, since in a few years the community will otherwise be rather surprised. It's not free (even with all of the volunteer efforts of the AC, Board, ASO AC, and numerous PPML folks!) but it sure beats the alternative... /John From dean at av8.com Mon Jul 9 23:08:45 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:08:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070710012255.GA2288@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 07:24:56PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > > BTW, people also assert without any evidence that legacy records aren't > > correct or uptodate. This is no truth to this assertion that I can see: > > Legacy holders have as much interest as anyone else in keeping records > > uptodate. More interest, probably. Legacy holders have existed for more > > than 10 years, and so tend to be stable businesses understanding role > > contacts, and so the records don't need to be changed. Most records > > probably won't need to be changed for a long time to come. The recency > > of update has no bearing on the accuracy of the data. > > ARIN staff has asserted that a large percentage of the record > hijacking attempts are made on Legacy space records specifically > because contact information is out of date. When ARIN staff detects > these hijacking attempts they must attempt to find correct contact > information, which has been reported as difficult in many cases. And just how many of these hijacking attempts have there been? (not very many) Is this just faux "urgency" by people trying to drum up subscribers to the (fake) SORBS 'hijack' list? (http://www.iadl.org/sorbs/sorbs-story.html) > One of the reasons ARIN went to yearly billing was experience at ARIN > and elsewhere that bills sent less frequently than once a year (the > USPS mail forwarding interval, BTW have a significantly higher return > as undeliverable rate. This is one of the reasons we have yearly > billing, it helps keep records fresh. Good idea. So mail out a first class newsletter to the admin contacts, and keep track of the returns for further update efforts. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. > I'm sure ARIN staff could provide more details at the next meeting if > you are interested. Perhaps they can post on the subject on this list, sooner. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Mon Jul 9 23:22:35 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:22:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > Face the facts. Your getting something for nothing. Your getting > tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact, > in a system that -I'm- paying for. (or more accurately, my employer, > who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and > so forth) You certainly don't seem appreciative of this. Because its not true. Legacy holders established the Internet. We took the risks to career and business to get things to where you are, just like the homesteaders of the 1800s. You are a latecomer, and deserve to pay more to benefit from our efforts. You're buying into a phase 3 development. (low risk, established) Homesteaders in the 19th century took large risks. Now, farmland is about ~$3k per acre. Subdivided housing developments go for multiples more. Maybe you notice that many of your Credit Card bills come from Sioux Falls, SD. I suppose that means there are a fair number of transplanted New York bankers working in Sioux Falls for Citibank and other banks. Are they paying more than the homesteaders? Yes. Is that unfair? No. If they would have risked life and limb in the 1800s, they'd have got the same deal. And if today those transplanted New Yorkers working in Sioux Falls began talking against the property rights of homesteaded families, do you think there would be some quick problems? You bet. The homesteaded families risked life and limb to survive, settle the territory, establish rule of law, and make it livable so companies like Citibank could move in and make a profit. The only benefit they got from that risk and effort was the thrill, adventure, and cheap property. Likewise, the Internet is here because of the efforts and risks of Legacy holders. You don't seem appreciative of that. Legacy holders need little or no attention from ARIN, and thereby require less expenditure than the newbies who come in confused, easily misled, and making trouble. > And, as I asked before, how are you going to move your setup to IPv6? Read RFC4038, and hope for the best??? How about oh, maybe, use IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses: "::FFFF:"? Did that change? Did I miss something? Could be I did. Please tell me there is some problem with that. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jul 9 23:41:16 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:41:16 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: <1070709215705.10161A-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:25 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] >> >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:59 PM >> >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> >Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net >> >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders >> > >> > >> >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On >Behalf Of >> >> >John Santos >> >> >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM >> >> >To: Leo Bicknell >> >> >Cc: ppml at arin.net >> >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything >> >> >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- >> >> >signing holder. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a >> >> situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4. >> >> >> >> So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are >> >> demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still >> >> in exactly the same circumstances. You customers will still >be natting >> >> under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now. > >You don't know my customers. They strongly believe in "if it ain't >broke, don't fix it." > Yeah, sounds exactly like mine too. Believe it or not I've been told "the reason we don't apply Microsoft security patches is because if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (this was when talking to a customer that their line was clogged with outbound spam because their exchange server had been cracked into) >(In case you totally have the wrong end of the stick, my customers >are *NOT* buying any sort of internet service from us. We use the >internet as a tool for supporting our customers. They typically >have enormous internal networks, and may eventually implement v6 >on them, but there is no prospect they'll be turning off v4 for >decades. Switching to v6 for this function would be a pointless >waste of time for both us and them.) > No, I understood this. We have dealt with similar private-to-private interconnects ourselves and I'm aware that it is very seductive to use legal numbers for such interconnects to avoid clashes with private number space. One of the main drivers for going to IPv6 is, of course, it gives so much numbering that it should make no difference if a bit of the public numbering goes away into these kinds of connections forever. I will also point out that staying with IPv4 for your interconnect is also a solution, if the other parties don't want to update. Once the Internet switches over to IPv6 the IPv4 you have in the interconnect will be worthless anyway, so there's a great argument to leaving it alone, and nobody will care if it's legacy or not. Obviously you will have problems sourcing traffic from it into the rest of the world but generally most interconnects of these types aren't sourcing anyway. However, the mistake you made is trying to apply your situation to the global problem with legacy numbering. You set up a fairly narrow situation, and in this post you have added even more conditions to narrow it even further. Doubtless if we were to discuss it further and discuss the usual solutions used for this situation, you would bring reasons why you can't do them which would even further narrow the scope of the example. Eventually so many solutions would have been brought up and shot down that it would be obvious to anyone that your situation is so unique it's completely inapplicable to the larger discussion of legacy number holders, and you would have succeeded in invalidating the original analogy you tried to make in the first place. > >Totally bogus analogies. Why don't you propose the police go back >to their records and charge with drunk driving anyone they stopped >with a breathalyzer reading below what was then the threshold but >is now above the threshold? > Nobody is arguing that in 1993 your now-legacy assignment was assigned incorrectly or that you shouldn't have had it in 1993, or 1994 or so on. But the point that has been repeatedly made over and over on this list is that the IP numbering SCHEME is a SHARED scheme. You cannot deny that the Internet would not function if nobody agreed to respect numbering allocations - you yourself respected them when you got yours originally. What I think your blind spot is, is that your implying that conditions on the Internet haven't changed from 1993. I think a few of the old timers on this list (and keep in mind I was running UUCP back in 1982) seem to have a problem with the idea that their baby grew up into the 800 pound gorilla. You have to treat the 800 pound gorilla differently, you don't let him sit on your lap like he could when he was a baby gorilla. Life changes and we all have to change with it. Me, I absolutely deplore a lot of changes that have happened on the Internet, for example I think it's a terrible thing that child predators are able to use it nowadays to get victims, that wasn't going on a decade ago that I remember. The numbering rules that were in effect in 1993 cannot stand. As proof of this the entire IPv4 numbering scheme itself has been tossed in the garbage can, and replaced by IPv6. Yet, there's still people out there that if they got a chance would turn the clock back to 1993 and bring the old 1993 rules into 2007 and beyond. >> Face the facts. Your getting something for nothing. Your getting >> tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact, >> in a system that -I'm- paying for. (or more accurately, my employer, >> who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and >> so forth) You certainly don't seem appreciative of this. > >I never said I wasn't willing to pay my fair share for *something* >(like v6 addresses.) I'm not willing to pay, agree to terms I did >not originally agree to, and risk losing my /24 for no discernable >benefit to me. > As others have claimed if you sign an RSA for IPv6 it doesen't affect your IPv4 holdings. I would ask, have you even e-mailed hostmaster at arin.net and asked any of these questions? > >> >> And, as I asked before, how are you going to move your setup to >> IPv6? >> > >I didn't answer this before because I don't spout nonsense off the >top of my head, unlike some people I could name, and I need to do >a bit of research before answering, but at least three possibilities >come to mind: 1) I believe there is a class of addresses that can >be generated from IPv4 addresses, and I can just use those. >2) Apply for v6 addresses through the normal process. 3) If I >don't qualify for 2 because my network is too small, then form a >cooperative with some of the 20,000 other legacy class C holders, >pointlessly duplicating the work of ARIN, etc. but aquiring enough >v6 addresses for all of us. > >If any of this is wrong, or unworkable, *you* are the one who insisted >on an answer... If you're so damn smart, what would you do? > I don't see anything wrong with #2. But keep in mind that I also feel the requirements in the following: http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/micro_alloc.html) are unworkable and favor large companies. But you see there's a lot of politics going on. One of the biggest problems I think is the insistence on aggregation. This is why the requirements for getting a micro allocation are unworkable for most organizations, the people that wrote them want to force every potential small holder to request from upstream. (except, of course, then the small holder is them - why if your a holder that runs a public exchange you can get a micro allocation) I mean - think of this! We have people fighting with me on this list that IPv4 is so important post-transition that ARIN must keep track of IPv4 allocations forever! They are happy to spill some 100,000+ IPv4 route entries into the public BGP table post-IPv6 for the next 50 years - yet the same folks buy off on the policy that there are too many route entries so we must restrict the micro allocations! Clearly there's contradictions in the policies, and far more in how some people view things. As I said last week nobody wants to take any steps to push IPv6 implementation, they are all expecting the other guy to just do it without trouble. And nobody had any response to that. They just bitched up a storm with the idea that it might be a good idea to one of these days just stop paying attention to IPv4. But I ask you, how do we even start uncovering these problems if the legacy holders don't want to get engaged? (and I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the legacy holders who are out there and who aren't even reading, much less participating, in the discussion) You at least are partipating in the discussion. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Jul 10 00:08:54 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:08:54 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:23 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: John Santos; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> Face the facts. Your getting something for nothing. Your getting >> tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact, >> in a system that -I'm- paying for. (or more accurately, my employer, >> who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and >> so forth) You certainly don't seem appreciative of this. > >Because its not true. Legacy holders established the Internet. We took >the risks to career and business to get things to where you are, just >like the homesteaders of the 1800s. You are a latecomer, and deserve to >pay more to benefit from our efforts. You're buying into a phase 3 >development. (low risk, established) > That sounds perfectly fair to me. Now, let's talk about how long the latecomers are expected to pay extra. You see the problem isn't that the latecomers are paying extra. The problem is that they are paying extra and some of the homesteaders expect the situation to continue FOREVER. >Homesteaders in the 19th century took large risks. Now, farmland is >about ~$3k per acre. Subdivided housing developments go for multiples >more. Maybe you notice that many of your Credit Card bills come from >Sioux Falls, SD. I suppose that means there are a fair number of >transplanted New York bankers working in Sioux Falls for Citibank and >other banks. Are they paying more than the homesteaders? Yes. Is that >unfair? No. If they would have risked life and limb in the 1800s, >they'd have got the same deal. And if today those transplanted New >Yorkers working in Sioux Falls began talking against the property rights >of homesteaded families, do you think there would be some quick >problems? You bet. The homesteaded families risked life and limb to >survive, settle the territory, establish rule of law, and make it >livable so companies like Citibank could move in and make a profit. >The only benefit they got from that risk and effort was the thrill, >adventure, and cheap property. > And many of the homesteaders did in fact sell land and make a big chunk which after they died the inhertance taxes took quite a bit away. This is in the US, of course. In some other countries they seem to like to encourage descendents of roya-- I mean rich people, to be supported forever. >Likewise, the Internet is here because of the efforts and risks of >Legacy holders. You don't seem appreciative of that. I would think that getting a free ride for so long is a good expression of appreciation by the community? On a personal level, I've been doing my part far longer than I've been working for my current employer who is also doing it's part. Ted From JOHN at egh.com Tue Jul 10 01:24:22 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:24:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1070710002314.10161A-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] > >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:25 PM > >To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >Cc: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > > > > > >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] > >> >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:59 PM > >> >To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >> >Cc: Leo Bicknell; ppml at arin.net > >> >Subject: RE: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > >> > > >> > > >> >On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On > >Behalf Of > >> >> >John Santos > >> >> >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:47 PM > >> >> >To: Leo Bicknell > >> >> >Cc: ppml at arin.net > >> >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Under these circumstances, I can't see any sense in doing anything > >> >> >else but what we are doing now, continuing as a legacy, non-RSA- > >> >> >signing holder. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> I guess you think your pretty smart in that you have outlined a > >> >> situation you think isn't solvable in IPv4. > >> >> > >> >> So, when all your customers have switched over to IPv6 and are > >> >> demanding that you do the same, it appears to me you will be still > >> >> in exactly the same circumstances. You customers will still > >be natting > >> >> under IPv6 - if you don't think so, go ask them now. > > > >You don't know my customers. They strongly believe in "if it ain't > >broke, don't fix it." > > > > Yeah, sounds exactly like mine too. Believe it or not I've been told > "the reason we don't apply Microsoft security patches is because if > it ain't broke, don't fix it" (this was when talking to a customer > that their line was clogged with outbound spam because their exchange > server had been cracked into) > > >(In case you totally have the wrong end of the stick, my customers > >are *NOT* buying any sort of internet service from us. We use the > >internet as a tool for supporting our customers. They typically > >have enormous internal networks, and may eventually implement v6 > >on them, but there is no prospect they'll be turning off v4 for > >decades. Switching to v6 for this function would be a pointless > >waste of time for both us and them.) > > > > No, I understood this. We have dealt with similar private-to-private > interconnects ourselves > and I'm aware that it is very seductive to use legal numbers for such > interconnects to avoid clashes with private number space. > > One of the main drivers for going to IPv6 > is, of course, it gives so much numbering that it should make no difference > if > a bit of the public numbering goes away into these kinds of connections > forever. > > I will also point out that staying with IPv4 for your > interconnect is also a solution, if the other parties don't want to > update. Once the Internet switches over to > IPv6 the IPv4 you have in the interconnect will be worthless anyway, > so there's a great argument to leaving it alone, and nobody will > care if it's legacy or not. Obviously you will have problems sourcing > traffic from it into the rest of the world but generally most > interconnects of these types aren't sourcing anyway. > > However, the mistake you made is trying to apply your situation to > the global problem with legacy numbering. You set up a fairly narrow No, I did not say anything about any global problem. I just described my situation and said it did not seem to fit in with what was being discussed. I don't know how many others are in the same situation, it might be extremely rare or it might be very common. > situation, and in this post you have added even more conditions to > narrow it even further. Doubtless if we were to discuss it further > and discuss the usual solutions used for this situation, you would bring > reasons why you can't do them which would even further narrow the > scope of the example. Eventually so many solutions would have been > brought up and shot down that it would be obvious to anyone that > your situation is so unique it's completely inapplicable to the > larger discussion of legacy number holders, and you would have succeeded > in invalidating the original analogy you tried to make in the first > place. What analogy? I didn't make any analogy. I just described reality. > > > > >Totally bogus analogies. Why don't you propose the police go back > >to their records and charge with drunk driving anyone they stopped > >with a breathalyzer reading below what was then the threshold but > >is now above the threshold? > > > Oh, this analogy? You mean my mocking response to *your* ridiculous analogies (which you conveniently snipped?) > Nobody is arguing that in 1993 your now-legacy assignment was assigned > incorrectly or that you shouldn't have had it in 1993, or 1994 or > so on. But the point that has been repeatedly made over and over on > this list is that the IP numbering SCHEME is a SHARED scheme. > > You cannot deny that the Internet would not function if nobody agreed to > respect numbering allocations - you yourself respected them when you > got yours originally. > > What I think your blind spot is, is that your implying that conditions > on the Internet haven't changed from 1993. I think a few of the old timers > on this list (and keep in mind I was running UUCP back in 1982) seem > to have a problem with the idea that their baby grew up into the 800 pound > gorilla. > > You have to treat the 800 pound gorilla differently, you don't let him > sit on your lap like he could when he was a baby gorilla. Life changes > and we all have to change with it. Me, I absolutely deplore a lot of > changes that have happened on the Internet, for example I think it's a > terrible thing that child predators are able to use it nowadays to get > victims, that wasn't going on a decade ago that I remember. > > The numbering rules that were in effect in 1993 cannot stand. As proof of > this the entire IPv4 numbering scheme itself has been tossed in the > garbage can, and replaced by IPv6. Yet, there's still people out there > that if they got a chance would turn the clock back to 1993 and > bring the old 1993 rules into 2007 and beyond. I'm not one of them. But I think some babies (whether they grew up to be 800 pound gorillas or bonobos) got thrown out with the bath water... And if IPv4 has been replaced by IPv6, why do you care about legacy v4 assignments anymore? (Down below, it sounds like you don't... :-) > > >> Face the facts. Your getting something for nothing. Your getting > >> tracking and visibility in a system you aren't paying for - in fact, > >> in a system that -I'm- paying for. (or more accurately, my employer, > >> who due to paying for this system has less money he can pay me, and > >> so forth) You certainly don't seem appreciative of this. > > > >I never said I wasn't willing to pay my fair share for *something* > >(like v6 addresses.) I'm not willing to pay, agree to terms I did > >not originally agree to, and risk losing my /24 for no discernable > >benefit to me. > > > > As others have claimed if you sign an RSA for IPv6 it doesen't affect > your IPv4 holdings. I would ask, have you even e-mailed hostmaster at arin.net > and asked any of these questions? > Not yet. I don't need v6 *yet*. I probably will someday. I've got an O'Reilly book on my desk that I'll read someday when I have time. :-) So if I sign up for a v6 allocation and sign the RSA and pay my $100 per year, will I still be in danger of losing my v4 allocation as various policy proposals being discussed here seem to indicate? Will I in fact increase the danger of that happening? (Leo seemed to indicate in another subthread that I'm using enough of my /24 to be safe, currently 126 hosts in my DNS, but I know some of them are defunct.) > > > >> > >> And, as I asked before, how are you going to move your setup to > >> IPv6? > >> > > > >I didn't answer this before because I don't spout nonsense off the > >top of my head, unlike some people I could name, and I need to do > >a bit of research before answering, but at least three possibilities > >come to mind: 1) I believe there is a class of addresses that can > >be generated from IPv4 addresses, and I can just use those. > >2) Apply for v6 addresses through the normal process. 3) If I > >don't qualify for 2 because my network is too small, then form a > >cooperative with some of the 20,000 other legacy class C holders, > >pointlessly duplicating the work of ARIN, etc. but aquiring enough > >v6 addresses for all of us. > > > >If any of this is wrong, or unworkable, *you* are the one who insisted > >on an answer... If you're so damn smart, what would you do? > > > > I don't see anything wrong with #2. But keep in mind that I also > feel the requirements in the following: > > http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/micro_alloc.html) > > are unworkable and favor large companies. But you see there's a lot > of politics going on. One of the biggest problems I think is the > insistence on aggregation. This is why the > requirements for getting a micro allocation are unworkable for most > organizations, the people that wrote them want to force every potential > small holder to request from upstream. (except, of course, then the > small holder is them - why if your a holder that runs a public exchange > you can get a micro allocation) > I think it would fall under the Exchange Point Operator category. But I'm not sure. The other two categories clearly don't apply (Critical Network Infrastructure, it's critical to us, and to our customers, but not to the world at large, and Non-Routed Core Addressing, which requires that you already have a v6 allocation. > I mean - think of this! We have people fighting with me on this list > that IPv4 is so important post-transition that ARIN must keep track of > IPv4 allocations forever! They are happy to spill some 100,000+ > IPv4 route entries into the public BGP table post-IPv6 for the next 50 > years - yet the same folks buy off on the policy that there are too many > route entries so we must restrict the micro allocations! As I pointed out previously, my /24 (and future v6 allocation) doesn't need to go out to the public BGP table (though it would be nice if it did, I can live with it remaining on our private networks.) > > Clearly there's contradictions in the policies, and far more in how some > people view things. As I said last week nobody wants to take any steps > to push IPv6 implementation, they are all expecting the other guy to > just do it without trouble. And nobody had any response to that. They > just bitched up a storm with the idea that it might be a good idea to > one of these days just stop paying attention to IPv4. But I ask you, how > do we even start uncovering these problems if the legacy holders don't > want to get engaged? (and I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about > the legacy holders who are out there and who aren't even reading, much > less participating, in the discussion) You at least are partipating in > the discussion. > > Ted > > > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Jul 10 01:04:09 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:04:09 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal References: Message-ID: <002c01c7c2b3$0a21f2c0$020110ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" > So then if the membership doesen't want IPv4 to be removed > from the registries, then what is going to be created is a > situation where nobody has any incentive to remove their IPv4 > reachability, nor remove the ability for their customers to reach > IPv4 sites. Once IPv6 is fully working and IPv4 is no longer necessary, there will be a financial incentive to remove it. The problem is how long it will be until we reach that point. > However, if we do this, then don't you see that ALL IPv4 holders, > not just the legacy ones, will never have any incentive to drop > IPv4. Running two protocols instead of one costs money. Paying v4 fees as opposed to the lower v6 fees costs money. The beancounters will shut off v4 as soon as they can get away with it. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov From peter at boku.net Tue Jul 10 01:35:05 2007 From: peter at boku.net (Peter Eisch) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:35:05 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070709210434.21326.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: On 7/9/07 4:04 PM, "Andrew Dul" wrote: > While I agree that we shouldn't be taking away information, the fact that > approx. 50% of the legacy records have not been updated since ARIN's inception > tells me that more needs to be done to make sure that the records are updated > as best as possible. This policy is an attempt to conduct an outreach to > legacy resource holders with some consequences for not taking any action. The information in my records are, oddly enough, still correct and valid. Are we required to change them regularly even if it isn't a material change? peter From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jul 10 06:44:41 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:44:41 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: > In short, IPv4 will NEVER "go away" Your proposing a future > were we add IPv6, and nobody ever gives up IPv4 resources. > So the Internet merely becomes an Internet of both IPv6 and > IPv4, not an Internet of IPv4 only or an Internet of > IPv6 only. First of all, it is not ARIN's place to make IPv4 go away. It is a perfectly good technology that has proven itself in the field. Just like the Intel 8080 architecture, it will probably not go away for a long, long time. Instead it will be used in areas where IPv6 is immature or where Internet connectivity is NOT a desired characteristic. As far as IPv4 on the Internet is concerned, if people want to continue using transition technologies for the next 20 years, then ARIN should support that use by maintaining a proper IPv4 registry, in-addr.arpa, and so on. > However, if we do this, then don't you see that ALL IPv4 > holders, not just the legacy ones, will never have any > incentive to drop IPv4. Incentives are not manufactured. When you try to manufacture incentives, you often make yourself the target of hatred instead of providing the incentive that you intended. ARIN, quite rightly, does not manufacture incentives. The most ARIN does is to try and make sure that ARIN itself is not a barrier to IPv6 adoption because ARIN realizes that IPv6 is the only way to resolve the problem of IPv4 address exhaustion. --Michael Dillon From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 08:38:26 2007 From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:38:26 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: <6eb799ab0707100538q4d8d1eb5o247a618ab2fbf0ed@mail.gmail.com> > incentives. The most ARIN does is to try and make sure that ARIN itself > is not a barrier to IPv6 adoption because ARIN realizes that IPv6 is the > only way to resolve the problem of IPv4 address exhaustion. IPv6 creates other problems (i.e. it incurs costs due to the large size of the addresses it uses). It is not necessarily the only way to resolve the problem of IPv4 exhaustion, and it's not a RIR's place to try to deprecate the IPv4, the RIRs are the stewards of the address space and continue to do their job, otherwise, a new RIR could be formed to fill in the void. Unless at a point there truly are too few IPv4 users to care. Most connected hosts do not need to accept inbound connections, and an alternative would be say for ISPs to NAT and PAT everything. The NAT-capable technology is cheaper and possibly already well in place. The same cannot be said of IPv6, it is in fact possible that it will be preferred. In that case, ISPs ultimately reclaim public addresses not used for servers, make customers pay dearly for each public IP, and resolve the problem of IPv4 exhaustion by reducing the number of public IP addresses that are justifiable for any user of address space, to a small number of hosts that are used for operating well-known services to the public. And they actually gain an advantage by doing so -- the scarcity of IPv4 addresses and the difficulty of obtaining address space creates a barrier to entry for new hosting providers to ever form. This means (when using IPv4), older ISPs/ hosting providers with more ip addresses get a competitive advantage out of the mess. At that point, why would they ever give up the advantage, and replace a perfectly good NAT solution by adoptiong IPv6 as a preferred technology? In many ways, IPv6 is the superior, cleaner, "more correct" technology. But superior, "more correct" technologies do not always win the marketplace, particularly not when they are more expensive, and a simpler solution to the problem that would cause the change is already available without taking on the risk of switching to a brand new protocol. -- -J From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jul 10 09:08:48 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:08:48 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab0707100538q4d8d1eb5o247a618ab2fbf0ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> <6eb799ab0707100538q4d8d1eb5o247a618ab2fbf0ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 7:38 AM -0500 7/10/07, James Hess wrote: >In that case, ISPs ultimately reclaim public addresses not used for servers, >make customers pay dearly for each public IP, and resolve the problem of IPv4 >exhaustion by reducing the number of public IP addresses that are justifiable >for any user of address space, to a small number of hosts that are used for >operating well-known services to the public. James - Your suggestion (just continue to use IPv4, with smaller and smaller assignments to end-sites) works fine, at least for the immediate future. It not only delays depletion of IPv4, it also reduces the routing entries per new end-site. The challenge is that once there is not readily available new blocks of IPv4 space for the ISP's, they will need to explore new avenues to obtain new IPv4 to connect new customers. Some approaches (such as nicely asking your own customers with extra PA space to return it, or mining your network for unused 'stranded' space) work just fine and don't cause global impact. Some of the approaches (getting really big presently unannounced IPv4 address blocks from parties which forgot they were supposed to return them) also work with effectively the same global routing impact as today's system. However, there will be a natural tendency for providers of such big address space to make it into smaller blocks, since many smaller sales (particularly as scarcity increases) could be far more lucrative than the one big transfer. Further, there will be a tendency to start mining IPv4 space from areas with even smaller potential return (such as unused space in ARIN PI or other ISP PA end-site assignments). Unfortunately, as the pressure to continue to connect customers increases, these approaches become inevitable, and result in enormous load on the global routing system, leading eventually to nearly one to one ratio in new global routes to new customers. At that point, it really doesn't matter if super backbone routers can do 500,000, 1M, 5M, or 10M routes, they're not going to keep up with a one-customer/one-global-route scenario. If you've got a way to keep IPv4 running, and still maintain the enough hierarchy to keep global routing running, then it's time to enter the spotlight and share the secret. There is no doubt that its so much easier for us all to stay on IPv6 then to move to IPv4, we just don't know how to do it, and still keep the Internet running. /John From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jul 10 09:17:00 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:17:00 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab0707100538q4d8d1eb5o247a618ab2fbf0ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> <6eb799ab0707100538q4d8d1eb5o247a618ab2fbf0ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Most connected hosts do not need to accept inbound > connections, and an alternative would be say for ISPs to NAT > and PAT everything. That used to be true 10 years ago, but the trend is against this. For instance: http://gizmoproject.com/ Standards based Voice over IP is spreading and although there are ways to make it work with NAT and PAT, they are not pretty and not a universal solution. > In that case, ISPs ultimately reclaim public addresses not > used for servers, make customers pay dearly for each public > IP, Even if an ISP did reclaim IPv4 addresses from consumer customers, I doubt they would be able to make customers pay for an IPv4 address when the competition is offering a free /48 using IPv6 with no NAT/PAT and no restrictions regarding running servers. Internal reclamation may indeed push back the runout date for IPv4 but it will not remove the imperative to enable IPv6 services and IPv6 Internet access. --Michael Dillon From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jul 10 09:25:06 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:25:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 "Up For Grabs" proposal [MORE] In-Reply-To: References: <20070709203143.GK9951@elvis.mu.org> <6eb799ab0707100538q4d8d1eb5o247a618ab2fbf0ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It just occurred to me that my response was to a message that was part of a policy proposal discussion. I have no opinion whatsoever on the particular policy proposal; I just wanted to make sure that the particular issue with "just staying with IPv4" was clear. /John At 9:08 AM -0400 7/10/07, John Curran wrote: >At 7:38 AM -0500 7/10/07, James Hess wrote: >>In that case, ISPs ultimately reclaim public addresses not used for servers, >>make customers pay dearly for each public IP, and resolve the problem of IPv4 >>exhaustion by reducing the number of public IP addresses that are justifiable >>for any user of address space, to a small number of hosts that are used for >>operating well-known services to the public. > >James - > > Your suggestion (just continue to use IPv4, with smaller and > smaller assignments to end-sites) works fine, at least for the > immediate future. It not only delays depletion of IPv4, it also > reduces the routing entries per new end-site. > > The challenge is that once there is not readily available new > blocks of IPv4 space for the ISP's, they will need to explore > new avenues to obtain new IPv4 to connect new customers. > Some approaches (such as nicely asking your own customers > with extra PA space to return it, or mining your network for > unused 'stranded' space) work just fine and don't cause global > impact. Some of the approaches (getting really big presently > unannounced IPv4 address blocks from parties which forgot > they were supposed to return them) also work with effectively > the same global routing impact as today's system. > > However, there will be a natural tendency for providers of such > big address space to make it into smaller blocks, since many > smaller sales (particularly as scarcity increases) could be far > more lucrative than the one big transfer. Further, there will > be a tendency to start mining IPv4 space from areas with > even smaller potential return (such as unused space in ARIN > PI or other ISP PA end-site assignments). Unfortunately, > as the pressure to continue to connect customers increases, > these approaches become inevitable, and result in enormous > load on the global routing system, leading eventually to nearly > one to one ratio in new global routes to new customers. At > that point, it really doesn't matter if super backbone routers > can do 500,000, 1M, 5M, or 10M routes, they're not going > to keep up with a one-customer/one-global-route scenario. > > If you've got a way to keep IPv4 running, and still maintain > the enough hierarchy to keep global routing running, then > it's time to enter the spotlight and share the secret. There > is no doubt that its so much easier for us all to stay on IPv6 > then to move to IPv4, we just don't know how to do it, and > still keep the Internet running. > >/John >_______________________________________________ >This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List >(PPML at arin.net). >Manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Jul 10 09:37:32 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:37:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Authentication of Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20070709210434.21326.qmail@hoster908.com> References: <20070709210434.21326.qmail@hoster908.com> Message-ID: At 13:04 -0800 7/9/07, Andrew Dul wrote: Thanks for the reply, it gives me a different perspective on this. >While I agree that we shouldn't be taking away information, the fact that >approx. 50% of the legacy records have not been updated since ARIN's >inception tells me that more needs to be done to make sure that the records >are updated as best as possible. This policy is an attempt to conduct an >outreach to legacy resource holders with some consequences for not taking >any action. My first reaction is to then being the legacy DNS delegations under the Lame Delegation policy (2005-1 and 2002-1). That's just to get rid of stale and misleading information regarding delegations from the DNS. Realizing that there isn't guaranteed to be a 1:1 correlation between the untouched legacy registrations and lame or broken DNS delegations (I'm sure there will be examples that break that "stereotype" in both directions) this is one way to clean up any in-network mess being caused. It would be interesting to note the correlation of Lame/Broken delegation rates to the kind of delegation (legacy or ARIN). >By setting a sunset time line for Legacy reverse DNS records we hopefully can >accomplish two goals. 1. Formalize the relationship between the ARIN and >active legacy address holders. 2. Start the process of marking address space >that is no-longer in active use. The goal here is not reclamation but >rather updating the database with accurate information from Legacy holders >and continuing that relationship long-term. I have strong objection to #2. In as much as "ARIN does not dictate routing policy" how does one detect that a number resource is "no-longer in active use?" The purpose of ARIN is uniqueness, not routability. After first coming to my personal conclusion that there is no reliable way to decide whether a number resource is in use (e.g., it could be used in a network between two apartments in NYC air-gapped from the rest of the world). As far as #1, I don't think that it is appropriate to use the sunsetting of a service as a motivation to get the other side to agree to a formal relationship. (I suppose this is done in business, my cable company recently moved a PBS station from analog cable to digital cable and presumably to charge more, about $20/month, to see the shows I was already paying for.) >There are a lot of reasons that have been discussed. I'll just name some >that I have heard, there are probably others. > >- Legitimize & confirm legacy holders right to use space they were assigned >- Remove ambiguity about the status of legacy holder's address space I agree that the above two are good and worthy goals, I'd include this in any documentation about this effort (whether this remains a policy, is shunted through the consultation and suggestion thing, or is taken as a board matter. >- Create a relationship with legacy holders, including a yearly "touch-point" > to help insure that records are up-to-date This sounds credible, but touch-point sounds like money changing hands. Then again, I'm sounding cynical based on troll-induced threads that the RIRs are only after money and power. >- ARIN currently provides services to legacy holders for "free", as ARIN is > a cost-recovery non-profit, some believe that all address space holders > should share in the costs of providing these services. This I disagree with. "Address space holders" (I don't mean to be pedantic but to keep us disciplined - "Number resource holders") aren't the only ones benefiting from ARIN's services. Many rely on the DNS and WhoIs that are not holders of resources, although you can argue that the holding of a resource is made "valuable" because of the role ARIN and the other RIR's have. If we tie the cost-recovery burden to holding number resources, then how is this different from charging rent? Okay, beside the target of 0% profit and a say in the determination of the overall costs of operating ARIN (via membership approval of budget items). It would be nice of the burden of operating ARIN is adequately shared, but that probably won't happen. We'll remain in a state where certain interests will fund ARIN because the interests have a greater need for ARIN to be. >Preventing the in-addr DNS queries from returning answers is an >interesting concept, and not one that I have considered. If people think >this is a better method than removing the delegations to motivate legacy >holders to create a formal agreement with ARIN, I'd be open to modifying >the policy. My initial concern with this approach would be that this >approach could be more operationally difficult to deal with. It is pretty >easy to understand why a query returns no records if there isn't a valid set >of NS records for a zone. If your query was answered or not depending on >the source of your query, that could be hard to troubleshoot and understand >for the operational community