From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Tue Oct 2 17:10:37 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:10:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested Message-ID: Hello, As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would like to ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or non-support for this proposal with concise reasoning. More information about this proposal and other active proposals can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Such an effort will refresh this discussion and perhaps air more recently conceived viewpoints. It will also aid the Advisory Council in their efforts to assess industry consensus about this proposal. Thank you for your interest and involvement in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). More information about IRPEP can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sleibrand at internap.com Tue Oct 2 17:48:53 2007 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:48:53 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4702BCC5.2040201@internap.com> As mentioned before, I support the IPv4 Soft Landing proposal. I think it strikes a good balance, not significantly impairing networks' ability to obtain IPv4 space, but at the same time encouraging/requiring adoption of IPv6 where appropriate, thereby reducing demand for remaining IPv4 space. -Scott Bill Darte wrote: > > Hello, > > > > As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would > like to ask the community to once again consider this proposal in > advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings > (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or > non-support for this proposal with concise reasoning. More information > about this proposal and other active proposals can be found at > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html > > > > Such an effort will refresh this discussion and perhaps air more > recently conceived viewpoints. It will also aid the Advisory Council > in their efforts to assess industry consensus about this proposal. > > > > Thank you for your interest and involvement in the ARIN Internet > Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). More information about > IRPEP can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html > > > > > > Bill Darte > > ARIN Advisory Council > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From Keith at jcc.com Tue Oct 2 17:56:17 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:56:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Message-ID: <9efbc034c6fca5a1fa2d0d4e496a5cee4702be8a@jcc.com> Bill, I don't know for sure what it means to demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. For the definitions I can think of, I'm sceptical that is possible to honestly demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. If this can be turned into something that doesn't require applicants to lie, I don't object to it. Keith _____ From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:11 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Hello, As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would like to ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or non-support for this proposal with concise reasoning. More information about this proposal and other active proposals can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Such an effort will refresh this discussion and perhaps air more recently conceived viewpoints. It will also aid the Advisory Council in their efforts to assess industry consensus about this proposal. Thank you for your interest and involvement in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). More information about IRPEP can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dlw+arin at tellme.com Tue Oct 2 18:08:23 2007 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:08:23 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: <4702BCC5.2040201@internap.com> References: <4702BCC5.2040201@internap.com> Message-ID: <20071002220823.GF23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> I think the IPv4 Soft Landing proposal is the least objectionable of the array of similar proposals. That said, I'm still on the fence in terms of support. I'm not yet convinced that there's a need to "ease" the transition. My crystal ball is very fuzzy on that topic - current policy isn't horribly broken for IPv4. Once it runs out, it runs out. Does it matter if that happens slower as a result of policy changes? We need to get onto IPv6 sooner, rather than later, but I'm not sure how related that is to IPv4 runout. It's clear that running out will trigger much more interest in v6. I'm more inclined to push for more education about how to use v6 and the impending doom for v4, and let the community do the right thing from there. Again, that doesn't involve policy changes. To answer Bill's original question, I think I don't support any of these proposals at this time, but I'm not yet firm on that decision. If someone convinces me that we do need to change policy, I think I would support this proposal over the other similar ones. -David On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 02:48:53PM -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote: > As mentioned before, I support the IPv4 Soft Landing proposal. I think > it strikes a good balance, not significantly impairing networks' ability > to obtain IPv4 space, but at the same time encouraging/requiring > adoption of IPv6 where appropriate, thereby reducing demand for > remaining IPv4 space. > > -Scott > > Bill Darte wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would > > like to ask the community to once again consider this proposal in > > advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings > > (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or > > non-support for this proposal with concise reasoning. More information > > about this proposal and other active proposals can be found at > > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html > > > > > > > > Such an effort will refresh this discussion and perhaps air more > > recently conceived viewpoints. It will also aid the Advisory Council > > in their efforts to assess industry consensus about this proposal. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your interest and involvement in the ARIN Internet > > Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). More information about > > IRPEP can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Darte > > > > ARIN Advisory Council > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 3 05:54:50 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:54:50 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I > would like to ask the community to once again consider this > proposal in advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and > Membership Meetings (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) > and voice support or non-support for this proposal with > concise reasoning. First it is an overly complex proposal made worse by using "cute" terminology like "Phase 0" which is not explained until the very end of the proposal. I am opposed to this policy because it weaves together too many actions. Some of the actions are rather mild such as the survey requirement which I support. Others, are not so mild such as tightening the screws on ISP customers and tightening the screws on ISPs. In addition, the numbers tossed out, e.g. 85%, are meaningless. Things do not necessarily scale linearly and the hierarchical structure of IPv4 sub-allocation makes 100% allocation impossible for anyone to attain. I'd like to see the mild actions separated out from this proposal and dealt with first. Yes we should require everybody to fill in an IPv6 survey and get it signed by a company financial officer before gettinga additional IPv4 addresses. Yes we should require increasingly stringent internal audits of IPv4 utilisation so that we don't give new addresses to companies who have lots of it scattered around in old forgotten corners. Yes, we should require evidence of movement towards IPv6 deployment starting with planning, then test labs in place, then actual IPv6 infrastructure. I would not be opposed to a policy that bundled a bunch of such actions along with a phased deployment plan. --Michael Dillon From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Oct 3 16:45:46 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:45:46 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am opposed to this policy for the following reasons: 1) No public mechanism is specified for proof of utilization. The requestor is required to prove to ARIN they have efficient utilization. The requestor is not required to publically publish to the world efficient utilization. Under this policy a requestor could make a single SWIP entry for a /23 allocated to Wonklulating Gronkulator corporation, with this corporation not registered in any government entity, not carrying a business license of any kind, no website, and a telephone number that rings the phone in the local public school's janitor's closet. - and that would be perfectly fine. Sure they may be required to demonstrate to ARIN efficient utilization of the /23 - maybe they tell ARIN that Wonkulating is a cover alias for the CIA or some such - but I don't care for this cloak and dagger stuff. The existing SWIP/RWHOIS is adequate to demonstrate efficient utilization and requestors should be required to use this mechanism, and extend it when appropriate. If it cannot be publically proved to most people's satisfaction with entries in SWIP and RWHOIS that a particular block is efficiently utilized - then the requestor hasn't met the requirements, simple as that. 2) No mechanism is specified for continuing proof of 100% utilization. Suppose for example a requestor demonstrates efficient utilization and gets their /16 under these increased requirements. Then 2 years later they go bankrupt and for the next 10 years a bankruptcy court is paying the registration fee for the addresses. The whole point of this proposal is to tighten IPv4 requirements because the author is assuming that the current requirements are loose enough that over the years a lot of "slop" has accumulated in addresseing that is already assigned. In other words it is easier to just request more blocks than vacuum out the corners of your network looking for the usable /25 or so and combining them. I don't know that I agree with this but for the moment lets assume it's a valid supposition. If so, it is then illogical to require requestors to jump through hoops cleaning up their allocations then once more numbers are handed out, they ride off into the sunset and go right back to their slovenly ways. Statements in the policy exist like "demonstrate a one year requirement of 90% utilization" But no mechanism in the policy exists for going back to the requestor a year after they get their /8 and seeing if they actually DID use 90% - and if they didn't, then taking some of that allocation back. Note that I am not opposed to the IDEA of trying to increase the size of the stick and the carrot to convince heavy consumers of IPv4 to "mend their ways" and see the IPv6 light. But this policy is like a roosters mouth - much sound and it has no teeth at all. Give the thing some dentures at least, for crying out loud. Ted -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:11 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Hello, As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would like to ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of the Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings (http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or non-support for this proposal with concise reasoning. More information about this proposal and other active proposals can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html Such an effort will refresh this discussion and perhaps air more recently conceived viewpoints. It will also aid the Advisory Council in their efforts to assess industry consensus about this proposal. Thank you for your interest and involvement in the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). More information about IRPEP can be found at http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dean at av8.com Thu Oct 4 15:39:52 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? Message-ID: "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments" Where is this counsel statement? --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:00:33 -0500 From: Stephen Sprunk To: John Day Cc: ietf at ietf.org Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition Thus spake "John Day" > If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks > that should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the > public Internet address space. AFAIK, IANA does not have any reclamation procedures, nor have any every been assumed to exist. In any event, the legacy assignments were transferred to their respective RIRs during the ERX process, so it's the RIRs' problem now. I don't know what has been going on in the other RIRs, but in ARIN it's been (heatedly) discussed many times what to do with legacy assignments. Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments, though it does have a moral one since that was a condition of ARIN's creation. Counsel also stated, however, it is unclear that ARIN could assign those same numbers to someone else later. There's quite a bit of history there, including the possibility that assignments made during the ARPAnet days (particularly to universities and defense contractors) were "Government Furnished Equipment" and thus only the government can take them back. There's a counter-theory that numbers cannot be property at all and ARIN can do whatever it wants. Nobody's really sure, least of all the lawyers who'd inevitably be arguing the issue in court when one (or more likely all) of those /8 holders sued ARIN for trying to reclaim them. It doesn't matter who's right in the end; ARIN would be bankrupted just trying to defend itself against several dozen Fortune 100 companies' legal departments... We're working on policy proposals to address the issue the best we can, though, and if you wish to contribute please subscribe to PPML (and read the archives to get up to speed). S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Oct 4 16:25:09 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:25:09 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? References: Message-ID: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for > legacy assignments" > > Where is this counsel statement? http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From dean at av8.com Thu Oct 4 18:21:20 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement. You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much, and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without any strings attached'. That is an agreement with the government. So Mr. Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the government and legacy holders. And you left off the part about: "I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for authority to have the government obtain back that which the government gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've started to play with different theories here." So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know. ARIN hasn't offered any definitive opinion as you assert. Please tell the IETF you were wrong. --Dean On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Dean Anderson" > > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that > > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for > > legacy assignments" > > > > Where is this counsel statement? > > http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 > > "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like > here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN > is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit > trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free > services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services > to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly > permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking > > > > -- 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 Thu Oct 4 18:24:41 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:24:41 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <9efbc034c6fca5a1fa2d0d4e496a5cee4702be8a@jcc.com> References: <9efbc034c6fca5a1fa2d0d4e496a5cee4702be8a@jcc.com> Message-ID: Keith, On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: > I don't know for sure what it means to demonstrate efficient > utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. For the definitions I can > think of, I'm sceptical that is possible to honestly demonstrate > efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. I was told by ARIN staff that 100% utilization of all previous allocations is an _existing_ requirement. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Thu Oct 4 18:27:40 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:27:40 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: <20071002220823.GF23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> References: <4702BCC5.2040201@internap.com> <20071002220823.GF23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> Message-ID: David, On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:08 PM, David Williamson wrote: > Does it matter if that happens slower as a result of policy changes? The point of a "soft landing" proposal is to extend the runway for transition, but do so in a way as to discourage procrastination. The answer to whether it matters is likely a subject opinion. Clearly I think it does (or I wouldn't have bother to make the proposal), but opinions vary. Regards, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Thu Oct 4 18:31:38 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:31:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3758245C-C8EA-4C48-B5C4-A337FB3534D7@virtualized.org> Michael, On Oct 3, 2007, at 2:54 AM, wrote: > First it is an overly complex proposal made worse by using "cute" > terminology like "Phase 0" which is not explained until the very > end of > the proposal. I agree it is complex. I'm not sure how it could be made less complex. > I am opposed to this policy because it weaves together too many > actions. > Some of the actions are rather mild such as the survey requirement > which > I support. Others, are not so mild such as tightening the screws on > ISP > customers and tightening the screws on ISPs. In addition, the numbers > tossed out, e.g. 85%, are meaningless. I will note that the current number is 80%. Is that somehow less meaningless? > Things do not necessarily scale > linearly and the hierarchical structure of IPv4 sub-allocation makes > 100% allocation impossible for anyone to attain. As mentioned in a previous note, ARIN staff have told me explicitly that 100% utilization of previous allocations is an existing requirement. > I'd like to see the mild actions separated out from this proposal and > dealt with first. Yes we should require everybody to fill in an IPv6 > survey and get it signed by a company financial officer before > gettinga > additional IPv4 addresses. Yes we should require increasingly > stringent > internal audits of IPv4 utilisation so that we don't give new > addresses > to companies who have lots of it scattered around in old forgotten > corners. Yes, we should require evidence of movement towards IPv6 > deployment starting with planning, then test labs in place, then > actual > IPv6 infrastructure. I would not be opposed to a policy that bundled a > bunch of such actions along with a phased deployment plan. So what parts do you not agree with? Thanks, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Thu Oct 4 18:34:11 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:34:11 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <377DE49C-A352-4B3A-A3C8-AA5CF9FC72BA@virtualized.org> Ted, On Oct 3, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I am opposed to this policy for the following reasons: > > 1) No public mechanism is specified for proof of utilization. > 2) No mechanism is specified for continuing proof of 100% utilization. No mechanism is specified because I assume ARIN staff will use the same mechanism they use today. Regards, -drc From arin-contact at dirtside.com Thu Oct 4 18:34:28 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:34:28 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710041534k798f75a5n343941555481a4af@mail.gmail.com> On 10/4/07, Dean Anderson wrote: > Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement. I read all of Ryan's comments at http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 I interpreted them to mean the following: 1. ARIN has no legal standing to revoke or reissue legacy IP address assignments. 2. ARIN has no legal obligation to provide Reverse DNS or WHOIS services for legacy IP address assignments. Besides Dean, is there anyone else who read Ryan's comments and interpreted them to mean something else? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jhg at omsys.com Thu Oct 4 18:46:10 2007 From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:46:10 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:25:09 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> Where is this counsel statement? > >http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 > >"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like >here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN >is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit >trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free >services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services >to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly >permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." Perhaps not, but it would put ARIN right in the middle of this ICANN issue: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=302552 It would certainly ensure continued full employment for attorneys... ;-) --Jeremy From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Oct 4 19:26:27 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:26:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710041534k798f75a5n343941555481a4af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >>William Herrin >>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:34 PM >>To: Dean Anderson >>Cc: ppml at arin.net >>Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? >> >> >>On 10/4/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >> Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement. >> >>I read all of Ryan's comments at >>http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html# >anchor_13 >I interpreted them to mean the following: So did I >1. ARIN has no legal standing to revoke or reissue legacy IP address >assignments. >2. ARIN has no legal obligation to provide Reverse DNS or WHOIS >services for legacy IP address assignments. >Besides Dean, is there anyone else who read Ryan's comments and >interpreted them to mean something else? Not me! But, as the old SNL sketch ran "The Point is Moot!" The legacy holders are all IPv4 and as we all know IPv4 is going away in the future. This is a self-correcting problem that will disappear if ignored. The only possible gain to removal of whois records would be to free up IPv4 to delay the IPv4 runout date. And what IPv4 requestor would be interested in a IPv4 block that was once owned by a legacy holder who still regards themselves as the rightful owner of that block, and is still advertising it. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Oct 4 19:29:09 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:29:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Jeremy H. Griffith >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:46 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > >On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:25:09 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" > wrote: > >>> Where is this counsel statement? >> >>http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html >#anchor_13 >> >>"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like >>here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of >service by ARIN >>is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the >non-profit >>trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free >>services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free >services >>to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is >perfectly >>permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." > >Perhaps not, but it would put ARIN right in the middle of >this ICANN issue: > >http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB >asic&articleId=302552 > What issue? The controversy here concerns whois on domain names, not whois records on IP address block assignments. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Oct 4 19:55:20 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:55:20 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <377DE49C-A352-4B3A-A3C8-AA5CF9FC72BA@virtualized.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:34 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Public Policy Mailing List >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and >Support/Non-SupportRequested > > >Ted, > >On Oct 3, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> I am opposed to this policy for the following reasons: >> >> 1) No public mechanism is specified for proof of utilization. >> 2) No mechanism is specified for continuing proof of 100% utilization. > >No mechanism is specified because I assume ARIN staff will use the >same mechanism they use today. > Your ignoring the issue. I will remind you that your in a public forum and if you take shortcuts to respond to criticism of the proposal, it will definitely be voted down as people will rightly conclude that you have not thought things through. This proposal is like the Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike, and ignoring the real problem which is the water behind the dike is rising because the pumps can't return it back to the sea fast enough. Sure, patching a few holes will reduce the water coming through the dike, but it's not a complete solution. If you really want to keep behind the dike dry, you have to both patch the holes AND beef up the pumps. Your just patching the holes a bit. The "mechanism ARIN uses today" that follows up to be sure that people keep the additional promises of 100% utilization in a year and suchlike, that your proposing, were not designed for your proposal. They were designed for the EXISTING IPv4 justification requirements - which are laxer than yours. They will need to be changed if your proposal were to work. For example, ARIN depends on fees as one of the levers to keep people from requesting a lot of IP numbers then not using them. This works as long as IPv4 is plentiful and not difficult to get. Orgs that request a lot of it then later on find out they don't need so much, have a financial incentive to save money by returning unused IPv4 and thus lowering their yearly fee. The orgs know that since it is plentiful and cheap that if they ever need it again, they can just go back to ARIN and get it again. Your proposal makes IPv4 more difficult to get. Well when you restrict availability of something, you drive up it's value. That's why DeBeers vaults diamonds it pulls out of South Africa. As the monopoly owner of most of the investment grade diamond mines in the world they artificially increase the price of diamonds by restricting their availability. Your proposals drive up the value of IPv4 and thus undercut the financial incentive to return unused IPv4. Now, orgs that get extra IPv4 will look at your proposal and think Gee I better just keep paying the fees on it because if I return it I might not be able to get it back. In order to counteract this side effect, you need increased enforcement of the utilization demands your proposing. This is why when towns and municipalities decrease speed limits on in-town roads that they then increase police presense on those roads. Lowering the speed limit makes the old way of just "trusting drivers to do the right thing" not work anymore. Ted From randy at psg.com Thu Oct 4 20:00:59 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:00:59 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> > "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like > here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN > is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit > trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free > services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services > to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly > permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find an organization more interested in public service. probably such a change would be good for the community; at least this puff and bluff would cease. randy -- [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 From jhg at omsys.com Thu Oct 4 20:14:03 2007 From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:14:03 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:29:09 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote: >>From: Jeremy H. Griffith >>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:46 PM >> >>On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:25:09 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" >> wrote: >> >>>> Where is this counsel statement? >>> >>>http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 >>> >>>"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like >>>here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN >>>is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit >>>trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free >>>services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services >>>to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly >>>permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." >> >>Perhaps not, but it would put ARIN right in the middle of >>this ICANN issue: >> >> >> > >What issue? The controversy here concerns whois on domain names, not >whois records on IP address block assignments. They are related. The primary concern in the domain-name issue is one of accountability. If ARIN dropped the WHOIS services for the address block assignments to legacy users, that accountability is broken. All someone has to do is use a legacy IP number instead of a domain name, and they become effectively untraceable for anyone not in LE or the NSA... ;-) So one result of such a policy would be to raise the value of such addresses on the black market. Not a good idea, IMHO. --Jeremy From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Oct 4 20:38:54 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:38:54 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Jeremy H. Griffith >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 5:14 PM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > >On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:29:09 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" >wrote: > >>>From: Jeremy H. Griffith >>>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:46 PM >>> >>>On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:25:09 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Where is this counsel statement? >>>> >>>>http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.ht >ml#anchor_13 >>>> >>>>"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like >>>>here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of >service by ARIN >>>>is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as >the non-profit >>>>trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free >>>>services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those >free services >>>>to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement >is perfectly >>>>permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." >>> >>>Perhaps not, but it would put ARIN right in the middle of >>>this ICANN issue: >>> >>>leBasic&articleId=302552> >>> >> >>What issue? The controversy here concerns whois on domain names, not >>whois records on IP address block assignments. > >They are related. The primary concern in the domain-name issue is >one of accountability. If ARIN dropped the WHOIS services for the >address block assignments to legacy users, that accountability is >broken. All someone has to do is use a legacy IP number instead of >a domain name, and they become effectively untraceable for anyone not >in LE or the NSA... ;-) So one result of such a policy would be to >raise the value of such addresses on the black market. Not a good >idea, IMHO. > A great many networks will not accept advertisements from people who do not have a listing for the blocks they want to advertise in WHOIS. And, any admin of any network who is worried about traffic from black market addresses can simply elect to block out networks that are not visible in WHOIS. So I don't see that it would raise the value of them on the black market. In any case, speaking about the black market, I can assure you that the criminal Pishers can obtain all of the compromised machines that they want. An entire industry exists of people who are paid to break into machines. An IP address by itself isn't much good, it has to have connectivity and CPU time available on a machine with it, in order to become a problem. IMHO withholding WHIS on IPv4 legacy numbering only has value when it is used on a case-by-case basis, to prod a legacy holder into either giving up a block they aren't using, or more efficiently using a block that they have. Ted From jr at jrw.org Fri Oct 5 00:01:31 2007 From: jr at jrw.org (J. R. Westmoreland) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:01:31 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> Message-ID: <001b01c80704$6cf83a90$46e8afb0$@org> Right. If we're really wanting to stir the pot maybe we should say "well, we will charge $100 per class C" so if you have a class B that means 256 * $100 / year for it? And think about those class A's. Then they would really be able to buy a lot of lowyers, right? That would be like financing a MAJOR corporation. J. R. ---------------------------------------- J. R. Westmoreland Email: jr at jrw.org > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Randy Bush > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:01 PM > To: Stephen Sprunk > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > > "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look > like > > here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by > ARIN > > is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non- > profit > > trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide > free > > services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free > services > > to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is > perfectly > > permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." > > if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and > to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find > an organization more interested in public service. probably such a > change would be good for the community; at least this puff and bluff > would cease. > > randy > > -- > > [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN > Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 5 01:09:56 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:09:56 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> On Oct 3, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>> I am opposed to this policy for the following reasons: >>> >>> 1) No public mechanism is specified for proof of utilization. >>> 2) No mechanism is specified for continuing proof of 100% >>> utilization. >> >> No mechanism is specified because I assume ARIN staff will use the >> same mechanism they use today. > > Your ignoring the issue. ? > I will remind you that your in a public forum > and if you take shortcuts to respond to criticism of the proposal, > it will > definitely be voted down as people will rightly conclude that you > have not thought things through. Thanks for the reminder, although I'm entirely unclear as to why you think (a) that I wasn't already aware of it (I have been trying to respond directly to any issue anyone raises) and (b) you felt it necessary. > The "mechanism ARIN uses today" that follows up to be sure that people > keep the additional promises of 100% utilization in a year and > suchlike, > that your proposing, were not designed for your proposal. They were > designed for the EXISTING IPv4 justification requirements - which > are laxer than > yours. They will need to be changed if your proposal were to work. According to ARIN staff, current requirements for additional address space allocations (according to section 4.2.4 of the NPRM) are: a) 100% utilization of all previous allocations b) 80% utilization of the most recent allocation Presumably, ARIN staff have mechanisms in place to verify both requirements. If they felt additional mechanisms were required to meet the increased restrictions the Soft Landing proposal imposed, I would have thought they would have told me in their comments to me on the previous draft of the policy. They did not nor do I feel it is appropriate for me to tell ARIN staff how to do their job. > Your proposals drive up the value of IPv4 and thus undercut the > financial > incentive to return unused IPv4. Even if there was a financial incentive to return unused IPv4 addresses (something I think many people would argue), the fact that IPv4 is nearing exhaustion would do this independent of any attempts to encourage conservation and promotion of IPv6. Regards, -drc From Kavalec at BSWA.com Fri Oct 5 02:41:37 2007 From: Kavalec at BSWA.com (G. Waleed Kavalec) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:41:37 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> Message-ID: > if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to > the community and to the USG when it was chartered [0], I see no contractual obligation to legacy non-members in [0]. -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:01 PM To: Stephen Sprunk Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like > here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN > is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit > trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free > services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services > to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly > permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law." if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find an organization more interested in public service. probably such a change would be good for the community; at least this puff and bluff would cease. randy -- [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 5 04:26:16 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:26:16 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> Message-ID: > if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the > community and to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure > the community can find an organization more interested in > public service. probably such a change would be good for the > community; at least this puff and bluff would cease. > [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 "Randy made a commitment" is not the same as "ARIN made a commitment". This is what the ninth slide says: ---------- ARIN - more Defensible than Status Quo * No cross-subsidy from sale of names * Non-profit, RIPE has even reduced rates * Stakeholders have a say * No plan to change policy * Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy changes ---------- Note the part where it says "Stakeholders have a say". That is the bit that led to PPML and the structure wherein the public has the ability to *CHANGE* ARIN policies. In any case, ARIN's commitment to the USG when it was chartered is embedded in its Articles of Incorporation http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/artic_incorp.html. Hopefully your huff and bluff about this phantom pronise will cease. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 5 04:34:22 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:34:22 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <3758245C-C8EA-4C48-B5C4-A337FB3534D7@virtualized.org> References: <3758245C-C8EA-4C48-B5C4-A337FB3534D7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: > > Things do not necessarily scale > > linearly and the hierarchical structure of IPv4 > sub-allocation makes > > 100% allocation impossible for anyone to attain. > > As mentioned in a previous note, ARIN staff have told me > explicitly that 100% utilization of previous allocations is > an existing requirement. That does not change the fact that 100% utilization is technically impossible. That's probably why the existing practice is to only audit the last allocation for 80% utilization and ignore all previous allocations. > > IPv6 infrastructure. I would not be opposed to a policy > that bundled a > > bunch of such actions along with a phased deployment plan. > > So what parts do you not agree with? Not particularly relevant. I am opposed to the whole policy, not just because it has bad parts, but because it is too big, too overreaching, and has too many implications to properly evaluate in the short amount of time between the submission of the proposal and the meeting. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 5 04:36:56 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:36:56 +0100 Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-announce] Updated ARIN Fee Schedule Message-ID: > In addition, the Board approved a multi-year fee waiver structure for > IPv6 allocations that will take effect on 1 January 2008. > Under this fee structure, IPv6 initial allocation and annual > subscription renewal fees will be partially waived, at a declining > annual rate, over the next four years. The amount of the waiver and > the resulting fees are detailed in a table under the "Future IPv6 > Waivers" section of the fee schedule at > http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#waivers Thank you for giving us clear and PREDICTABLE fees and removing the uncertainty of the previous waivers that came with an expiration date. --Michael Dillon From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 5 05:24:49 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 02:24:49 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: <3758245C-C8EA-4C48-B5C4-A337FB3534D7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Michael, On Oct 5, 2007, at 1:34 AM, wrote: >> As mentioned in a previous note, ARIN staff have told me >> explicitly that 100% utilization of previous allocations is an >> existing requirement. > > That does not change the fact that 100% utilization is technically > impossible. That's probably why the existing practice is to only > audit the last allocation for 80% utilization and ignore all > previous allocations. The fact that you believe existing practice differs from what ARIN staff states is the current requirements raises interesting questions. I modified my proposal to its current form based on input from ARIN staff that if my previous version were to be implemented, it would actually reduce utilization requirements. If you believe the existing utilization requirements are "impossible", this is something that you may wish to raise with ARIN staff and/or via the public policy process. Regards, -drc From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Oct 5 07:41:32 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:41:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> Message-ID: At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote: >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find >an organization more interested in public service. Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states: "The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. " I imagine there'd be a lot less discussion on not providing services to the legacy community, if indeed we're were indeed following the original guidance. One can reiterate that those assignments predate the RIR's, but they certainly don't precede the IANA, who was both an RFC2050 author and ex-officio trustee of ARIN. Either they're bound by this, and we can't change the rules at all, or they're not and it's perfectly reasonable to revise other assumptions in handling legacy assignments. /John From Keith at jcc.com Fri Oct 5 07:46:40 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:46:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Message-ID: With the explanation that the 100% efficient utilization of the previous IP allocation is part of the current requirements, I think I understand how this proposal fits in with the current policies. I don't have an objection to this proposal. Keith _____ From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:25 PM To: Keith W. Hare Cc: Bill Darte; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Keith, On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: I don't know for sure what it means to demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. For the definitions I can think of, I'm sceptical that is possible to honestly demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. I was told by ARIN staff that 100% utilization of all previous allocations is an _existing_ requirement. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Keith at jcc.com Fri Oct 5 08:14:50 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:14:50 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? Message-ID: <05625205784bec75c9e483e3183fe0bf47062ac5@jcc.com> >From the discussions I've read about legacy assignments, I see the following points: 1. Removing the reverse DNS entries, etc. for legacy assignments would have a detrimental affect on the entire internet community, not just on the legacy assignment holders. 2. Maintaining the existing reverse DNS entries, etc. for legacy assignments costs ARIN very little. Most of the cost is in changes and the information doesn't change often. 3. Freezing changes to the reverse DNS entries, etc. for legacy assignments will lead to more errors in the data, which will as detrimental to ARIN and the entire internet community as it is to the legacy assignment holders. 4. Re-assigning addresses that have been held by legacy assignment holders will lead to chaos, unless the legacy assignment holders really are defunct, dead, or otherwise non-existent. 5. Telling a legacy assignment holder that if you don't join ARIN, we will do ... to you is more likely to tick off the legacy assignment holder than to get them to join ARIN. 6. Getting legacy assignment holders involved in the ARIN process is an advantage to ARIN and the internet community. 7. Spending a lot of time discussing whether or not ARIN has authority over the legacy address assignments is a complete waste of time -- it would be much more productive to explain to the legacy assignment holders why it is a benefit to join ARIN. 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 John Curran Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:42 AM To: Randy Bush Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote: >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find >an organization more interested in public service. Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states: "The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. " I imagine there'd be a lot less discussion on not providing services to the legacy community, if indeed we're were indeed following the original guidance. One can reiterate that those assignments predate the RIR's, but they certainly don't precede the IANA, who was both an RFC2050 author and ex-officio trustee of ARIN. Either they're bound by this, and we can't change the rules at all, or they're not and it's perfectly reasonable to revise other assumptions in handling legacy assignments. /John _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From arin-contact at dirtside.com Fri Oct 5 08:23:42 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:23:42 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: > At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote: > >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and > >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find > >an organization more interested in public service. > > Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes > commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states: John, Relatively few legacy assignments were made after RFC 2050 was published. Even if RFC 2050 could be considered "the law" for address assignments, it couldn't apply retroactively. Randy's point about replacing ARIN for RDNS is not unsupported by law. Consider the following scenario: 1. ARIN drops RDNS for legacy registrants. 2. The legacy registrants band together and produce an organization qualified to handle RNDS delegation. 3. The legacy registrants ask ARIN to transfer the RDNS duty to this new organization. 4. ARIN refuses. 5. The legacy registrants suffer problems with email and authentication due to the lack of RDNS. In this hypothetical scenario, ARIN doesn't just decline to provide services to legacy holders; they obstruct legacy holders from receiving the service from anyone else as well. Look up the term "tortious interference." It would be an interesting case to litigate. On 10/5/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 > > "Randy made a commitment" is not the same as "ARIN made a commitment". Michael, This is one record that's part of the whole process which justified ARIN taking on management of the swamp instead of just managing new /8's like the other RIRs. For better or for worse, that "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy changes" is a part of ARIN's heritage. It doesn't create an indefinate legal obligation on ARIN because the law makes that very difficult to do and this statement doesn't have the required elements. It does, however, create a moral obligation. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jr at jrw.org Fri Oct 5 08:35:56 2007 From: jr at jrw.org (J. R. Westmoreland) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 06:35:56 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c8074c$49fd5ff0$ddf81fd0$@org> ---------------------------------------- J. R. Westmoreland Email: jr at jrw.org > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 6:24 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: Randy Bush; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: > > At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote: > > >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community > and > > >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can > find > > >an organization more interested in public service. > > > > Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes > > commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states: > > John, > > Relatively few legacy assignments were made after RFC 2050 was > published. Even if RFC 2050 could be considered "the law" for address > assignments, it couldn't apply retroactively. > > Randy's point about replacing ARIN for RDNS is not unsupported by law. > Consider the following scenario: This has already happened once in the name registration arena. It once used to be Internic, now NSI. Now, you have a very large number of choices. You can shop for cost, services provided, friendliness of staff (grin) or almost whatever you wish. I see no reason that IP address space, ASNs and all other items managed by ARIN couldn't go the same way. This may not be the best but it is certainly possible. > > 1. ARIN drops RDNS for legacy registrants. > 2. The legacy registrants band together and produce an organization > qualified to handle RNDS delegation. > 3. The legacy registrants ask ARIN to transfer the RDNS duty to this > new organization. > 4. ARIN refuses. > 5. The legacy registrants suffer problems with email and > authentication due to the lack of RDNS. > > In this hypothetical scenario, ARIN doesn't just decline to provide > services to legacy holders; they obstruct legacy holders from > receiving the service from anyone else as well. Look up the term > "tortious interference." It would be an interesting case to litigate. > > > On 10/5/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 > > > > "Randy made a commitment" is not the same as "ARIN made a > commitment". > > Michael, > > This is one record that's part of the whole process which justified > ARIN taking on management of the swamp instead of just managing new > /8's like the other RIRs. For better or for worse, that "Current and > old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy > changes" is a part of ARIN's heritage. > > It doesn't create an indefinate legal obligation on ARIN because the > law makes that very difficult to do and this statement doesn't have > the required elements. It does, however, create a moral obligation. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN > Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From plzak at arin.net Fri Oct 5 08:41:52 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:41:52 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:24 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: Randy Bush; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: > > At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote: > > >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community > and > > >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can > find > > >an organization more interested in public service. > > > > Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes > > commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states: > > John, > > Relatively few legacy assignments were made after RFC 2050 was > published. Even if RFC 2050 could be considered "the law" for address > assignments, it couldn't apply retroactively. > Regarding the applicability of RFC 2050 the abstract states the following: "This document replaces RFC 1466, with all the guidelines and procedures updated and modified in the light of experience." RFC 1466 states: "This document proposes a plan which will forward the implementation of RFC 1174 and which defines the allocation and assignment of the network number space." RFC 1174 provides further reference to the allocation and assignment and in effect documents the status quo in 1990. Thus John's statement regarding RFC 2050 pertaining to allocation and assignment activity predating its publication date would appear to be valid. Ray > Randy's point about replacing ARIN for RDNS is not unsupported by law. > Consider the following scenario: > > 1. ARIN drops RDNS for legacy registrants. > 2. The legacy registrants band together and produce an organization > qualified to handle RNDS delegation. > 3. The legacy registrants ask ARIN to transfer the RDNS duty to this > new organization. > 4. ARIN refuses. > 5. The legacy registrants suffer problems with email and > authentication due to the lack of RDNS. > > In this hypothetical scenario, ARIN doesn't just decline to provide > services to legacy holders; they obstruct legacy holders from > receiving the service from anyone else as well. Look up the term > "tortious interference." It would be an interesting case to litigate. > > > On 10/5/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > [0] http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf foil 9 > > > > "Randy made a commitment" is not the same as "ARIN made a > commitment". > > Michael, > > This is one record that's part of the whole process which justified > ARIN taking on management of the swamp instead of just managing new > /8's like the other RIRs. For better or for worse, that "Current and > old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy > changes" is a part of ARIN's heritage. > > It doesn't create an indefinate legal obligation on ARIN because the > law makes that very difficult to do and this statement doesn't have > the required elements. It does, however, create a moral obligation. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN > Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Oct 5 08:56:26 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:56:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 8:23 AM -0400 10/5/07, William Herrin wrote: >On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: >> At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote: >> >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community and >> >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can find >> >an organization more interested in public service. >> >> Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes >> commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states: > >John, > >Relatively few legacy assignments were made after RFC 2050 was >published. Even if RFC 2050 could be considered "the law" for address >assignments, it couldn't apply retroactively. Bill - Everyone who received address space received it under the direction of the IANA (and indirectly, the US government) prior to their respective RIR being formed. The absence of a formal contract for such assignments means that there are many possible interpretations as to the particular rights and obligations of the parties. In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community would like us all to forget their community obligations and simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total contractual and community obligation vacuum... /John From info at arin.net Fri Oct 5 09:33:14 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:33:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XX Reminders Message-ID: <47063D1A.80402@arin.net> Agenda Updates The panel on Wednesday morning is "IP Markets?"; it's about "Physics, Economics, Law, and FUD (get in line early)." Thursday morning now includes a presentation called "IPv6 Support Among Commercial Firewalls." Information on all sessions is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/agenda.html The Open Policy Hour Sign up today to present your ideas at the ARIN XX Open Policy Hour, Tuesday, 16 October, from 6:00-7:00 PM (MDT). If you have a policy proposal you?d like to receive feedback on prior to submitting it to the community on the PPML, here is your opportunity. Those who sign up by 12 October will be given the first opportunity to speak. Send an e-mail to policy at arin.net with your name, organization, and a general description of the policy subject you wish to present. Everyone is invited to attend the session and raise ideas and suggestions. You do not need to have a formal presentation in order to participate. Signing up just guarantees you the opportunity to present. Registration and Remote Participation You still have time to register for ARIN XX. If you are unable to attend in person, you can still participate remotely. Register for the meeting at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/ Comments received from remote participants will be moderated and presented during normal question and answer periods. ARIN will use e-mail to provide the interactive portion of the remote participation effort. All remote participants are subject to the Remote Participation Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). Additional information about remote participation, including the Remote Participation AUP, is available at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/webcast.html We look forward to your participation in ARIN XX. Please contact Member Services at info at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, Member Services Department American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From arin-contact at dirtside.com Fri Oct 5 09:46:14 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:46:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710050646v3a1426f9vd82f3444c66d6e28@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: > In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have > obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the > community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community > would like us all to forget their community obligations and > simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total > contractual and community obligation vacuum... John, Don't take me wrong; I think the current ARIN process is a sound one and I think it would be healthy to bring as many folks into the fold as possible. I'm particularly fond of proposals which encourage IPv4 assignments to segue into IPv6 assingments with both coming under the ARIN RSA in the process. I don't think the "stick" approach is healthy. Even just having discussions about discontinuing folks' RDNS creates a comment record where any legacy registrant lurking about must think we're all a bunch of a-holes. How that activity and perception furthers ARIN's mission completely escapes me. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Fri Oct 5 09:58:16 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:58:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "I don't have objection to this proposal"...seems to abdicate responsibility to others who have stronger feelings. If we think of the ppml in the context of 'show of hands'.... You are neither raising your hand FOR nor AGAINST.... I for one could like a clearer declaration if you can arrive at one before we have to judge consensus. Sorry...you were convenient 'to pick on' for this reiteration of the ACs need for clear guidance by the industry.... ;-) Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council ________________________________ From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 6:47 AM To: David Conrad; ppml at arin.net Cc: Bill Darte Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested With the explanation that the 100% efficient utilization of the previous IP allocation is part of the current requirements, I think I understand how this proposal fits in with the current policies. I don't have an objection to this proposal. Keith ________________________________ From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:25 PM To: Keith W. Hare Cc: Bill Darte; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Keith, On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: I don't know for sure what it means to demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. For the definitions I can think of, I'm sceptical that is possible to honestly demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. I was told by ARIN staff that 100% utilization of all previous allocations is an _existing_ requirement. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Keith at jcc.com Fri Oct 5 10:25:10 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:25:10 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested Message-ID: Since you asked... It is unclear (to me, at least) whether or not the policy change in this proposal will achieve its stated goals. However, I don't think the policy will hurt things as the available IPv4 address space approaches exhaustion. I don't expect to need any additional IPv4 space -- the /24 we got 16 years ago is sufficient for our needs, particularly with NAT. Therefore, I don't have an objection to this proposal. Keith _____ From: Bill Darte [mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 9:58 AM To: Keith W. Hare; David Conrad; ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested "I don't have objection to this proposal"...seems to abdicate responsibility to others who have stronger feelings. If we think of the ppml in the context of 'show of hands'.... You are neither raising your hand FOR nor AGAINST.... I for one could like a clearer declaration if you can arrive at one before we have to judge consensus. Sorry...you were convenient 'to pick on' for this reiteration of the ACs need for clear guidance by the industry.... ;-) Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council _____ From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 6:47 AM To: David Conrad; ppml at arin.net Cc: Bill Darte Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested With the explanation that the 100% efficient utilization of the previous IP allocation is part of the current requirements, I think I understand how this proposal fits in with the current policies. I don't have an objection to this proposal. Keith _____ From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:25 PM To: Keith W. Hare Cc: Bill Darte; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested Keith, On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: I don't know for sure what it means to demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. For the definitions I can think of, I'm sceptical that is possible to honestly demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation. I was told by ARIN staff that 100% utilization of all previous allocations is an _existing_ requirement. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Fri Oct 5 10:26:13 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:26:13 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710050646v3a1426f9vd82f3444c66d6e28@mail.gmail.com> References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com><47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> <3c3e3fca0710050523h7fe8ea84sfd239c7f6362e7ac@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0710050646v3a1426f9vd82f3444c66d6e28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Seems to me that since there exists a vocal segment of the community that wants ARIN to engage the legacy holders and to encourage or impose upon them some obligations or limit their 'free' services, it is wise that ARIN consider what authority exists...should the broader community come to believe as the vocal segment. Discussion of this authority and options to BOTH encourage or impose... in an open and straightforward manner is the right thing to do. IMO. If the legacy community feels threatened by such, then I encourage all to better understand the process in which such discussion is taking place and the means that exists to influence those discussions and community perspective...by engaging the community at large and ARIN through participation. Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:46 AM To: John Curran Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: > In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have > obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the > community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community > would like us all to forget their community obligations and > simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total > contractual and community obligation vacuum... John, Don't take me wrong; I think the current ARIN process is a sound one and I think it would be healthy to bring as many folks into the fold as possible. I'm particularly fond of proposals which encourage IPv4 assignments to segue into IPv6 assingments with both coming under the ARIN RSA in the process. I don't think the "stick" approach is healthy. Even just having discussions about discontinuing folks' RDNS creates a comment record where any legacy registrant lurking about must think we're all a bunch of a-holes. How that activity and perception furthers ARIN's mission completely escapes me. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Oct 5 10:32:44 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:32:44 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 16:10 -0500 10/2/07, Bill Darte wrote: >As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would like to >ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of the >Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings >(http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) >and voice support or non-support >for this proposal with concise reasoning. It would certainly be bad to "abdicate responsibility"... On the one hand I like the way this proposal thinks, but it thinks like an engineer. It certainly has the mechanics in it to achieve the goal of softening the transition pains. But I also waver over whether it is worth the effort. At the APNIC meeting (yes, I know, not "our" region, yet a public policy meeting none the less) there was a discussion between two proposals. The two were similar up to a parameter. Each proposal mandated that IANA operate as is until there were either 1x5 or 2x5 /8's left (assuming the number of RIRs is 5). Once the last 5 or 10 /8's were left they were handed out evenly to the RIRs regardless of burn rates. Of the two, I preferred the handing out of 1 /8 (not the 2 /8). The reason is that this approach is largely ceremonial. While it is true that the burn rate of a /8 varies region to region, for 1 /8, this isn't a significant difference. (There could be a sharp rise in membership at the lower burn rate organizations, but really, there isn't much to get at that point.) In the lower burn rate regions, the symbolism of being given as much a the higher rate seems somewhat important. Those proposals are lightweight work-wise, least command-econonmyish, have probably the right dose of ceremonial benefit, and aren't trying to delay the pain of the IPv4 run out. So, on the other hand, I think that the IPv4 Soft Landing might be "trying to hard" to protect ourselves. Ultimately, in a vacuum, it's a good proposal. But considering other ideas floating around I have doubt that it's the right mechanism. As an aside - if we delay the run out of IPv4 by 12 months, is there an indication that the obstacle to IPv6 will be removed in that 12 month period? If it is the routing system, will 12 more months improve/strengthen it? (I guess I have never understood the rationale for "rationing" the remaining IPv4 addresses. They aren't a consumable {water, oil} and the last won't tide us over until there's a rescue.) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Think glocally. Act confused. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dlw+arin at tellme.com Fri Oct 5 10:54:15 2007 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:54:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: References: <4702BCC5.2040201@internap.com> <20071002220823.GF23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> Message-ID: <20071005145414.GR23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:27:40PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > David, > > On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:08 PM, David Williamson wrote: > >Does it matter if that happens slower as a result of policy changes? > > The point of a "soft landing" proposal is to extend the runway for > transition, but do so in a way as to discourage procrastination. The > answer to whether it matters is likely a subject opinion. Clearly I > think it does (or I wouldn't have bother to make the proposal), but > opinions vary. That explains how your proposal is intended to work, and also explains why you think it is important, but I don't think it answers my question. You note that my question is a matter of opinion...that's almost certainly true, given that predicting the behavior of groups of humans is fundamentally hard, even at the scale we're discussing. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I think the extra time achieved from your proposal is probably just more time to avoid dealing with IPv6. I personally really dislike v6 - it's just going to be a PITA with little real value besides the fact that there's more of it than v4. That said, I'm the primary cheerleader with my organization because I understand the consequences of not pushing the transition *now*. Organizaions that lack someone pushing them through the transition are unlikely, in my opinion, to benefit from the delay. As someone else noted, there's nothing mechanically wrong with the proposal, but that's hardly a vote of support. Bill's original question required an answer in the form of a definitive statement of support or non-support, which I have thus far failed to provide. I think I can resolve my fence sitting: "do no harm" is a nice idea, but "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a stronger criterion. I don't think this will do much good, so current policy isn't broken. That implies there's no need to change anything, which is effectively a lack of support for this. It's the best of the lot, but the problem it tries to solve likely cannot be solved in policy. -David From peter at boku.net Fri Oct 5 11:07:28 2007 From: peter at boku.net (Peter Eisch) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:07:28 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After months of reading "interesting" email about legacy holders, what direct communication has happened to these organizations to bring them into the fold? Until they are here (or a party to another less general list) the discussion continues to be engaged by only the mostly non-affected elite. In this forum the discussions are typically emotional, theoretical and rarely based on facts. This is typical of a guidance list. It's good to get ideas bounced around and get the input from a wide audience. Could some effort be spent on getting the attention of the legacy holders and establish a communication channel with them? You have maybe a dozen [individual] readers here with legacy holdings. I'll suspect that we're not the majority and we surely can't speak for the balance. Until they're present and a part of the process this discussion continues to be little more than "us" and "them" and clearly without community perspective. peter On 10/5/07 9:26 AM, "Bill Darte" wrote: > Seems to me that since there exists a vocal segment of the community > that wants ARIN to engage the legacy holders and to encourage or impose > upon them some obligations or limit their 'free' services, it is wise > that ARIN consider what authority exists...should the broader community > come to believe as the vocal segment. > > Discussion of this authority and options to BOTH encourage or impose... > in an open and straightforward manner is the right thing to do. IMO. > > If the legacy community feels threatened by such, then I encourage all > to better understand the process in which such discussion is taking > place and the means that exists to influence those discussions and > community perspective...by engaging the community at large and ARIN > through participation. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:46 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: >> In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have >> obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the >> community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community >> would like us all to forget their community obligations and >> simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total >> contractual and community obligation vacuum... > > John, > > Don't take me wrong; I think the current ARIN process is a sound one > and I think it would be healthy to bring as many folks into the fold > as possible. I'm particularly fond of proposals which encourage IPv4 > assignments to segue into IPv6 assingments with both coming under the > ARIN RSA in the process. > > I don't think the "stick" approach is healthy. Even just having > discussions about discontinuing folks' RDNS creates a comment record > where any legacy registrant lurking about must think we're all a bunch > of a-holes. How that activity and perception furthers ARIN's mission > completely escapes me. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Fri Oct 5 11:32:39 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:32:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And do you have specific suggestions on how ARIN might/should proceed to do this as a means of communication....and on content of the message? A guidance forum should proffer 'guidance' if not outright policy proposals for the community to consider. "Interesting" discussion is a useful preparation for such. Thanks for you discussion. bd -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Peter Eisch Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:07 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? After months of reading "interesting" email about legacy holders, what direct communication has happened to these organizations to bring them into the fold? Until they are here (or a party to another less general list) the discussion continues to be engaged by only the mostly non-affected elite. In this forum the discussions are typically emotional, theoretical and rarely based on facts. This is typical of a guidance list. It's good to get ideas bounced around and get the input from a wide audience. Could some effort be spent on getting the attention of the legacy holders and establish a communication channel with them? You have maybe a dozen [individual] readers here with legacy holdings. I'll suspect that we're not the majority and we surely can't speak for the balance. Until they're present and a part of the process this discussion continues to be little more than "us" and "them" and clearly without community perspective. peter On 10/5/07 9:26 AM, "Bill Darte" wrote: > Seems to me that since there exists a vocal segment of the community > that wants ARIN to engage the legacy holders and to encourage or impose > upon them some obligations or limit their 'free' services, it is wise > that ARIN consider what authority exists...should the broader community > come to believe as the vocal segment. > > Discussion of this authority and options to BOTH encourage or impose... > in an open and straightforward manner is the right thing to do. IMO. > > If the legacy community feels threatened by such, then I encourage all > to better understand the process in which such discussion is taking > place and the means that exists to influence those discussions and > community perspective...by engaging the community at large and ARIN > through participation. > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:46 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: >> In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have >> obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the >> community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community >> would like us all to forget their community obligations and >> simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total >> contractual and community obligation vacuum... > > John, > > Don't take me wrong; I think the current ARIN process is a sound one > and I think it would be healthy to bring as many folks into the fold > as possible. I'm particularly fond of proposals which encourage IPv4 > assignments to segue into IPv6 assingments with both coming under the > ARIN RSA in the process. > > I don't think the "stick" approach is healthy. Even just having > discussions about discontinuing folks' RDNS creates a comment record > where any legacy registrant lurking about must think we're all a bunch > of a-holes. How that activity and perception furthers ARIN's mission > completely escapes me. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From sethm at rollernet.us Fri Oct 5 12:38:04 2007 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:38:04 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-announce] Updated ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4706686C.4020700@rollernet.us> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> In addition, the Board approved a multi-year fee waiver structure for >> IPv6 allocations that will take effect on 1 January 2008. >> Under this fee structure, IPv6 initial allocation and annual >> subscription renewal fees will be partially waived, at a declining >> annual rate, over the next four years. The amount of the waiver and >> the resulting fees are detailed in a table under the "Future IPv6 >> Waivers" section of the fee schedule at >> http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#waivers > > Thank you for giving us clear and PREDICTABLE fees and > removing the uncertainty of the previous waivers that came > with an expiration date. > Although it does seem to mean if you want to get IPv6 PI space and you're an end user like myself, you'd better do it now before the price goes up next year. I guess that means I'll be getting mine soon. ~Seth From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 5 13:38:25 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:38:25 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >David Conrad >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:25 AM >To: >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion >andSupport/Non-SupportRequested > > >Michael, > >On Oct 5, 2007, at 1:34 AM, > wrote: >>> As mentioned in a previous note, ARIN staff have told me >>> explicitly that 100% utilization of previous allocations is an >>> existing requirement. >> >> That does not change the fact that 100% utilization is technically >> impossible. That's probably why the existing practice is to only >> audit the last allocation for 80% utilization and ignore all >> previous allocations. > >The fact that you believe existing practice differs from what ARIN >staff states is the current requirements raises interesting questions. > I think the problem here isn't in the percentages it is in the definition of "utilization" When filling out a address registration request I could state for example that I have allocated a total of 32 /29's to customers. ARIN doesen't require further justification on /29's that are allocated to end users. I could then claim 100% utilization on a /24. This of course would in no way impact the fact that I could likely go back to 80% of the customers that those /29's are allocated to and re-subnet them into /30s with no ill effects, and thereby generate more IP addresses for me to use. Or I could go into my network and remove all /30's on all serial links and replace them with IP unnumbered, or with private addresses, to generate further numbers. Or I could require some customers to use translation and port forwarding to reduce public number use. Or require virtual websites or some such. A "technical" full utilization would be ALL IP addresses in a given CIDR block to be IN USE as either host IPs, network IP's or broadcast IPs. I believe Michael was using "technically" in it's slang usage meaning "virtually impossible in most cases from a practical standpoint" In most production subnets it is virtually impossible in most cases from a practical standpoint that you will get full utilization for a long enough period of time to be able to see a IP request through. Ted From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 5 13:40:14 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:40:14 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84D4760A-4F07-47B2-9747-D63B6B6289A4@virtualized.org> Ed, On Oct 5, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > As an aside - if we delay the run out of IPv4 by 12 months, is > there an indication that the obstacle to IPv6 will be removed in > that 12 month period? Unlikely. The obstacle (IMHO) to IPv6 deployment is that it doesn't solve a problem anyone thinks they have. However, with that said, the IPv4 Soft Landing proposal does try to go around this obstacle (see below). > If it is the routing system, will 12 more months improve/strengthen > it? No. I always thought the RIRs didn't focus on routing. > (I guess I have never understood the rationale for "rationing" the > remaining IPv4 addresses. They aren't a consumable {water, oil} An interesting assertion. I'd argue the IPv4 _free pool_ is a consumable. It is the free pool that will be rationed, either incrementally (via increased requirements) or in a binary way (yesterday: yes, you can have your address space. today: nope. no more address space available, period.) > and the last won't tide us over until there's a rescue.) The point of any "soft landing"-style proposal is to attempt to buy more time for folks who need it to make the transition by imposing some form of rationing. In my proposal the rationing is based on increased requirements to document ratcheted up utilization. My proposal also goes a step further in that it attempts to encourage IPv6 deployment (given it seems the general consensus is that moving to IPv6 is better than increased proliferation of IPv4+NAT). In the ideal world, the increased restrictions on obtaining IPv4 would impose sufficient additional administrative (or other) cost that when taken in the context of the encouragement of IPv6, would reduce the barriers for ISPs to deploy IPv6 despite there being insufficient customer demand. In other words, the goal is to create an environment that breaks the IPv6 chicken-and-egg problem. No other proposal I am aware of attempts to do this. To be honest, the two other proposals you mention feel a lot to me like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic -- shuffling where the End Days free pool resides might encourage investment in unanticipated places but it does nothing to either extend the lifetime of the free pool nor encourage the transition to IPv6. Neither proposal hurts anything, of course, rather I just don't see what advantage they bring. Regards, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 5 13:42:18 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:42:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: <20071005145414.GR23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> References: <4702BCC5.2040201@internap.com> <20071002220823.GF23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <20071005145414.GR23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> Message-ID: <82801DFA-ED7D-4162-9B8C-33C4B9A9A3BE@virtualized.org> David, On Oct 5, 2007, at 7:54 AM, David Williamson wrote: > That explains how your proposal is intended to work, and also explains > why you think it is important, but I don't think it answers my > question. My response to Ed may be a more direct answer. Regards, -drc From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 5 14:05:23 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:05:23 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <000001c8074c$49fd5ff0$ddf81fd0$@org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >J. R. Westmoreland >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:36 AM >To: 'William Herrin'; 'John Curran' >Cc: 'Randy Bush'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > >> Randy's point about replacing ARIN for RDNS is not unsupported by law. >> Consider the following scenario: > >This has already happened once in the name registration arena. >It once used to be Internic, now NSI. Now, you have a very large number of >choices. You can shop for cost, services provided, friendliness of staff >(grin) or almost whatever you wish. Technically this has NOT happened in the name registration arena. You are confusing the difference between a retailer of domain names and the actual DNS infrastructure itself. Domain names are USUALLY purchased by RETAIL customers. Sally Sue wants a domain name, she goes to GoDaddy or someplace like that and gets it. That's where your very large number of choices exist. But, ALL of those registrars have to abide by a SINGLE point of control on the DNS infrastructure - meaning IANA. A registrar cannot simply make up a TLD out of thin air for example and start using it. IP addresses are USUALLY requested by RETAIL customers. Sally Sue wants an IP address, she goes to EarthLink or some other ISP and gets it. That's where your very large number of choices exist. But, ALL of those North American ISPs have to abide by a SINGLE point of control on the IP infrastructure - meaning ARIN. An ISP cannot simply make up an IP address out of thin air for example and start using it. >I see no reason that IP address space, ASNs and all other items managed by >ARIN couldn't go the same way. >This may not be the best but it is certainly possible. > What Randy is proposing about ARIN is equivalent in the DNS system with replacing IANA with "something else" That hasn't happened for many good reasons, and it likely will not happen. Just as it is unlikely for ARIN to ever be replaced. You have seen how difficult it is to get consensus on ARIN's activities. ANY replacement "thing" will have just as difficult a time as getting consensus - plus they will have another group, the "old ARIN supporters" who will be out for blood and looking for any possible way to hamstring them. Randy is essentially talking out his ass. The political reality is that every day that passes merely continues to solidify the existing governmental apparatus over the Internet and over IP addressing. The days of revolutionary changes on the Internet governance are over. The real activity these days is where it is right now - working out policies for those existing organizations to work with. Remember that Randy is one of the old guard in this business - he was participating back in the days when there was revolutionary change in Internet governance. You have to have some sympathy for him - he's obviously having a difficult time understanding how rapidly the political realities of the situation have changed over the last few years. :-) Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 5 14:25:44 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:25:44 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > A "technical" full utilization would be ALL IP addresses in a > given CIDR block to be IN USE as either host IPs, network > IP's or broadcast IPs. > I believe Michael was using "technically" in it's slang usage > meaning "virtually impossible in most cases from a practical > standpoint" Not slang. The word utilization is technical jargon to network engineering and operations staff. They use it to mean that a particular subnet is full, i.e. every IP addr is assigned to a host or an active switch port or something like that. This TECHNICAL meaning is very different from the administrative meaning used by ARIN. However, even though ARIN uses the word differently from the plain English meaning, they still have not bothered to define the term. This is one of many vague areas in ARIN policy that leads the uninitiated to misunderstand what is going on. --Michael Dillon From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Fri Oct 5 14:30:28 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:30:28 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c8074c$49fd5ff0$ddf81fd0$@org> Message-ID: Ted said below.... " The days of revolutionary changes on the Internet governance are over."....given the ITU and UN's WSIS and WGIG processes, I can only hope that he is correct.... Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:05 PM To: J. R. Westmoreland; 'William Herrin'; 'John Curran' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >J. R. Westmoreland >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:36 AM >To: 'William Herrin'; 'John Curran' >Cc: 'Randy Bush'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > >> Randy's point about replacing ARIN for RDNS is not unsupported by law. >> Consider the following scenario: > >This has already happened once in the name registration arena. >It once used to be Internic, now NSI. Now, you have a very large number of >choices. You can shop for cost, services provided, friendliness of staff >(grin) or almost whatever you wish. Technically this has NOT happened in the name registration arena. You are confusing the difference between a retailer of domain names and the actual DNS infrastructure itself. Domain names are USUALLY purchased by RETAIL customers. Sally Sue wants a domain name, she goes to GoDaddy or someplace like that and gets it. That's where your very large number of choices exist. But, ALL of those registrars have to abide by a SINGLE point of control on the DNS infrastructure - meaning IANA. A registrar cannot simply make up a TLD out of thin air for example and start using it. IP addresses are USUALLY requested by RETAIL customers. Sally Sue wants an IP address, she goes to EarthLink or some other ISP and gets it. That's where your very large number of choices exist. But, ALL of those North American ISPs have to abide by a SINGLE point of control on the IP infrastructure - meaning ARIN. An ISP cannot simply make up an IP address out of thin air for example and start using it. >I see no reason that IP address space, ASNs and all other items managed by >ARIN couldn't go the same way. >This may not be the best but it is certainly possible. > What Randy is proposing about ARIN is equivalent in the DNS system with replacing IANA with "something else" That hasn't happened for many good reasons, and it likely will not happen. Just as it is unlikely for ARIN to ever be replaced. You have seen how difficult it is to get consensus on ARIN's activities. ANY replacement "thing" will have just as difficult a time as getting consensus - plus they will have another group, the "old ARIN supporters" who will be out for blood and looking for any possible way to hamstring them. Randy is essentially talking out his ass. The political reality is that every day that passes merely continues to solidify the existing governmental apparatus over the Internet and over IP addressing. The days of revolutionary changes on the Internet governance are over. The real activity these days is where it is right now - working out policies for those existing organizations to work with. Remember that Randy is one of the old guard in this business - he was participating back in the days when there was revolutionary change in Internet governance. You have to have some sympathy for him - he's obviously having a difficult time understanding how rapidly the political realities of the situation have changed over the last few years. :-) Ted _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 5 14:37:37 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:37:37 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:10 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Public Policy Mailing List >Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and >Support/Non-SupportRequested > > > >According to ARIN staff, current requirements for additional address >space allocations (according to section 4.2.4 of the NPRM) are: > >a) 100% utilization of all previous allocations >b) 80% utilization of the most recent allocation > >Presumably, ARIN staff have mechanisms in place to verify both >requirements. Once more, this is merely sidestepping the issue. I am not arguing that ARIN doesen't have mechanisms in place to verify both requirements. I am telling you point blank that nothing in your policy requires ARIN to use those mechanisms to -continue to make sure- that the requestors do what they say they are promising, after they get their addressing, and you have nothing in your policy that specifices penalties if they do not live up to their promises. You really are sinking your own ship here. "Presumably?" In short, you have the audacity to propose modifying requirements but you have no understanding of how enforcement relates to those very requirements your trying to propose? I don't think I am going to have any success trying to explain this to you any further. You need to research lawmaking and policymaking. At least, read the arguments in the US over the gun control debate to get some understanding of the problems that happen when people make laws that are impossible to enforce and put them on the books. All I'm going to say is that if you ignore the enforcement aspect you risk creating a policy that is impossible to implement - and as a result, will not be implemented. That is what I am saying your doing here. David I'm trying to HELP you here. I LIKE the idea of your policy. I don't want to see it put in, in it's current form because there are holes in it large enough to drive a truck through. One of the biggest is that a requester merely writes a business plan saying he's going to need a great gob of addresses in the next year - gets those addresses - then tosses the business plan in the trash. Meanwhile those addresses stagnate unused. And unless policy is written that stalemates people from doing this, they are going to do it during the IPv4 end-game. Your policy makes people make a bunch of promises to obtain addressing but it doesen't hold them to those promises. Well, people have been making promises then breaking them for the last million or so years so I don't see that IPv4 is any different. Maybe if you were a woman you might understand that better. >If they felt additional mechanisms were required to >meet the increased restrictions the Soft Landing proposal imposed, I >would have thought they would have told me in their comments to me on >the previous draft of the policy. They did not How do you know? Did you ask them? What is preventing you from doing so now? Why don't you go ask them right now to look at your policy and tell you if it was implemented, would they be following up a year later with the requestors to make sure they had actually carried out the 50% demonstrated requirement in Phase 0 & 1, the demonstrated 75% requirement in Phase 2 and the demonstrated 90% requirement in Phase 3. And if they were, what would happen if those requirements hadn't been met in that year? >nor do I feel it is >appropriate for me to tell ARIN staff how to do their job. > Then I would suggest you withdraw the proposal because that is EXACTLY what anyone does when they write a proposal. If you do not have the guts to tell someone how to do their job then you certainly shouldn't be writing policy. Do you even have anyone working under you at all in your real job? You might consider that ARIN regards the community as "it's boss" and people in ARIN have said this on this list before. Perhaps ARIN feels it isn't appropriate for them to tell YOU how to do YOUR job - which, as a member of the community - YOUR job is to tell ARIN what to do! >> Your proposals drive up the value of IPv4 and thus undercut the >> financial >> incentive to return unused IPv4. > >Even if there was a financial incentive to return unused IPv4 >addresses (something I think many people would argue) There is - but as we get closer to IPv4 runout, that incentive is getting smaller and smaller. Soon, it will disappear. >, the fact that >IPv4 is nearing exhaustion would do this independent of any attempts >to encourage conservation and promotion of IPv6. > That is true - under CURRENT policy. That has, in fact, already been discussed on this list. You might additionally consider that policymaking should address this problem. Ted From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Fri Oct 5 14:47:29 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:47:29 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-announce] Updated ARIN Fee Schedule In-Reply-To: <4706686C.4020700@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073853C5@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > >> http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#waivers > > > > Thank you for giving us clear and PREDICTABLE fees and removing the > > uncertainty of the previous waivers that came with an > expiration date. Thanks for the suggestion. Of course, if the membership wants a change in fee structure, something else will happen. > Although it does seem to mean if you want to get IPv6 PI > space and you're an end user like myself, you'd better do it > now before the price goes up next year. I guess that means > I'll be getting mine soon. Seems like a good idea. Lee > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact > the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Oct 5 15:00:52 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:00:52 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071005190052.GA47690@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:32:39AM -0500, Bill Darte wrote: > And do you have specific suggestions on how ARIN might/should proceed to > do this as a means of communication....and on content of the message? > > A guidance forum should proffer 'guidance' if not outright policy > proposals for the community to consider. "Interesting" discussion is a > useful preparation for such. I think this is an area where staff could be more proactive without any policy changes. Specific suggestions: 1) E-mail should be sent to every legacy holder every 1-2 years with a copy of their whois data asking if it is up to date and pointing them to information on how to update the data if it is not correct. 2) ARIN needs a web page explaining what legacy space is, how to update legacy records, and how to return now unused legacy space. A lot of legacy holders probably don't even know they are legacy holders. 3) ARIN should search whois on all new requests for IP space to see if the same group has legacy space. If they do ARIN should ask (not require) if they would like to bring it under the same RSA as their new space. None require policy and could be implemented by ARIN staff. -- 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 mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 15:06:26 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:06:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Counsel statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd) In-Reply-To: <8DC42B89-997F-4167-97C7-6117276FF195@delong.com> Message-ID: <200710051506352.SM01552@mikesplace> > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:01 PM > To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel > statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd) > > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > > > Owen, > > > > Then ARIN should state the flat fee for processing a block. The > > price per IP > > should be the same. ARIN _does not manufacture_ IP > addresses. There > > is no > > cost savings in _not manufacturing_ a smaller block versus a large > > block. In > > fact it costs ARIN _MORE_ to support the large block, because the > > large > > block requires more RDNS entries. > > > That's simply not true. A /16 requires 1 RDNS entry. A /20 > requires > 16. > A /24 requires 1. > > However, the cost of generating the RDNS entries is not > linear, either. > > The increased costs in a block come more from things like the > churn rate > of SWIPs, the number of SWIPs the block is subdivided into, > and a number > of other ancillary functions which cannot be accurately > measured at the > time of issuance. To ARIN, a /24 to a customer of an ISP is virtually > identical in incremental costs to a /29 to a customer of an ISP. > > You are right that ARIN does not manufacture IPs. However, it does > often > cost ARIN more to process an application for a smaller block than a > larger > one because the smaller applications often come from ISPs whose > personnel > are less familiar with the process and policies and thus > require more > hand-holding > and staff time. Staff time is probably the biggest cost factor in > ARIN IP > allocations. > > I know that for the assignments and allocations I have > requested over > the > last 3 years, I simply cannot compare the process to pulling teeth. > It has > been relatively quick, simple, and painless to me. In fact, my last > assignment > was processed in less than 24 hours from initial paperwork through > billing > and RSA all the way to addresses. > > An ISP who has a total of fewer than 4096 IP addresses pays > $1,250/year. > That works out to approximately $0.31/IP address. > > An ISP who has between 4097 and 8192 IP addresses pays $2,250/year. > That works out to approximately $0.27/IP address. > > From 8193 to 65536 total IP addresses, the cost is $4,500/year. > This is approximately $0.07/IP address. > > However, if we consider it along these lines... Let's assume > that the > fixed costs > for preserving an allocation in the system are on the order of $750/ > year, then, > we see something that looks like this: > > x-Small (<=4096 IPs) = $750 + $500 = $0.12/IP > Small (4097-8192 IPs) = $750 + $1500 = $0.18/IP > Medium (8193-65536 IPs) = $750 + $3750 = $0.05/IP > Large (65537-262144 IPs) = $750 + $8250 = $0.03/IP > > As you can see, $750 is probably the wrong fixed cost number, but, > probably not > too far off. The cost per IP at the low end remains slightly high, > but, the taper at > the higher end is relatively linear. I believe this accurately > reflects the fact that > on x-Small and Small allocations, staff tends to have to spend more > time working > with the ISP on their requests. Medium and bigger > organizations tend > to have > people who manage the IP records as their full-time job and the > become quite > skilled with the ARIN process and the record keeping necessary to > make that > happen smoothly. As such, it costs less for ARIN to deal with them, > and, these > cost savings are reflected in the pricing. > > BTW, before you think I represent some large ISP and have > some gain from > the status quo of pricing, in actual fact, most of my ARIN > transactions are > end-user direct assignments. The majority of them do not > exceed a /20. > > Owen > > > Michael Thomas > > Mathbox > > 978-683-6718 > > 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > >> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:49 AM > >> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox > >> Cc: 'Michael Lambert'; arin-discuss at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel > >> statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd) > >> > >> > >> On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > >> > >>>> We are, with respect to IPv6. So let's not put too much > >> effort into > >>>> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in > legacy address > >>>> space. > >>> > >>> Actually everyone _is not_ treated the same for either. > The pricing > >>> structure for both IPV4 and IPV6 indicates that there are > >> first class > >>> citizens, second class citizens, third class, etc. Otherwise, > >>> everone would > >>> pay exactly the same price per IP address. > >> > >> Not true. The pricing structure indicates that IP addresses are a > >> mixture > >> of fixed and incremental costs. This is also common in > >> transactions of > >> wholesale goods. Companies that buy a container of a product get a > >> much better price than companies that purchase a pallet of the > >> product > >> at a time. Companies that buy a pallet receive a better price than > >> companies that buy a case at a time. > >> > >> While ARIN is not selling IP addresses, the reality is that > >> to evaluate > >> an allocation request requires a certain amount of effort > regardless > >> of the size of the request. Beyond that, a certain amount > of effort > >> tends to be roughly proportionate to the size of the > request. Thus, > >> as the size of the address space allocated to a given organization > >> increases, the price per IP appears to decrease, but, that > is because > >> the fixed cost portion of the price is not growing as the > size of the > >> allocations grows. > >> > >> Example (absurd numbers used to keep math easy): > >> > >> Fixed costs to maintain an organization in the system: $1000 > >> > >> Per IP cost to maintain customers allocation records: $1 > >> > >> Customer with a /22: $1000 + $1024 = $2024 > $2024/1024 = 1.9765625 > >> > >> Customer with a /19: $1000 + $8192 = $9192 > $9192/8192 = 1.1220703 > >> > >> Customer with a /16: $1000 + $65536 = $66536 > $66536/65536 = 1.0152588 > >> > >> As you can see, the "apparent price" per IP drops somewhat > >> substantially, > >> but, the reality is that the pricing is quite linear. > >> > >> I have not evaluated the ARIN fee structure to see what > this constant > >> is, and, there are some rounding and smoothing errors introduced > >> into ARIN pricing to simplify the fee structure vs. a > unique price > >> for > >> every customer. However, it does roughly approximate such a > >> pricing structure, and, this is a very common practice for > both sales > >> and service pricing. > >> > >> Owen Owen, For several reasons, I honestly do not believe that your cost allocation is accurate. 1. In another message unrelated to this one, you point out to Jeremy that someone returning for another allocation does not pay separately for each allocation. 2. In the second and subsequent years of an allocation, one still pays the entire fee. If your argument held water, the second and subsequent year fees would be reduced by the application processing cost and would reflect only the maintenance cost. 3. Comparing the time to review an intial /24, /23, /22, /21 allocation to a /14 or larger allocation as taking longer due to the applicant being unfamiliar with the process is questionable. The allocation of a larger block should actually be scrutinized more heavily, because it removes more resources from the available pool. 4. If in fact the total cost is based on application costs and maintenance costs, the fees would reflect that. 5. I just paid my second annual fee. The cost was the same as last year. I did not make any applications this year. 6. The fees are based on the total size of all allocations. You have said so. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 5 15:17:29 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:17:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <60AA0A45-20C4-4815-BC1D-4A0D630FAF69@virtualized.org> Ted, On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > I am not arguing that ARIN doesen't have mechanisms in place to > verify both requirements. I am telling you point blank that > nothing in your policy requires ARIN to use those mechanisms to - > continue to make sure- that the requestors do what they say they > are promising, after they get their addressing, and you have > nothing in your policy that specifices penalties if they do not > live up to their promises. I also have nothing in my policy stating ARIN staff should use e-mail to communicate where appropriate. The IPv4 Soft Landing proposal has already been criticized for being overly complex, yet you are suggesting I provide specifics on how ARIN staff should implement verification process even when said verification process is the same as what ARIN is currently using. > In short, you have the audacity to propose modifying requirements > but you have no understanding of how enforcement relates to those > very requirements your trying to propose? I am not proposing to change enforcement mechanisms currently in use at ARIN. I gather you believe the incremental increase in the percentage of utilization of the last allocation implies the need to revise the enforcement mechanisms. I guess I don't see why that would be the case. > ... > Maybe if you were a woman you might understand that better. Um? > ... > If you do not have the guts to tell someone how to do their job > then you > certainly shouldn't be writing policy. > > Do you even have anyone working under you at all in your real job? Who me? I'm just a no life geek with no experience in this field, no management experience, and clearly no understanding of the issues. However despite this, I don't think I'll withdraw the proposal as you so kindly suggest. Thanks for the input. Regards, -drc From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 5 15:27:47 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:27:47 +0100 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > All I'm going to say is that if you ignore the enforcement > aspect you risk creating a policy that is impossible to implement > - and as a result, will not be implemented. That is what I > am saying your doing here. And you can't enforce a policy if you don't know what is going on. This is the reason why I think that the focus should be on things like surveys, reporting, auditing of past allocations. This can make things better all by themselves. For instance a survey that requires the signature of the CFO will raise the profile of IP addressing in all organizations using IP addresses. Reporting could be designed to give a clearer idea of whether or not an organization actually has good management controls for IP addresses internally. And auditing will help organizations find unused addresses in their organization and will also help them improve their controls. In previous companies I have worked at, we stopped giving out new IP addresses and miraculously, we were still able to install new customers. The ops people found a few assignments that were bigger than they needed to be and clawed them back. And there were some disconnections whose addresses had not been returned to the pool. In another company, I remember a program to get rid of the $2 million that was being paid EVERY MONTH for circuits (mainly access circuits) that we no longer used. It seems that cancelling circuits was a really low priority. A significant number of IP addresses are allocated to companies who are large enough to suffer from these types of internal process problems. By helping companies to address these problems in a non-adversarial way, we can accelerate deployment of IPv6, at least to the test-lab and trial stages, and we can find enough IP addresses to give another 6 months to a year after ARIN runs out. > Why don't you go ask them right now to look at your policy > and tell you if it was implemented, would they be following > up a year later with the requestors to make sure they had > actually carried out the 50% demonstrated requirement in > Phase 0 & 1, the demonstrated 75% requirement in Phase 2 and > the demonstrated 90% requirement in Phase 3. You highlight another major problem with this proposal. Implementation of such a complex policy will not be done quickly. If it takes 18 months, then we are already in a different part of the IPv4 exhaustion endgame and this kind of soft-landing simply won't work. --Michael Dillon From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 15:44:38 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:44:38 -0400 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing - DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200710051544366.SM02808@mikesplace> Michael, > better all by themselves. For instance a survey that requires the > signature of the CFO will raise the profile of IP addressing in all > organizations using IP addresses. Reporting could be designed CFO? First, there are indivuals involved in this process. Does it say somewhere in the ARIN charter that an individual cannot request and receive IP resources? Second, much of this discussion irks me to no end. Rules, rules, rules, raise more barriers. Between government rules and regulations, forms to file, taxes to report, and _all_ of the proposed ARIN rules, how does an one start a small business in this industry? One would need a staff of tens, just to deal with the paperwork. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 5 16:23:11 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 21:23:11 +0100 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing - DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <200710051544366.SM02808@mikesplace> References: <200710051544366.SM02808@mikesplace> Message-ID: > > better all by themselves. For instance a survey that requires the > > signature of the CFO will raise the profile of IP addressing in all > > organizations using IP addresses. Reporting could be designed > > CFO? > > First, there are indivuals involved in this process. Does it > say somewhere in the ARIN charter that an individual cannot > request and receive IP resources? Clearly, any requirement for the signature of a CFO would only apply to an organization and not a natural person. In any case, ARIN has done a lot to ensure that IP addresses are available to small organizations and individuals. That's why ARIN policy allows end-sites to apply directly to ARIN for provider independent IPv4 and IPv6 assignments. > Second, much of this discussion irks me to no end. Rules, > rules, rules, raise more barriers. Then why are you on this mailing list? The purpose of the PPML list is to discuss the rules so that is why there is so much discussion of rules. This is as it should be. > Between government rules > and regulations, forms to file, taxes to report, and _all_ of > the proposed ARIN rules, how does an one start a small > business in this industry? One would need a staff of tens, > just to deal with the paperwork. Clearly you have never done this. I have personal experience with a startup getting its first allocation and it took one person a few hours over the course of a week. Most of the work was in documenting the network, something which really should have been done earlier as good business practice. The paperwork is minimal, there is an online course you can follow on the ARIN website, or you can send email (or phone) to the hostmasters for help and advice. If you have a real business and aren't trying to hoard IP addresses just in case you start building a network a year from now, then it is easy. On the other hand, if you have nothing but a plan, i.e. no funding, no premises, no network equipment, then you will find it darn near impossible to get addresses from ARIN. The fundamental reason is that you don't have a technical need for addresses until you are just about to start building your network. That's when you apply for them, maybe two to three weeks in advance. --Michael Dillon From dean at av8.com Fri Oct 5 16:23:04 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > > Everyone who received address space received it under the > direction of the IANA (and indirectly, the US government) > prior to their respective RIR being formed. The absence of > a formal contract for such assignments means that there > are many possible interpretations as to the particular rights > and obligations of the parties. Yes, a court determines implied contract terms, sometimes by looking at previous performance of a long period of time. Of course, there is no dispute that a contract exists, just a dispute about the terms of the contract. ARIN is not giving out any free services to people without a contract. > In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have > obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the > community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community > would like us all to forget their community obligations and > simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total > contractual and community obligation vacuum... And just what, exactly, is ARIN spending on maintaining Legacy records? ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains non-profit status to have such profit: ARIN can now operate for something like 7 years with no further income. If the crowd that says IPv4 will end in 3 years is right, we should be expecting __payments__ from ARIN, instead of fees. It seems a bit disingenuous to argue that ARIN needs to reduce costs by doing something to Legacy holders. As space runs out, Legacy holders (and non-legacy holders, too) will find ways to utilize their space more effectively. Market forces will take care of that. There is no credible argument that they aren't utilizing that space pretty well now. Its that simple. The argument that somehow legacy holders aren't meeting their obligations to the community is entirely groundless, baseless, offensive nonsense. The legacy holders made this network; if it weren't for the legacy's you'd be running something from ISO, the ITU, SNA, Decnet, Novell, etc. There would certainly be commercial networks, but it wouldn't be this network. If it weren't for companies like OSF, Nearnet wouldn't have had a backup link to DEC for its flaky Microwave, and John Curran wouldn't be a 'hero'. If it weren't for the OSF, none of you would be running FreeBSD, or OpenBSD; OSF funded the completion of the free BSD 4.4 source, on which all these are based. There's a lot more, and that's just my little corner. Other Legacy's did much more. Personally, I'm getting kind of tired of people bashing legacy's, especially those people who benefited so handsomely from the quiet, unpaid help that Legacies gave them. ARIN has no legal or moral authority to take Legacy space and give it to someone else, merely because those new people are better connected with ARIN staff. Basically, all that is going on is a fabricated pretension of anarchy and a defamation of Legacy holders in order to justify a theft of government assigned rights from legacy holders. However, the question that started this particular thread still hasn't been answered: Has ARIN made a definitive statement on the legal rights of Legacys? Sprunk says yes. I say no. ARIN? --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 Fri Oct 5 17:02:00 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:02:00 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Darte [mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu] >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:30 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; J. R. Westmoreland; William Herrin; John Curran >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > > >Ted said below.... " The days of revolutionary changes on the Internet >governance are over."....given the ITU and UN's WSIS and WGIG processes, >I can only hope that he is correct.... > > >Bill Darte >ARIN Advisory Council > Bill, that's not a revolution, that's a coup. The UN wants to lop the head off and take it over. They would be horrified if they would have to create an entire governance structure out of scratch. They have no interest in actually grubbing around and doing things like replacing root servers, etc. They just want to be the king that tells the rest of the world how to do things. Google "History of the United Nations" along with "analysis of the effectiveness of the UN from 1950 to the present" to get an idea of what the UN likes to do. If there's not an atomic bomb buried somewhere, the UN isn't going to be of any use at all. Ted From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Fri Oct 5 12:24:39 2007 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? Message-ID: <200710052114.l95LEMDK020056@cjbsys.bdb.com> I originally sent this to John Curran directly but after reading more comments, I thought I'd post it to the group As a legacy holder who has recently joined the PPML list, I can see certain advantages to joining ARIN. I'm just not sure of the best way to keep my network number safe if I join. I have a Class C (/24) and use it actively but don't use 50% of the numbers at the current time. If ARIN were to have an RSA that lets us join, pay our $100.00 per year and leave us alone with our networks, I'd be happy to join. Do I want to pay $100.00 per year? No but it won't break my small consulting firm and it's probably a good thing to do. I tend to be suspicious of groups that say "We're from the governmet and we're here to help you" I have never seen a government/quasi-government group shrink or give up any power/control except at the point of a gun and I expect most legacy users feel the same way. I expect most are willing to take their chances by maintaining their "legacy" status of being grandfathered into ARIN's in-addr-ARPA service unless there is a very strong specific RSA protecting their status quo. This is not to say that if they need more resources, they should have free rein to get them. People keep working around this but all proposals seem to have more stick than carrot. It would seem to me that the ARIN leadership needs to look at the way to get people to join. There seems to be no concensus on the list about how to do this but if ARIN's goal is to get people to join, they need to take a pro-active stance to get it done. The choices seem to be to leave the legacy owners alone and codify their right to ARIN in-addr service or take strong action to make them default members of ARIN by whatever means necessary. This could go to the point of offering free membership and guarantees of safe harbor for existing numbers with limited other benefits (maybe no voting etc) and then allow full membership for a nominal fee. As others have stated, this is a v4 problem only and will disappear when v6 takes over. I think it is to ARIN's advantage as the numbers get tight toward the end to have as many as possible legacy folks under the ARIN/other RIRs umbrella. The problems of hijacked legacy numbers will only cost ARIN more time and money for lawyers and dispute resolution and I think any action that ARIN takes to get legacy users under ARIN should be taken. This would/should/could include free limited membership and any other incentives needed. Is it fair to the newcomers? In some ways probably not but if they have to pay increased fees to cover the costs of dispute resolution because the legacy users have not joined, they won't be happy about that either. I look at this somewhat like Ford's pardon of Nixon. Was it "fair" for Nixon to walk? No but it was better for the country to get past the embarrassment and back to more important things. ARIN's board needs to decide what is really important and take the appropriate action to achieve that. Food for thought Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 17:52:12 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:52:12 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200710051752853.SM00852@mikesplace> > Then why are you on this mailing list? The purpose of the PPML list is > to discuss the rules so that is why there is so much discussion of > rules. This is as it should be. Michael, I am on the list and remain on the list, because: 1. I am a dues paying member. Got the rule book, the card, and every thing needed... 2. It seems obvious to me that the list needs balance and I think it is my duty as a member to provide that balance. 3. I think some of the proposed rules are simply not needed, not going to accomplish the stated task, and not useful except as a barricade 4. I believe that it is the duty of ARIN to manage internet number resources. I believe ARIN gets the authority to do that through common consensus and only through common consensus, because the alternative would be chaos. 5. I do not believe ARIN should be involved in routing policy (meaning aggregation). That does not mean that I think that ARIN should not plan around aggregation. Aggregation is a technical issue not a poilcy issue and should not impact any ARIN policy. 6. I think that I can provide IP services to my customers and save them the hassle of getting and managing their own block of IP addresses. I also firmly believe that anyone, including your customers and mine should be able to request and be allocated an IP block with no more document resources (figuratively) than are required to register a vehicle. I believe that plunking down $100 and identity should get you an IP block. Finding someone to route an IP block is block owner's problem. If owner is willing to pay enough, someone will route it. So Michael, why are you on this list? Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 18:54:03 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:54:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <200710052114.l95LEMDK020056@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <200710051854173.SM02832@mikesplace> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Cliff Bedore > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:25 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > I originally sent this to John Curran directly but after reading more > comments, I thought I'd post it to the group > > > As a legacy holder who has recently joined the PPML list, I > can see certain > advantages to joining ARIN. I'm just not sure of the best > way to keep my > network number safe if I join. I have a Class C (/24) and > use it actively but > don't use 50% of the numbers at the current time. If ARIN > were to have an RSA > that lets us join, pay our $100.00 per year and leave us > alone with our > networks, I'd be happy to join. Do I want to pay $100.00 per > year? No but it > won't break my small consulting firm and it's probably a good > thing to do. I > tend to be suspicious of groups that say "We're from the > governmet and we're > here to help you" I have never seen a > government/quasi-government group shrink > or give up any power/control except at the point of a gun and > I expect most > legacy users feel the same way. I expect most are willing to > take their chances > by maintaining their "legacy" status of being grandfathered > into ARIN's > in-addr-ARPA service unless there is a very strong specific > RSA protecting their > status quo. This is not to say that if they need more > resources, they should > have free rein to get them. People keep working around this > but all proposals > seem to have more stick than carrot. > > It would seem to me that the ARIN leadership needs to look at > the way to get > people to join. There seems to be no concensus on the list > about how to do > this but if ARIN's goal is to get people to join, they need to take a > pro-active stance to get it done. The choices seem to be to > leave the legacy > owners alone and codify their right to ARIN in-addr service > or take strong > action to make them default members of ARIN by whatever means > necessary. This > could go to the point of offering free membership and > guarantees of safe harbor > for existing numbers with limited other benefits (maybe no > voting etc) and > then allow full membership for a nominal fee. > > As others have stated, this is a v4 problem only and will > disappear when v6 > takes over. I think it is to ARIN's advantage as the numbers > get tight toward > the end to have as many as possible legacy folks under the > ARIN/other RIRs > umbrella. The problems of hijacked legacy numbers will only > cost ARIN more > time and money for lawyers and dispute resolution and I think > any action that > ARIN takes to get legacy users under ARIN should be taken. This > would/should/could include free limited membership and any > other incentives > needed. Is it fair to the newcomers? In some ways probably > not but if they > have to pay increased fees to cover the costs of dispute > resolution because > the legacy users have not joined, they won't be happy about > that either. > > I look at this somewhat like Ford's pardon of Nixon. Was it > "fair" for Nixon > to walk? No but it was better for the country to get past > the embarrassment > and back to more important things. ARIN's board needs to > decide what is > really important and take the appropriate action to achieve that. > > Food for thought > > Cliff > > > -- > Cliff Bedore > 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 > cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com > Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, > http://www.arrl.org/ Cliff, I would encourage you to continue to particpate. Likely, there are a lot of lurkers on the list. Your particpation may help draw them out. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 5 19:00:55 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:00:55 -0700 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing - DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <200710051544366.SM02808@mikesplace> References: <200710051544366.SM02808@mikesplace> Message-ID: Michael, On Oct 5, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > Second, much of this discussion irks me to no end. Rules, rules, > rules, > raise more barriers. Between government rules and regulations, > forms to > file, taxes to report, and _all_ of the proposed ARIN rules, how > does an one > start a small business in this industry? One would need a staff of > tens, > just to deal with the paperwork. TANSTAAFL. The Internet community long ago decided that the appropriate way to manage address resources was to impose administrative constraints to impose control over the allocation of address space (that is, "to each according to need"). In order to maintain that control in the face of decreased availability, either the administrative burden must increase or some other constraint must be imposed. Since the most obvious constraint is politically infeasible (at least for now), we're left with more red tape. Of course, the other option would be loosen control, but that would almost certainly result in a "run on the bank". Pick your poison... Note that obtaining IPv6 address space is much less administratively constrained. Regards, -drc From randy at psg.com Fri Oct 5 19:54:10 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:54:10 +0900 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <200710051752853.SM00852@mikesplace> References: <200710051752853.SM00852@mikesplace> Message-ID: <4706CEA2.6040106@psg.com> > 5. I do not believe ARIN should be involved in routing policy (meaning > aggregation). That does not mean that I think that ARIN should not plan > around aggregation. Aggregation is a technical issue not a poilcy issue and > should not impact any ARIN policy. brilliant point. so we can stop worrying about ipv4 free pool run-out, not be bothered by irrelevant (to policy) technical issues, and just set policy that we continue assigning from what we now call D/E space and just continue northward, and eventually assign from 256/8 and so forth. right. please get someone in your organization to show you a router. randy From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 20:09:46 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:09:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested Message-ID: <20071005200993.SM02724@mikesplace> Sorry! Forgot to reply all. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:05 PM > To: 'Randy Bush' > Subject: RE: SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing > -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested > > Randy, > > Yes, aggregation is a technical issue. If you have issues > with aggregation, get a bigger, smarter router. But John Doe > (the living one) should be able to plunk down his $100 and > get an IP block, irrespective aggregation issues. > > Michael Thomas > Mathbox > 978-683-6718 > 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 7:54 PM > > To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing > > -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested > > > > > 5. I do not believe ARIN should be involved in routing > > policy (meaning > > > aggregation). That does not mean that I think that ARIN > > should not plan > > > around aggregation. Aggregation is a technical issue not a > > poilcy issue and > > > should not impact any ARIN policy. > > > > brilliant point. so we can stop worrying about ipv4 free > > pool run-out, > > not be bothered by irrelevant (to policy) technical issues, > > and just set > > policy that we continue assigning from what we now call D/E > space and > > just continue northward, and eventually assign from 256/8 and > > so forth. > > right. > > > > please get someone in your organization to show you a router. > > > > randy > > > > From randy at psg.com Fri Oct 5 20:14:55 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:14:55 +0900 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <20071005200993.SM02724@mikesplace> References: <20071005200993.SM02724@mikesplace> Message-ID: <4706D37F.3050202@psg.com> > Yes, aggregation is a technical issue. If you have issues with > aggregation, get a bigger, smarter router. But John Doe (the living > one) should be able to plunk down his $100 and get an IP block, > irrespective aggregation issues. and pay 10 million dollars for a router that can connect to the internet. and force everybody else to as well. do you perchance work for a giant telephant? randy From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 20:43:58 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:43:58 -0400 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested In-Reply-To: <4706D37F.3050202@psg.com> Message-ID: <200710052044794.SM02808@mikesplace> Randy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:15 PM > To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: IPv4 Soft Landing > -DiscussionandSupport/Non-SupportRequested > > > Yes, aggregation is a technical issue. If you have issues with > > aggregation, get a bigger, smarter router. But John Doe (the living > > one) should be able to plunk down his $100 and get an IP block, > > irrespective aggregation issues. > > and pay 10 million dollars for a router that can connect to the If you wish to do so. > internet. and force everybody else to as well. do you perchance work > for a giant telephant? What I am is a card carrying member of ARIN, so where I work is irrelevent. > randy ARIN serves the North American region, all 335 million of us. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Oct 5 20:58:23 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:58:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing -Discussion In-Reply-To: <200710052044794.SM02808@mikesplace> References: <200710052044794.SM02808@mikesplace> Message-ID: At 8:43 PM -0400 10/5/07, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: >But John Doe (the living >one) should be able to plunk down his $100 and get an IP block, >irrespective aggregation issues. That's probably achievable with IPv6, as long as you don't care about being able to route the block. With IPv4, we've got some issues with unconnected networks stranding otherwise badly needed addresses and came up with these great RFC 1918 addresses for private network which can be used for *free*, and won't even conflict with any publicly assigned IPv4 address. In either case, if you want address space that your ISP will route, then you need to ask your ISP for the assignment. Which scenario is your John Doe upset about? /John From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 5 23:13:10 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 23:13:10 -0400 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing -Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200710052313695.SM02808@mikesplace> John, > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:58 PM > To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing -Discussion > > At 8:43 PM -0400 10/5/07, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > >But John Doe (the living > >one) should be able to plunk down his $100 and get an IP block, > >irrespective aggregation issues. > > That's probably achievable with IPv6, as long as you don't care > about being able to route the block. Well, lets examine that one. Lets see $1250 per /48 * 2 ^ 80 = ***** ooops, my calculator just overflowed and dumped its guts on the floor. > With IPv4, we've got some issues with unconnected networks > stranding otherwise badly needed addresses and came up with > these great RFC 1918 addresses for private network which can > be used for *free*, and won't even conflict with any publicly > assigned IPv4 address. Yes, everybody I know uses RFC 1918 space. RFC 1918 space has its place. > > In either case, if you want address space that your ISP will > route, then you need to ask your ISP for the assignment. > > Which scenario is your John Doe upset about? Neither I nor anyone I know is upset. However, I have been lurking on this list for months now. For whatever reason, some of the conversations struck a nerve, but I certainly hope I haven't sounded upset. You could tag me with contentious or argumentative without bothering me. :) I believe that there is still room for small entrepreneurial companies on the internet who could need IP addresses. My position is that many of the rules that people are proposing are simply more barricades to entry. It is much harder to remove a rule than it is to make one. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From peter at boku.net Sat Oct 6 02:24:35 2007 From: peter at boku.net (Peter Eisch) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:24:35 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Bill, here's a start: Dear You were issued by the IANA before the creation of ARIN. ARIN has supported your assignment for the past years by providing in-addr.arpa delegation, whois services as well as providing you the means to keep your records current. Please review the current registration. As a steward of the Internet community ARIN would like to ask you for your stewardship back to the community. If you have unused address blocks that you're able and willing to return to the pool for others to potentially use, the Internet community would be appreciative. With the pending IPv4 exhaustion, your contribution back to the community can help extend the open availability for others to use. We understand that this probably means that you'll need to make some changes to your internal routing as well as your upstream providers as well as peers, ARIN would like to extend a courtesy for your effort. We're not asking you to renumber or abandon your assignment but simply apply some common conservation practices as you'd expect others in the community to practice. What is the incentive? Here again is where you can help. ARIN members have been trying to identify what could be offered to your organization. We've been unable to get a good grasp on what a suitable incentive would be and we'd like your ideas. Things that have been discussed in the past include discounted or free membership to ARIN as well as deeply discounted pricing for access to IPv6 addresses. Might you have similar or other ideas? We've created a [mailing list] just for legacy holders. We'll specifically discuss ideas surrounding how to approach this process as well as the opportunity to provide incentives through this process. We've also created a [legacy holder's risks] page. ARINs goal through this process isn't to inconvenience your and your organization in any way. ARIN is looking to encourage your continued stewardship. mailing list: http://www.arin.net/lists/legacy legacy risks: http://www.arin.net/risks Thank you, xxxx xxxxx On 10/5/07 10:32 AM, "Bill Darte" wrote: > And do you have specific suggestions on how ARIN might/should proceed to > do this as a means of communication....and on content of the message? > > A guidance forum should proffer 'guidance' if not outright policy > proposals for the community to consider. "Interesting" discussion is a > useful preparation for such. > > Thanks for you discussion. > > bd > > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Peter Eisch > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:07 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > > After months of reading "interesting" email about legacy holders, what > direct communication has happened to these organizations to bring them > into > the fold? Until they are here (or a party to another less general list) > the > discussion continues to be engaged by only the mostly non-affected > elite. > > In this forum the discussions are typically emotional, theoretical and > rarely based on facts. This is typical of a guidance list. It's good > to > get ideas bounced around and get the input from a wide audience. > > Could some effort be spent on getting the attention of the legacy > holders > and establish a communication channel with them? You have maybe a dozen > [individual] readers here with legacy holdings. I'll suspect that we're > not > the majority and we surely can't speak for the balance. > > Until they're present and a part of the process this discussion > continues to > be little more than "us" and "them" and clearly without community > perspective. > > peter > > On 10/5/07 9:26 AM, "Bill Darte" wrote: > >> Seems to me that since there exists a vocal segment of the community >> that wants ARIN to engage the legacy holders and to encourage or > impose >> upon them some obligations or limit their 'free' services, it is wise >> that ARIN consider what authority exists...should the broader > community >> come to believe as the vocal segment. >> >> Discussion of this authority and options to BOTH encourage or > impose... >> in an open and straightforward manner is the right thing to do. IMO. >> >> If the legacy community feels threatened by such, then I encourage all >> to better understand the process in which such discussion is taking >> place and the means that exists to influence those discussions and >> community perspective...by engaging the community at large and ARIN >> through participation. >> >> Bill Darte >> ARIN Advisory Council >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf > Of >> William Herrin >> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:46 AM >> To: John Curran >> Cc: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? >> >> On 10/5/07, John Curran wrote: >>> In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have >>> obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the >>> community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community >>> would like us all to forget their community obligations and >>> simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total >>> contractual and community obligation vacuum... >> >> John, >> >> Don't take me wrong; I think the current ARIN process is a sound one >> and I think it would be healthy to bring as many folks into the fold >> as possible. I'm particularly fond of proposals which encourage IPv4 >> assignments to segue into IPv6 assingments with both coming under the >> ARIN RSA in the process. >> >> I don't think the "stick" approach is healthy. Even just having >> discussions about discontinuing folks' RDNS creates a comment record >> where any legacy registrant lurking about must think we're all a bunch >> of a-holes. How that activity and perception furthers ARIN's mission >> completely escapes me. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN > Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From mike at mathbox.com Sat Oct 6 06:45:18 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 06:45:18 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses Message-ID: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> On the ARIN web site at: http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#ipv4_alloc The price for an X-large allocation (blocks larger than /14, I.E. a /13 qualifies) is $18,000.00. That is the top fee for IP addresses. If the same ARIN subscriber needs more IP addresses, up to and including another /13 or more, there is no additional charge. No additonal charge! Free! I have two issues with this fee structure. First, lets price that /13 at the /22 rate. The /22 rate is $1.22 per IP address ($1250 / 1024 = $1.22). For those who do not know how many IP addresses there are in a /13 (I didn't without calculating it), there are 524,288. Now $1.22 * 524288 = $639631.36. No wonder small allocation subscribers think IP pricing is unfair. Should ARIN decrease the smaller allocation rates or increase the larger allocation rates? Second, while there have been proposals to "charge legacy holders a fee", "increase the allocation fees to promote conservation", and , "increase the IPV4 allocation fees to push subscribers to IPV6", ARIN is willing to provide any IPV4 address block over the initial /13 for free. Is this good stewardship? Do you think that fee schedule promotes conservation? I do not. Before we ask others to conserve more and pay more, lets cleanup our own act. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sat Oct 6 09:58:08 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:58:08 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710060658m74538410jbbde6371090f19c8@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/07, Peter Eisch wrote: > "As a steward of the Internet community ARIN would like to ask you for your > stewardship back to the community. If you have unused address blocks that > you're able and willing to return to the pool for others to potentially use, > the Internet community would be appreciative. With the pending IPv4 > exhaustion, your contribution back to the community can help extend the open > availability for others to use." Hi Peter, The problem with a letter like this is that while this is the message we want to convey, its intellectually dishonest and we will get called on it. Let me explain what I mean. If you release address space back to ARIN's pool, there is somewhere north of an 80% chance that next year it appears within an allocation to one of a few hundred megacorps that has a voracious appetite for IP addresses. ARIN's process is very top-heavy in that respect; at the rate it makes single /20 and longer allocations it could continue for decades. Its the big allocations to folks who already hold a lot of addresses which are expected to exhaust the free pool in three years. The odds favor your old addresses showing up at Verizon, AT&T or another like them. Worse, under ARIN's price structure those guys don't even have to pay more for it... Just the xxlarge annual fee. Megacorps being what they are, you or someone you know has in the past been screwed or treated like a peon by the one who ended up with your old IP addresses. That's a pretty foul outcome for someone who has generously returned addresses. I'd go so far as to call it a betrayal of trust: It would be like volunteering to pick up trash on a highway like you see the signs for, only to have the county come in and turn it into a toll road. Then, when we go back for round two, we'll have zero credibility. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sat Oct 6 10:11:23 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:11:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/07, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > Is this good > stewardship? Do you think that fee schedule promotes conservation? I do not. > Before we ask others to conserve more and pay more, lets cleanup our own > act. Michael, I concur. ARIN's price structure is reasonable for an asset of which there is a plentiful supply. Its based on the ARIN staff workload necessary to process the paperwork, provide servers and handle record keeping. These functions do not cost excessively more for large allocations than for small ones. The price structure is entirely inappropriate for a rapidly diminishing asset like IPv4 free pool. Where conservation is desired, large allocations per year should made to cost more per address than small ones. That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 6 10:31:11 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:31:11 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 10:11 AM -0400 10/6/07, William Herrin wrote: >That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities >have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. I have no particular viewpoint on the matter of whether our fee schedule needs to be changed, but want to be clear on the ability to change the fees. The ARIN Board sets the fee schedule, and it's been generally based on the feedback we receive at the member meetings. There is no formal member votes on these matters, although we have on occasion asked for a show of hands as a gauge of opinion in the room. ARIN Board votes on financial matters are done by 2/3 majority, and to my knowledge there's been no particular representation of any category of members, i.e. the trustees are to consider the needs of all of members and the community at large in weighing their decision. The current list of trustee members of the ARIN Board is here: /John John Curran Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sat Oct 6 11:15:06 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:15:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710060815m9b8273cq3889f4e87c11cd7a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/07, John Curran wrote: > At 10:11 AM -0400 10/6/07, William Herrin wrote: > >That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities > >have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. > > I have no particular viewpoint on the matter of whether our > fee schedule needs to be changed, but want to be clear on > the ability to change the fees. The ARIN Board sets the fee > schedule, and it's been generally based on the feedback we > receive at the member meetings. There is no formal member > votes on these matters, although we have on occasion asked > for a show of hands as a gauge of opinion in the room. John, Politics 101. You were elected by convincing the people who show up and vote that you'll give them what they want. The board, including yourself, was elected by the members based on the members' belief that you and the rest of the board would act in a "fair and appropriate" manner. In context, "fair and appropriate" means "not unfavorable to us." Such is the character of representative democracy and the board has done a generally good job of delivering what the voting members desire. Should some situation come about where the board implements a conservation-driven fee structure, it wouldn't be 5 days before a policy proposal showed up on this list directing ARIN to structure its fees in direct proportion to the relevant operating costs. Nor would that proposal have a hard time winning passage. Nor would the board member who pushed the original fee change win reelection. This is the political reality. The x-large members have the votes. Don't believe it? Try to adjust the fees to support conservation and see what happens. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 6 11:44:16 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:44:16 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710060815m9b8273cq3889f4e87c11cd7a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0710060815m9b8273cq3889f4e87c11cd7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 11:15 AM -0400 10/6/07, William Herrin wrote: >Politics 101. You were elected by convincing the people who show up >and vote that you'll give them what they want. The board, including >yourself, was elected by the members based on the members' belief that >you and the rest of the board would act in a "fair and appropriate" >manner. In context, "fair and appropriate" means "not unfavorable to >us." Such is the character of representative democracy and the board >has done a generally good job of delivering what the voting members >desire. Thanks! >Should some situation come about where the board implements a >conservation-driven fee structure, it wouldn't be 5 days before a >policy proposal showed up on this list directing ARIN to structure its >fees in direct proportion to the relevant operating costs. Nor would >that proposal have a hard time winning passage. Nor would the board >member who pushed the original fee change win reelection. This is the >political reality. The x-large members have the votes. In some RIR's, I believe that there are voting structures which are not flat (i.e. not 1 member, 1 vote) but instead based on address space held or member size. In ARiN's region, we have more than 2800 members, and xsmall through medium far, far outnumber large + xlarge (I'll get the exact breakdown posted as soon as possible) Given our 1 member, 1 vote structure, the x-large members really can't control the votes. I'm not denying that there would be fallout from a restructuring of fees, but that is true of any major change to the fee schedule. This should not prevent members from suggesting fee structures that they feel is fair and appropriate to all. /John Chair, ARIN p.s. I'd recommend moving this from PPML to arin-discuss, since we've left the topic of policy and moved to ARIN's voting structure. From bicknell at ufp.org Sat Oct 6 12:00:15 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:00:15 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:11:23AM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > The price structure is entirely inappropriate for a rapidly > diminishing asset like IPv4 free pool. Where conservation is desired, > large allocations per year should made to cost more per address than > small ones. Leaving aside the issue of is it good or not, I'm not sure ARIN as a non-profit is in a position to implement a "sin tax" on IP addresses to promote conservation. Several people already have stated they feel ARIN has too much of a surplus; if we implemented a fair sin tax of say $10 per IP per year, where would all that money go and what would it be used to do? > That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities > have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. I believe you're wrong on two levels. First, John has already answered that fees are set by the board, not by any member votes. If you wish to read about the board members, their bios are at http://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html. Not a single one works for a "megacorp". If you were right about the megacorps they would have already stacked the board with puppets. Second, you retorted in a message that the megacorps would simply respond with policy proposals to fix the situation. As an AC member I can tell you that the AC passes policy on based on community consensus, and the board serves as a double check that we did just that. While there is no hard and fast rule for consensus, I can say that in most of the cases it requires the majority of the community to support the notation. Note, policy is NOT ARIN members, but the community, e.g. anyone who wants to show up and express an opinion. The 5, or 10, or 20 "megacorps" are quickly overruled by the hundreds if not thousands of people who represent small companies who take an opposite view. So for policy matters, everyone (including the general public) gets one "vote" if you want to think of that that way. We don't vote, the AC judges consensus; but close enough for the purposes of this message. For Board elections, all ARIN members get two votes each. You alone as a member can completely counteract Verizon's two votes. It's very hard for me to see how megacorps have any advantage. Consolidation is not helping, where AT&T, Pacbell, SBC, and Bell South used to have a total of 8 votes in elections they now have 2. -- 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 owen at delong.com Sat Oct 6 12:06:29 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:06:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> Message-ID: <9F822965-E110-4653-A258-1CAB194FC293@delong.com> On Oct 6, 2007, at 3:45 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > On the ARIN web site at: > http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#ipv4_alloc > > The price for an X-large allocation (blocks larger than /14, I.E. > a /13 > qualifies) is $18,000.00. That is the top fee for IP addresses. If > the same > ARIN subscriber needs more IP addresses, up to and including > another /13 or > more, there is no additional charge. No additonal charge! Free! I > have two > issues with this fee structure. > These fees are not for IP addresses. The fees are for ARIN Subscriber Membership. The total number of IP addresses you hold is used as an abstraction for classifying your membership. For someone who holds a /20, the next /20 is technically free, too. Regardless of the increments in which it comes. For someone who holds a /19+, it doesn't cost any more until they need more than a /16. This is standard tiered pricing and it's a way to simplify the pricing structure so that the cost of computing a bill does not increase the amount of money that needs to be collected. Owen From owen at delong.com Sat Oct 6 12:11:32 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:11:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > > That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities > have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. This is patently false for at least the following reasons: 1. Fee structure is determined by the BoT with input from the ARIN membership. 2. x-large entities are NOT the majority of ARIN members and do not get any more votes than x-small entities per Org. If a sufficiently large portion of the membership supported a change to the fee structure, I am quite sure it could be accomplished. I am not sure that you could gain the support of enough of the x-small, small, medium and large organizations as well as the non-subscriber members to get such a fee structure through, but, it is quite possible to make such changes with zero support from the x-large entities if you can convince the rest of the membership that it is a good idea. Owen From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Sat Oct 6 13:06:13 2007 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:06:13 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace><3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: Since I believe as you do that a 'sin tax' isn't likely to fly.... for a variety of reasons. I do think it is reasonable and in line with the mission of ARIN to execute fees that are in addition to the existing fees that would go to support a robust education program aimed at objectives like, legacy recovery, IPv6 understanding/adoption, etc. Should an organization be compelled to acquire or demonstrate use of a protocol that is NOT part of their business plan in order to acquire a protocol address that IS and for which ARIN has a duty to provide?.... I don't see anything in the mission statement of ARIN that makes it clear this is appropriate. Bill Darte CAIT - Washington University in St. Louis -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 11:00 AM To: William Herrin Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In a message written on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:11:23AM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > The price structure is entirely inappropriate for a rapidly > diminishing asset like IPv4 free pool. Where conservation is desired, > large allocations per year should made to cost more per address than > small ones. Leaving aside the issue of is it good or not, I'm not sure ARIN as a non-profit is in a position to implement a "sin tax" on IP addresses to promote conservation. Several people already have stated they feel ARIN has too much of a surplus; if we implemented a fair sin tax of say $10 per IP per year, where would all that money go and what would it be used to do? > That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities > have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. I believe you're wrong on two levels. First, John has already answered that fees are set by the board, not by any member votes. If you wish to read about the board members, their bios are at http://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html. Not a single one works for a "megacorp". If you were right about the megacorps they would have already stacked the board with puppets. Second, you retorted in a message that the megacorps would simply respond with policy proposals to fix the situation. As an AC member I can tell you that the AC passes policy on based on community consensus, and the board serves as a double check that we did just that. While there is no hard and fast rule for consensus, I can say that in most of the cases it requires the majority of the community to support the notation. Note, policy is NOT ARIN members, but the community, e.g. anyone who wants to show up and express an opinion. The 5, or 10, or 20 "megacorps" are quickly overruled by the hundreds if not thousands of people who represent small companies who take an opposite view. So for policy matters, everyone (including the general public) gets one "vote" if you want to think of that that way. We don't vote, the AC judges consensus; but close enough for the purposes of this message. For Board elections, all ARIN members get two votes each. You alone as a member can completely counteract Verizon's two votes. It's very hard for me to see how megacorps have any advantage. Consolidation is not helping, where AT&T, Pacbell, SBC, and Bell South used to have a total of 8 votes in elections they now have 2. -- 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 mike at mathbox.com Sat Oct 6 13:37:32 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <9F822965-E110-4653-A258-1CAB194FC293@delong.com> Message-ID: <200710061337244.SM01552@mikesplace> Owen, > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 12:06 PM > To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE > IP Addresses > > > On Oct 6, 2007, at 3:45 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote: > > > On the ARIN web site at: > > http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html#ipv4_alloc > > > > The price for an X-large allocation (blocks larger than /14, I.E. > > a /13 > > qualifies) is $18,000.00. That is the top fee for IP addresses. If > > the same > > ARIN subscriber needs more IP addresses, up to and including > > another /13 or > > more, there is no additional charge. No additonal charge! Free! I > > have two > > issues with this fee structure. > > > These fees are not for IP addresses. The fees are for ARIN > Subscriber Membership. > The total number of IP addresses you hold is used as an abstraction > for classifying > your membership. > > For someone who holds a /20, the next /20 is technically free, too. > Regardless of > the increments in which it comes. For someone who holds a /19+, it > doesn't cost > any more until they need more than a /16. True. But there is also a tier above them. So, until the subscriber reaches the /13 level, there is always increased costs. Once you reach the /13 level, there is no additional cost. > This is standard tiered pricing and it's a way to simplify the > pricing structure so that > the cost of computing a bill does not increase the amount of money > that needs > to be collected. I am certainly not suggesting that ARIN should not have tiered pricing. It does simplify billing. However, there is a large difference between: 1 IP $.10 10 IP $1.00 100 IP $10.00 And 1 IP $1.00 10 IP $4.00 100 IP $10.00 > > Owen You confuse tiered pricing with tiered discounts. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sat Oct 6 15:06:07 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:06:07 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0710060815m9b8273cq3889f4e87c11cd7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710061206y1bf404f2q9ac8ee1ed0fdb320@mail.gmail.com> Its officially the weekend, so I'm throwing some notions out there and letting things fall where they may. On 10/6/07, John Curran wrote: > In ARiN's region, we have more than 2800 members, and xsmall > through medium far, far outnumber large + xlarge (I'll get the > exact breakdown posted as soon as possible) Given our 1 member, > 1 vote structure, the x-large members really can't control the votes. John, That's something you should fix, by the way. You have 600 maybe 700 members who actually vote. Anyone can be a member: $500 buys voting membership at 2 semi-annual meetings. IPv6 deployment is not on track. There will be a gap, probably a large one, between free pool exhaustion and sufficiently ubiquitous IPv6 deployment. Given the amount of money in the industry today, fortunes will be made and lost on the post-exhaustion availability of IPv4 addresses. 100 votes is 15%. That's more than the swing on most proposals. It only costs $50k. On 10/6/07, Leo Bicknell wrote: > to promote conservation. Several people already have stated they > feel ARIN has too much of a surplus; if we implemented a fair sin > tax of say $10 per IP per year, where would all that money go and > what would it be used to do? Leo, Get ready to buy back the legacy addresses. That's what we all want after all: more addresses for as long as possible after the IANA free pool is gone. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sat Oct 6 15:23:36 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:23:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/07, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:11:23AM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > > The price structure is entirely inappropriate for a rapidly > > diminishing asset like IPv4 free pool. Where conservation is desired, > > large allocations per year should made to cost more per address than > > small ones. > > Leaving aside the issue of is it good or not, I'm not sure ARIN as > a non-profit is in a position to implement a "sin tax" on IP addresses > to promote conservation. Leo, The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per IP address per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN charge them the same way? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bicknell at ufp.org Sat Oct 6 16:24:53 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:24:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0710061206y1bf404f2q9ac8ee1ed0fdb320@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0710060815m9b8273cq3889f4e87c11cd7a@mail.gmail.com> <3c3e3fca0710061206y1bf404f2q9ac8ee1ed0fdb320@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071006202453.GB63849@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:06:07PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > 100 votes is 15%. That's more than the swing on most proposals. It > only costs $50k. Policy proposals are never voted on. The AC decides that there is community consensus. The cost of an attempt to sway the vote in such a way is virtually zero, it simply requires people to post their support on PPML. I believe, although someone may correct me if I'm wrong, the only thing we ever vote on is to elect AC members and BoT members. Those elections are the only thing you could attempt to buy in the manor you suggest. In a message written on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:23:36PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist > customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per IP > address per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. > > Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, > not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? > They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN charge > them the same way? My point is those are for profit companies, and they charge what the market will bear. That's in stark contrast to ARIN, which is a non-profit who's charter is specifically to be a stweard of the address space. Plus, ARIN charges more for larger IP blocks due to the administrative overhead, why shouldn't for profit companies do the same for users? It does take more engineering effort to manage static IP's than to just throw another subnet into a DHCP server. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 16:20:02 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:20:02 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? References: <018f01c806c4$ad11ca00$363816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <47057EBB.6010609@psg.com> Message-ID: <013f01c80857$8cc3ac70$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Randy Bush" >> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look >> like here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of >> service by ARIN is legally permitted. In other words, I don't >> believe we, as the non-profit trying to carry out the community's >> wishes, have a duty to provide free services for legacy address >> holders. And the denial of those free services to legacy address >> holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, >> in my judgment, as a matter of law." > > if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community > and to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the > community can find an organization more interested in public > service. probably such a change would be good for the > community; at least this puff and bluff would cease. In my message that Dean responded to, please note the relevant part: "it doesn't appear that ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments, though it does have a moral one since that was a condition of ARIN's creation." I believe we are _morally_ obligated, regardless of our (lack of) legal obligation, to continue to provide registry services for legacy assignments that are still in use. If a legacy assignment is not still in use (e.g. because the holder forgot about it, went bankrupt, etc.), I see no moral or legal obligation to continue providing services and we should reclaim it. I think this position is clear from 2007-14. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 16:07:53 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:07:53 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <013e01c80857$8b7ab1b0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "William Herrin" > The price structure is entirely inappropriate for a rapidly > diminishing asset like IPv4 free pool. Where conservation is > desired, large allocations per year should made to cost more > per address than small ones. I'd be satisfied with a constant per-address fee structure. If nothing else, that's a good first step vs. our current fee structure of giving additional addresses free to organizations who waste the most. > That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities > have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. There are 80 X-Large members, out of ~2800 members. Since it's one vote per member, they obviously do not "have the votes" to do anything. However, as John pointed out, members don't actually vote on fees; that's done by a supermajority of the Board. If members are unhappy with the current fee structure, they should consider that in the next round of Board elections. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From jhg at omsys.com Sat Oct 6 16:52:45 2007 From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:52:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:23:36 -0400, "William Herrin" wrote: >The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist >customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per IP >address per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. > >Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, >not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? >They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN charge >them the same way? +1 You're onto something. All the blather about deadbeat legacy holders is pure misdirection. The real issue is with the large holders, under RSA or not, who have *no* reason to use their assignments efficiently as long as the incremental cost of new IPs is zero. In fact, with v4 exhaustion on the horizon, it's better for them to remain inefficient to the end of the free pool, since that will give them breathing room at that point. This isn't a moral judgement, it's simple economics. As long as an organization is profit-making, it *must* act that way, or face shareholder suits if it acts to protect community interests instead of its own monetary interests. That's just how the system works. So, to change this, we have to work the system. And that means, as this thread has made blindingly clear, making every IP cost money, per year. No free rides for the big guys. The fees have nothing to do with ARIN's costs, and everything to do with the public policy needed to keep the Net functional. So the fees have to be enough, at the top end, to inspire more efficient use. Discounts can be used either way. Traditionally, larger purchases earn bigger discounts. But in California, for energy (and water) purchase, it's just the opposite. The more power we use, the more the rate goes *up*. This is policy aimed at conservation and efficiency in action. For example, this is what I pay for water (plus a basic meter fee of about $25/month): A unit of water is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons. Prices per unit are as follows: Units per unit Consumption Charge 0 - 10 $ 1.95 11-40 $ 2.55 41 - 100 $ 3.05 101 - 200 $ 3.30 201 plus $ 3.60 Applying this idea to ARIN, what if we had a basic fee for any IP addresses of $25/year, which would include the first 256 addresses (such as a legacy Class C, /24). Then beyond that: /22 $ 0.20 /20 $ 0.35 /18 $ 0.50 /16 $ 0.75 /14 $ 1.00 /12 $ 1.50 /10 $ 2.00 /8 $ 3.00 more $ 5.00 which is *still* at the very top less than *half* what the LIRs charge at their *lowest* rate for a single static IP. A 100% markup would seem quite sufficient. This would be fairer *to the community* than the current scale, and would certainly promote fast action on IPv6... especially with the fee waivers already in effect for v6. Anybody want to draft a formal proposal? ;-) --JHG From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 16:31:39 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:31:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? References: Message-ID: <023701c8085b$d2c79340$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: >> >> Everyone who received address space received it under the >> direction of the IANA (and indirectly, the US government) >> prior to their respective RIR being formed. The absence of >> a formal contract for such assignments means that there >> are many possible interpretations as to the particular rights >> and obligations of the parties. > > Yes, a court determines implied contract terms, sometimes by > looking at previous performance of a long period of time. First, the court must assess whether a contract exists at all. > Of course, there is no dispute that a contract exists, just a > dispute about the terms of the contract. I dispute that a contract exists. AIUI, a contract takes the basic form of one party agreeing to do (or not do) something in return for consideration from the other party. The legacy assignments did not include any form of consideration back to IANA, SRI, NSI, etc. and therefore were not contracts. At most, one could claim they were gifts, but since no tangible property changed hands, that's also a difficult position to support. > ARIN is not giving out any free services to people without a > contract. Yes, actually, that's exactly what ARIN is doing. Counsel has said ARIN has no legal (i.e. contractual) obligation to provide free services to legacy holders as it's doing today. If there were a contract, he couldn't have made that statement. >> In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have >> obligations to the community. ARIN will certainly do as the >> community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community >> would like us all to forget their community obligations and >> simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total >> contractual and community obligation vacuum... > > And just what, exactly, is ARIN spending on maintaining Legacy > records? Very little, given about half of the records haven't even been updated in ten-plus years. That's not the point. > ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains non-profit > status to have such profit: ARIN can now operate for something > like 7 years with no further income. If the crowd that says IPv4 > will end in 3 years is right, we should be expecting __payments__ > from ARIN, instead of fees. It seems a bit disingenuous to > argue that ARIN needs to reduce costs by doing something to > Legacy holders. I don't see anyone claiming we need _money_ (i.e. something to offset costs) from legacy holders. What I do see are lots of claims that we need their resources back if they're not using them efficiently (or at all). > ARIN has no legal or moral authority to take Legacy space and > give it to someone else, merely because those new people are > better connected with ARIN staff. It has nothing to do with being "connected". Who gets new or reissued space is determined by the NRPM, the contents of which are determined by the community. > Basically, all that is going on is a fabricated pretension of anarchy > and a defamation of Legacy holders in order to justify a theft of > government assigned rights from legacy holders. I see no defamation being done by anyone other than you. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 16:35:49 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:35:49 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <9F822965-E110-4653-A258-1CAB194FC293@delong.com> Message-ID: <023a01c8085b$d3971840$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Owen DeLong" > These fees are not for IP addresses. The fees are for ARIN > Subscriber Membership. The total number of IP addresses you > hold is used as an abstraction for classifying your membership. > > For someone who holds a /20, the next /20 is technically free, too. > Regardless of the increments in which it comes. For someone > who holds a /19+, it doesn't cost any more until they need more > than a /16. The point is there is an "until" in there, meaning those people are not encouraged to waste addresses indefinitely because they'll eventually have to pay more. Once you pass a /14, you _never_ pay _anything_ more no matter how much you waste. > This is standard tiered pricing and it's a way to simplify the > pricing structure so that the cost of computing a bill does not > increase the amount of money that needs to be collected. Either way, the amount of address space an org has needs to be calculated. Anyone with a modicum of programming experience can tell you that it's easier to multiply that number by a fixed per-IP rate than it is to try to determine which of five pricing tiers the org falls into and return a different fixed rate for each. I have yet to discover any argument _in favor_ of the current fee schedule, much less one that offsets its complexity, barriers to entry, and encouragement of massive waste. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From drc at virtualized.org Sat Oct 6 17:16:57 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:16:57 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> Leo, Not really commenting on this discussion (although I find it quite amusing), but: On Oct 6, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > The 5, or 10, or 20 "megacorps" are quickly overruled by the hundreds > if not thousands of people who represent small companies who take > an opposite view. Um. Where are these ARIN meetings in which these "hundreds if not thousands" of companies are participating? The ARIN meetings I go to (and the e-mail discussions I see) have the same few dozen of people, most of which are funded by their very large corporations to attend said meetings. I will also note that it is the very large corporations who have the lawyers who can pummel ARIN into the ground if policies change in a way they don't particularly like (regardless of the merit or legality of those changes). Welcome to business in the USA... Regards, -drc From jhg at omsys.com Sat Oct 6 17:40:48 2007 From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:40:48 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:16:57 -0700, David Conrad wrote: >I will also note that it is the very large corporations who have the >lawyers who can pummel ARIN into the ground if policies change in a >way they don't particularly like (regardless of the merit or legality >of those changes). Welcome to business in the USA... True. But oddly enough, when the energy discount structure in California reversed a few years back, in response to an energy shortage (albeit one deliberately created by Enron ;-), there were no such suits. The megacorps just absorbed the major rate increases they were given. Perhaps the same thing would happen if the IPv4 rate discounts were inverted too. --Jeremy From bicknell at ufp.org Sat Oct 6 18:01:53 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:01:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <20071006220153.GA70214@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 02:16:57PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Um. Where are these ARIN meetings in which these "hundreds if not > thousands" of companies are participating? The ARIN meetings I go to > (and the e-mail discussions I see) have the same few dozen of people, > most of which are funded by their very large corporations to attend > said meetings. The ARIN meeting in Puerto Rico had 149 attendees, per the list on the web site. Based on the organizations given they represent about 115 entities. Beyond that, the directives to the AC are quite clear: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html ] Following discussion at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting, the Advisory ] Council will evaluate the proposal for community support based on ] comments from the Public Policy Mailing List as well as discussion and ] polling from the meetings. The Advisory Council review will normally ] take place within five days of the conclusion of the Public Policy ] Meeting. Comments on the Public Policy Mailing List are given as much ] weight as those made at the Public Policy Meeting, as it is recognized ] the mailing list provides access to the process that does not require ] physical presence at a meeting. So the AC considers every post on PPML, there's no requirement to go to the meeting. Looking at my own PPML archive, which goes back about a year and half I get 403 individual "From:" addresses in posts. There is some overlap with people who attend meetings, but it's not 100%. Perhaps my thousands was a bit off, but it seems like 450 is a likely number. Still, it's more than enough that 10, or 20, or even 30 megacorps would probably not be able to get a policy passed that everyone else opposed. -- 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 Sat Oct 6 18:07:58 2007 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:07:58 +0000 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:06:13 EST." References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace><3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <7123.1191708478@sa.vix.com> note, this thread has nothing to do with any policy proposal and as such, probably ought to be on arin-discuss@ rather than ppml at . for the benefit of those who are subscribed here but not there, who may be following it, i am honouring the existing CC: header. but at some point we ought to pare down ppml@ to actual policy proposals rather than general discussion. > I do think it is reasonable and in line with the mission of ARIN to > execute fees that are in addition to the existing fees that would go to > support a robust education program aimed at objectives like, legacy > recovery, IPv6 understanding/adoption, etc. i've likewise heard randy bush's claim (most recently at the chicago IEPG meeting) that public funding has helped push IPv6 deployment in asia. am i to assume that the "public funding" mechanism being recommended here is a "sin tax" administered by ARIN? (that feels like mission creep, but before i say whether i think it's good or bad, i'd like to be sure i'm understanding what's been suggested.) From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Oct 6 18:31:46 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:31:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710061206y1bf404f2q9ac8ee1ed0fdb320@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BE@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 3:06 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses > > Its officially the weekend, so I'm throwing some notions out > there and letting things fall where they may. > > On 10/6/07, John Curran wrote: > > In ARiN's region, we have more than 2800 members, and > xsmall through > > medium far, far outnumber large + xlarge (I'll get the > exact breakdown > > posted as soon as possible) Given our 1 member, > > 1 vote structure, the x-large members really can't control > the votes. > > John, > > That's something you should fix, by the way. You have 600 > maybe 700 members who actually vote. Anyone can be a member: > $500 buys voting membership at 2 semi-annual meetings. Sorry, what needs to be fixed? Lee From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sat Oct 6 18:58:30 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:58:30 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > >The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist > >customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per > IP address > >per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. > > > >Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, > >not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? > >They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN > > charge them the same way? Because two wrongs don't make a right. > You're onto something. All the blather about deadbeat legacy > holders is pure misdirection. The real issue is with the > large holders, under RSA or not, who have *no* reason to use > their assignments efficiently as long as the incremental cost > of new IPs is zero. In fact, with v4 exhaustion on the > horizon, it's better for them to remain inefficient to the > end of the free pool, since that will give them breathing > room at that point. The large holders who are active have to show efficient utilization, which means assignment to customers, in order to get more space. If they don't (and I speak from experience), they don't get more address space, which means they stop turning up new customers. > So, to change this, we have to work the system. And that > means, as this thread has made blindingly clear, making every > IP cost money, per year. > the fees have to be enough, at the top end, > to inspire more efficient use. Is it just me, or does it seems like everybody wants to raise fees on somebody else? I'm not convinced that this particular stick would have the intended effect. > The fees have nothing to do with ARIN's costs, and everything > to do with the public policy needed to keep the Net > functional. The fees were set by figuring out roughly what ARIN's budget needed to be, and setting up some simple tiers to meet those costs. > Applying this idea to ARIN, what if we had a basic fee for > any IP addresses of $25/year, which would include the first > 256 addresses (such as a legacy Class C, /24). > Then beyond that: > /22 $ 0.20 > /20 $ 0.35 > /18 $ 0.50 > /16 $ 0.75 > /14 $ 1.00 > /12 $ 1.50 > /10 $ 2.00 > /8 $ 3.00 > more $ 5.00 > which is *still* at the very top less than *half* what the > LIRs charge at their *lowest* rate for a single static IP. A > 100% markup would seem quite sufficient. Interesting idea. >From what I've seen, assignments to organizations (with dedicated service) are included with the service. Does that make any difference? > This would be fairer *to the community* than the current > scale, and would certainly promote fast action on IPv6... > especially with the fee waivers already in effect for v6. > > Anybody want to draft a formal proposal? ;-) This would go through the Suggestion Process, not the Public Policy Process. https://app.arin.net/suggestion/ Lee > --JHG From randy at psg.com Sat Oct 6 19:23:37 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:23:37 +0900 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: <470818F9.8090408@psg.com> >>> Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, >>> not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? >>> They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN >>> charge them the same way? > Because two wrongs don't make a right. three lefts do > Is it just me, or does it seems like everybody wants to raise > fees on somebody else? and, as arin does not seem to be hurting for income, it would seem these efforts are motivated by some kind of anger/vengance or political goals. randy From michael at rancid.berkeley.edu Sat Oct 6 19:39:45 2007 From: michael at rancid.berkeley.edu (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:39:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47081CC1.8030506@rancid.berkeley.edu> Jeremy H. Griffith wrote: > This isn't a moral judgement, it's simple economics. As long > as an organization is profit-making, it *must* act that way, > or face shareholder suits if it acts to protect community > interests instead of its own monetary interests. That's just > how the system works. What about organizations that don't make a profit by design? What about EDUs, K-12s, regional and state networks, research networks, non-profit research organizations and national networks like Internet2, ESNet, NLR, etc.? Your economic model rests on the assumption that everyone makes a profit off of their IP addresses. How are those that don't make any profit supposed to suddenly pay for the allocations they need? Or, is PI space only to be assigned by ability to pay on an increasing-bracketed per-ip basis, rather than need? michael From michael at rancid.berkeley.edu Sat Oct 6 19:48:29 2007 From: michael at rancid.berkeley.edu (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:48:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <470818F9.8090408@psg.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <470818F9.8090408@psg.com> Message-ID: <47081ECD.10207@rancid.berkeley.edu> W. Lee Howard wrote: >> Is it just me, or does it seems like everybody wants to raise >> fees on somebody else? Yes. Randy Bush wrote: > and, as arin does not seem to be hurting for income, it would seem these > efforts are motivated by some kind of anger/vengance or political goals. Interestingly, although there have been a lot of complaints about big government and excessive regulations in this thread, the call for increasing-graduated fees has a substantial redistributive tone to it. Much of the legacy discussion has been about carrots vs. sticks vs. something-in-between, and now, suddenly, we're proposing a sledgehammer. michael From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 19:34:07 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:34:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <470818F9.8090408@psg.com> Message-ID: <035f01c80873$f6fbfdb0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Randy Bush" >> Is it just me, or does it seems like everybody wants to raise >> fees on somebody else? > > and, as arin does not seem to be hurting for income, it would > seem these efforts are motivated by some kind of anger / > vengance or political goals. Perhaps some commenters are motivated by such, but I'm only asking for a fee schedule that would provide a more fair (i.e. less anticompetitive) and more efficient result. I don't propose ARIN increase its revenues. If we charged per IP as opposed to the current tier structure, the vast majority of ARIN members would see their fees go down. (Perhaps a small flat fee, say $500/yr, plus a per-IP fee. That covers the fixed cost of dealing with an org in terms of billing and contracts, their "free" membership, etc.) S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 19:38:41 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:38:41 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace><3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com><20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <7123.1191708478@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <036001c80873$f7a0a220$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Paul Vixie" >> I do think it is reasonable and in line with the mission of ARIN to >> execute fees that are in addition to the existing fees that would >> go to support a robust education program aimed at objectives >> like, legacy recovery, IPv6 understanding/adoption, etc. > > i've likewise heard randy bush's claim (most recently at the > chicago IEPG meeting) that public funding has helped push IPv6 > deployment in asia. am i to assume that the "public funding" > mechanism being recommended here is a "sin tax" administered > by ARIN? (that feels like mission creep, but before i say whether > i think it's good or bad, i'd like to be sure i'm understanding > what's been suggested.) In case that is in fact true, I would like to state for the record that I am against ARIN collecting any form of "sin tax". ARIN is chartered to do specific things and collect the revenue necessary to pay for them. If we feel ARIN needs to do more things, then we should let the BoT worry about how to pay for them after we achieve consensus on those new activities. We should not "tax" people and then try to figure out how to spend the money; there are plenty of examples of why that's a complete failure of an idea. I do think the collection of current cost-recovery fees is broken, but that position has nothing to do with a "sin tax". S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From schiller at uu.net Sat Oct 6 20:14:59 2007 From: schiller at uu.net (Jason Schiller) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote: > On 10/6/07, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > > Leaving aside the issue of is it good or not, I'm not sure ARIN as > > a non-profit is in a position to implement a "sin tax" on IP addresses > > to promote conservation. > > Leo, > > The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist > customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per IP > address per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. > > Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, > not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? > They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN charge > them the same way? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin I would just like to point out that not all ISPs charge for IP addresses. If ARIN added a per IP address charge, then I suspect Verizon Business would be temped to charge their customers for IP addresses. Charging for IP addresses gives the impression that the addresses are property. As a result, it leads to the conclusion that the only justification required to get said addresses is if one pays enough money. The question I have is do we want to limit the use of IP addresses based on address utilization or based on the amount of money an org is willing to pay for each address? __Jason From jhg at omsys.com Sat Oct 6 20:23:06 2007 From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:23:06 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:58:30 -0400, "Howard, W. Lee" wrote: >> >The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist >> >customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per >> IP address >> >per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. >> > >> >Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food chain, >> >not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's fair, right? >> >They charge the end users per-address so why shouldn't ARIN >> > charge them the same way? > >Because two wrongs don't make a right. Why is charging according to usage a "wrong"? It's the model used for virtually every transaction in the economy. >> You're onto something. All the blather about deadbeat legacy >> holders is pure misdirection. The real issue is with the >> large holders, under RSA or not, who have *no* reason to use >> their assignments efficiently as long as the incremental cost >> of new IPs is zero. In fact, with v4 exhaustion on the >> horizon, it's better for them to remain inefficient to the >> end of the free pool, since that will give them breathing >> room at that point. > >The large holders who are active have to show efficient >utilization, which means assignment to customers, in order to get >more space. If they don't (and I speak from experience), they >don't get more address space, which means they stop turning up >new customers. I'm not clear on your point here. There are many ways of looking at "efficient", and all involve a cost/benefit anaylsis. Efficient when marginal cost is zero is different from efficient when marginal cost is *something*. >> So, to change this, we have to work the system. And that >> means, as this thread has made blindingly clear, making every >> IP cost money, per year. >> the fees have to be enough, at the top end, >> to inspire more efficient use. > >Is it just me, or does it seems like everybody wants to raise >fees on somebody else? It's just you. ;-) I think everybody is trying to find some way of using fees, among other strategies, to deal with a real problem. I've seen as many posts advocating *lower* fees (for IPv6) as increases. That too is an appropriate approach. >I'm not convinced that this particular stick would have >the intended effect. Why is it a stick? It's simply a policy which has worked rather well where it has been used, specifically in California for energy and water, both in short supply. So from experience, not from political belief, it seems worth trying for the shortage ARIN is facing. >> The fees have nothing to do with ARIN's costs, and everything >> to do with the public policy needed to keep the Net >> functional. > >The fees were set by figuring out roughly what ARIN's budget >needed to be, and setting up some simple tiers to meet those >costs. Exactly. And that's the problem. The "simple tiers" have a discount structure meant to maximize use, which may have been fine in early days but isn't any more. And exhaustion is certainly going to have an impact on ARIN's budget. Could be a major decrease (no applications to process any more, so sorry), or an increase (paying for demo projects to get IPv6 out there more, or for investigators and attorneys to claw unused space back). The one thing it *won't* do is stay the same. >> Applying this idea to ARIN, what if we had a basic fee for >> any IP addresses of $25/year, which would include the first >> 256 addresses (such as a legacy Class C, /24). >> Then beyond that: >> /22 $ 0.20 >> /20 $ 0.35 >> /18 $ 0.50 >> /16 $ 0.75 >> /14 $ 1.00 >> /12 $ 1.50 >> /10 $ 2.00 >> /8 $ 3.00 >> more $ 5.00 >> which is *still* at the very top less than *half* what the >> LIRs charge at their *lowest* rate for a single static IP. A >> 100% markup would seem quite sufficient. > >Interesting idea. >From what I've seen, assignments to organizations (with >dedicated service) are included with the service. Does that >make any difference? Not really. I'm sure the cost of service far, far exceeds the max in the scale above. I pay about $200/month; it's hard to see where $5/year is going to impact that. >> This would be fairer *to the community* than the current >> scale, and would certainly promote fast action on IPv6... >> especially with the fee waivers already in effect for v6. >> >> Anybody want to draft a formal proposal? ;-) > >This would go through the Suggestion Process, not the Public >Policy Process. https://app.arin.net/suggestion/ Why is that? I've seen other proposals that affect the fee structure here, and this is specifically about public policy. Just wondering... --Jeremy From jhg at omsys.com Sat Oct 6 21:25:21 2007 From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:25:21 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2dbgg35d7fc23sqv9tqjur20mk4183oi8l@4ax.com> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:14:59 -0400 (EDT), Jason Schiller wrote: >The question I have is do we want to limit the use of IP addresses based >on address utilization or based on the amount of money an org is willing >to pay for each address? Unless you think ARIN should charge nothing to anyone, which would be a hard position to support given that ARIN has expenses, this is rather moot. The question is then, do we want to have a fee scale: 1. that encourages maximum usage (the current one), 2. that is flat (about $0.02 per IP), or 3. that encourages conservation (the California-style graduated charge)? Personally, I favor number 3. Actually, that seems to address your concern better than the other two, IMHO. And note that this is orthogonal to utilization, not a replacement for it. --Jeremy From peter at boku.net Sat Oct 6 21:54:55 2007 From: peter at boku.net (Peter Eisch) Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:54:55 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710060658m74538410jbbde6371090f19c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/6/07 8:58 AM, "William Herrin" wrote: > On 10/6/07, Peter Eisch wrote: >> "As a steward of the Internet community ARIN would like to ask you for your >> stewardship back to the community. If you have unused address blocks that >> you're able and willing to return to the pool for others to potentially use, >> the Internet community would be appreciative. With the pending IPv4 >> exhaustion, your contribution back to the community can help extend the open >> availability for others to use." > > Hi Peter, > > The problem with a letter like this is that while this is the message > we want to convey, its intellectually dishonest and we will get called > on it. Let me explain what I mean. > > If you release address space back to ARIN's pool, there is somewhere > north of an 80% chance that next year it appears within an allocation > to one of a few hundred megacorps that has a voracious appetite for IP > addresses. ARIN's process is very top-heavy in that respect; at the > rate it makes single /20 and longer allocations it could continue for > decades. Its the big allocations to folks who already hold a lot of > addresses which are expected to exhaust the free pool in three years. > The odds favor your old addresses showing up at Verizon, AT&T or > another like them. Worse, under ARIN's price structure those guys > don't even have to pay more for it... Just the xxlarge annual fee. > Assuming your predictions here are correct, I don't see the problem. If the megacorps are going to consume the address space, they're going to consume the address space regardless of what the numbers are. It's in this area though that I wish the registrars would do the community a service by having them renumber so the number of slots they consume increase by zero when they are issued new ranges. With this I wander off to the issue of routing table size, but numbers are numbers. > Megacorps being what they are, you or someone you know has in the past > been screwed or treated like a peon by the one who ended up with your > old IP addresses. That's a pretty foul outcome for someone who has > generously returned addresses. I'd go so far as to call it a betrayal > of trust: It would be like volunteering to pick up trash on a highway > like you see the signs for, only to have the county come in and turn > it into a toll road. > I really don't follow the example or the analogy, sorry. Get the in-addrs updated and the issue is over. If you're talking about some emotional reaction then I'll say that I totally agree . > Then, when we go back for round two, we'll have zero credibility. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sat Oct 6 22:00:04 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 22:00:04 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <3c3e3fca0710061223i25382483h80481f2e81d791ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710061900r6a50dd01jabcfc0666aa58779@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/07, Jason Schiller wrote: > I would just like to point out that not all ISPs charge for IP > addresses. If ARIN added a per IP address charge, then I suspect Verizon > Business would be temped to charge their customers for IP addresses. Jason, For the record, Verizon does charge their SOHO and small business customers for IP addresses. I have 5 addresses on my business FiOS account and pay $5 per month for each. Once you're in a high enough business tier they do stop charging. The breakpoint comes around the time the revenues from your single account are sufficient to pay the entire ARIN bill. And by the way, why exactly can't I transfer the /26 Verizon Business assigned to me as a customer of its Ashburn VA data center to the Verizon Business 50-meg line I ordered from you in Vienna VA? You guys really got on my s*** list over that particular stunt. > Charging for IP addresses gives the impression that the addresses are > property. As a result, it leads to the conclusion that the only > justification required to get said addresses is if one pays enough money. Then the "Local Internet Registries" shouldn't be doing that, should they? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Oct 6 22:57:37 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:57:37 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses References: Message-ID: <03b401c8088e$39f588b0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Jason Schiller" > On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote: >> The "Local Internet Registries" do. If you're a SOHO or hobbyist >> customer its not unusual to pay anywhere from $10 to $60 per IP >> address per year for as much as 32+1 static IP addresses. >> >> Why should a Regional Internet Registry, one step up the food >> chain, not charge the LIR's $1 per IP address per year? Fair's >> fair, right? They charge the end users per-address so why >> shouldn't ARIN charge them the same way? > > I would just like to point out that not all ISPs charge for IP > addresses. If ARIN added a per IP address charge, then I > suspect Verizon Business would be temped to charge their > customers for IP addresses. The point is that right now, all your (VZB's) new addresses are _free_ from ARIN because you use/waste so much of them. That gives your sales people _no_ reason not to give customers as much as they want at no extra charge other than the general practice of squeezing them for as much as possible. This _is_ used as a competitive tactic -- mega-ISPs will give address space to customers at no extra charge as one way to win deals because their smaller competitors have to pay up to $5/yr/IP to ARIN (which they have to add to the customer's bill, one way or another, unlike you) just to get the same space. Instead of encouraging customers to conserve, a mega-ISP encourages customers to waste by giving them free IPs -- which they may never even use. If the mega-ISPs actually paid for their addresses, they'd be encouraging customers to conserve like their smaller competitors are forced to. > Charging for IP addresses gives the impression that the > addresses are property. There are lots of monthly or yearly services I pay for that do not convey me any sort of property rights. I don't own my phone number, despite paying for it for the last 10 years. It's debatable whether it's even _possible_ to own a number, though I'm sure the lawyers would have a lot of fun arguing both sides of the point. > As a result, it leads to the conclusion that the only justification > required to get said addresses is if one pays enough money. The NRPM does cover that, but I doubt it's enforced much in practice. In the real world, yes, customers can get as much address space as they're willing to pay for. The problem is that some LIRs the customers are paying to get that space from have to pay for it, while others do not (and take those fees as pure profit). Please explain to me how that's remotely fair... > The question I have is do we want to limit the use of IP addresses > based on address utilization or based on the amount of money > an org is willing to pay for each address? The utilization requirement still applies. Requiring payments in addition to (not instead of) encourages people to use less than they can justify, i.e. conserve. I'll also note that I have personal experience with at least one mega-ISP that insisted on SWIPing a /23 to my company, even though we had our own (smaller) PI space and didn't want to use theirs. They wouldn't have done that if they had to pay for that unused PA space. I won't name them since I don't know if they have the same practice today, but it's a perfect example of why RIRs giving addresses away for free to certain "special" LIRs is a bad idea. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From randy at psg.com Sat Oct 6 23:45:25 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:45:25 +0900 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <035f01c80873$f6fbfdb0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855BF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <470818F9.8090408@psg.com> <035f01c80873$f6fbfdb0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <47085655.10501@psg.com> > I don't propose ARIN increase its revenues. If we charged per IP as > opposed to the current tier structure, the vast majority of ARIN members > would see their fees go down. > > (Perhaps a small flat fee, say $500/yr, plus a per-IP fee. That covers > the fixed cost of dealing with an org in terms of billing and contracts, > their "free" membership, etc.) this would make it even more blatantly obvious that arin is renting integers, not charging for services. randy From schiller at uu.net Sun Oct 7 02:00:04 2007 From: schiller at uu.net (Jason Schiller) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710061900r6a50dd01jabcfc0666aa58779@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote: > Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:00:04 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Jason Schiller > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses > > On 10/6/07, Jason Schiller wrote: > > I would just like to point out that not all ISPs charge for IP > > addresses. If ARIN added a per IP address charge, then I suspect Verizon > > Business would be temped to charge their customers for IP addresses. > > Jason, > > For the record, Verizon does charge their SOHO and small business > customers for IP addresses. I have 5 addresses on my business FiOS > account and pay $5 per month for each. Just for the record I was referring to Verizon Business... AS701 (UUNET) which does not charge for IP addresses (not for business customer, not for SOHO, not for residential customers, not for DSL customers or DS-0 customers, not for any customers). When you refer to Verizon you are likely talking about AS19262 Verizon Internet Services (VIS). They are completely seperate networks run by completely seperate Business unit, with a completely seperate set of management, with a whole host of legacy policies. In other words Verizon Business does not equal Verizon. > > Once you're in a high enough business tier they do stop charging. The > breakpoint comes around the time the revenues from your single account > are sufficient to pay the entire ARIN bill. > > And by the way, why exactly can't I transfer the /26 Verizon Business > assigned to me as a customer of its Ashburn VA data center to the > Verizon Business 50-meg line I ordered from you in Vienna VA? You guys > really got on my s*** list over that particular stunt. This is not a stunt. The data centers are managed as a separate network with a separate AS, and due to route aggregation policies, your data center /26 would not route correctly. People sometimes have to renumber when they change networks... and yes that is painful. Just so you know the same would happen for longer than /24s from one continent being moved to another (Say UUNET North America and UUNET Asia-Pacific) > > > > Charging for IP addresses gives the impression that the addresses are > > property. As a result, it leads to the conclusion that the only > > justification required to get said addresses is if one pays enough money. > > Then the "Local Internet Registries" shouldn't be doing that, should they? Yes, I agree it would be great if the "Local Internet Registries" did not charge for IP addresses (with them not being property and all), and that is why Verizon Business (UUNET) doesn't. I can't speak for any other LIRs (including Verizon Internet Services (VIS). __Jason > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > From schiller at uu.net Sun Oct 7 02:08:41 2007 From: schiller at uu.net (Jason Schiller) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <03b401c8088e$39f588b0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > The point is that right now, all your (VZB's) new addresses are _free_ from > ARIN because you use/waste so much of them. That gives your sales people > _no_ reason not to give customers as much as they want at no extra charge > other than the general practice of squeezing them for as much as possible. > This _is_ used as a competitive tactic -- mega-ISPs will give address space > to customers at no extra charge as one way to win deals because their > smaller competitors have to pay up to $5/yr/IP to ARIN (which they have to > add to the customer's bill, one way or another, unlike you) just to get the > same space. Instead of encouraging customers to conserve, a mega-ISP > encourages customers to waste by giving them free IPs -- which they may > never even use. If the mega-ISPs actually paid for their addresses, they'd > be encouraging customers to conserve like their smaller competitors are > forced to. I don't know about other ISPs, but we require customers to justify all of thier IP space. This way it is possible to get IP space from ARIN when we need it. Our customers conserve IP space because we uphold ARIN policies. > > > Charging for IP addresses gives the impression that the > > addresses are property. > > As a result, it leads to the conclusion that the only justification > > required to get said addresses is if one pays enough money. > > The NRPM does cover that, but I doubt it's enforced much in practice. In > the real world, yes, customers can get as much address space as they're > willing to pay for. The problem is that some LIRs the customers are paying > to get that space from have to pay for it, while others do not (and take > those fees as pure profit). Please explain to me how that's remotely > fair... Verizon Business does not charge for space, so our customers do not get as much as they can pay for. Instead they get only as much as they can justify. I do understnd your point though. When customers pay for address space, they feel entilted to as much address space as they pay for. And since sales people want to sell as many services as possible, they are likely to they and pile on extra IP addresses to raise the cost. > > > The question I have is do we want to limit the use of IP addresses > > based on address utilization or based on the amount of money > > an org is willing to pay for each address? > > The utilization requirement still applies. Requiring payments in addition > to (not instead of) encourages people to use less than they can justify, > i.e. conserve. > As I said above using payment as a justification (even in part) for IP addresses muddies the waters. __Jason From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sun Oct 7 02:48:49 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 02:48:49 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <3c3e3fca0710061900r6a50dd01jabcfc0666aa58779@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710062348o78e7665fw8cec8a4bce0520ce@mail.gmail.com> On 10/7/07, Jason Schiller wrote: > Just for the record I was referring to Verizon Business... AS701 > (UUNET) which does not charge for IP addresses (not for business customer, > When you refer to Verizon you are likely talking about AS19262 Verizon > Internet Services (VIS). They are completely seperate networks run by > > This is not a stunt. The data centers are managed as a separate network > with a separate AS, and due to route aggregation policies, your data > center /26 would not route correctly. People sometimes have to renumber > when they change networks... and yes that is painful. > > Just so you know the same would happen for longer than /24s from one > continent being moved to another (Say UUNET North America and UUNET > Asia-Pacific) Jason, Given this behavior, legacy registrants should, for your sake, give up their underutilized address blocks? Those route aggregation policies are strictly internal to the Verizon empire. Your company set them entirely on its own. No technical limitation prevents you from routing any Verizon address on down to a /32 anywhere within the empire that is Verizon. Certainly nothing stops Verizon from moving addresses 20 miles within the same US state. I'll bet you run the Ashburn data center as a separate AS. It provides you with the largest obstruction possible against anyone moving out. The next time folks on this list get to discussing provider independent address space, I'll pull this post back out. I think it beautifully illustrates real-world customer abuse which occurs as a consequence of too much emphasis on provider aggregatable space. > Yes, I agree it would be great if the "Local Internet Registries" did not > charge for IP addresses (with them not being property and all), and that > is why Verizon Business (UUNET) doesn't. I can't speak for any other LIRs > (including Verizon Internet Services (VIS). Would you then support a dual fee structure? One for LIRs which change their service prices based on the number of IP addresses assigned to a customer and a second for LIRs which don't? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From desterdick at verizon.com Sun Oct 7 06:57:20 2007 From: desterdick at verizon.com (desterdick at verizon.com) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 06:57:20 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses Message-ID: Bill, Like many empires today, Verizon's has evolved from a multitude of separate enterprises with multiple autonomous networks, each with their associated network policies and support work groups. Throughout the multiple mergers that formed what is now Verizon, (first Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, each made up of multiple separate Bell Operating Companies, then GTE and then MCI and other miscellaneous companies that have been acquired or spun off along the way), there has been both organizational and network consolidation. However, there are still multiple separate corporate entities within the Verizon umbrella, along with multiple separate organizations managing multiple autonomous networks. Some of those networks support customer facing networks such as Verizon Business and Verizon Internet Service. There are also many other internal management networks, IT and lab networks, and other internal corporate infrastructure networks. The list goes on. My point is that while your claim that there is "No technical limitation [that] prevents you from routing any Verizon address on down to a /32 anywhere within the empire that is Verizon" may or may not be correct, there exist multiple legal, organizational, and operational limitations that prevent that and a whole lot of other things that ideally could be done better. My opinion regarding the suggestion that Verizon, as an "empire", is somehow gaming the IP addressing landscape to gain a competitive advantage is that nothing could be further from reality. I've spoken with some internal IT folks who have mentioned that they were still dealing with internal network integration issues from Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger when the MCI merger was taking place. Many legacy registrants within Verizon operate independently. Although ideally network consolidation and renumbering will achieve better address utilization and potentially better operating and organizational efficiency, such an effort for an enterprise the size of Verizon could not only take a couple of lifetimes, but due to other legal, organizational and operational constraints may never be possible at all. Regards, Mark ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark W. Desterdick Distinguished Member of Technical Staff - Technical Regulatory, Standards and Industry Forum Management Verizon Communications, Inc 221 East 37th Street, 4th floor New York, NY 10016 +1 212 681-5626 +1 212 681-5626 - FAX "William Herrin" tside.com> cc: ppml at arin.net, Jason Schiller Sent by: Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses ppml-bounces at arin .net 10/07/2007 02:48 AM On 10/7/07, Jason Schiller wrote: > Just for the record I was referring to Verizon Business... AS701 > (UUNET) which does not charge for IP addresses (not for business customer, > When you refer to Verizon you are likely talking about AS19262 Verizon > Internet Services (VIS). They are completely seperate networks run by > > This is not a stunt. The data centers are managed as a separate network > with a separate AS, and due to route aggregation policies, your data > center /26 would not route correctly. People sometimes have to renumber > when they change networks... and yes that is painful. > > Just so you know the same would happen for longer than /24s from one > continent being moved to another (Say UUNET North America and UUNET > Asia-Pacific) Jason, Given this behavior, legacy registrants should, for your sake, give up their underutilized address blocks? Those route aggregation policies are strictly internal to the Verizon empire. Your company set them entirely on its own. No technical limitation prevents you from routing any Verizon address on down to a /32 anywhere within the empire that is Verizon. Certainly nothing stops Verizon from moving addresses 20 miles within the same US state. I'll bet you run the Ashburn data center as a separate AS. It provides you with the largest obstruction possible against anyone moving out. The next time folks on this list get to discussing provider independent address space, I'll pull this post back out. I think it beautifully illustrates real-world customer abuse which occurs as a consequence of too much emphasis on provider aggregatable space. > Yes, I agree it would be great if the "Local Internet Registries" did not > charge for IP addresses (with them not being property and all), and that > is why Verizon Business (UUNET) doesn't. I can't speak for any other LIRs > (including Verizon Internet Services (VIS). Would you then support a dual fee structure? One for LIRs which change their service prices based on the number of IP addresses assigned to a customer and a second for LIRs which don't? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graycol.gif Type: image/gif Size: 105 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ecblank.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic17639.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1255 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sun Oct 7 11:09:25 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:09:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710070809n4f961f70ge6f16f9b7a81a1b3@mail.gmail.com> On 10/7/07, desterdick at verizon.com wrote: > the multiple mergers that formed what is now Verizon, >(first Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, each made up of multiple >separate Bell Operating Companies, then GTE and then >MCI and other miscellaneous companies that have been >acquired or spun off along the way), there has been both >organizational and network consolidation. However, there >are still multiple separate corporate entities within the >Verizon umbrella, along with multiple separate organizations >managing multiple autonomous networks. Mark, Yes, Verizon has had a great deal of difficulty and delay merging its operations in a sensible manner. Given the performance, one wonders if the regulators were asleep at the wheel when they approved the latter acquisitions. However, that is not at issue here. The 50 meg line I ordered is classic UUnet - AS701. The Ashburn data center was built by UUnet shortly before the Worldcom buyout. Architecting that part of the network so that customers could not easily move their IP addresses was no accident of consolidation. It was a deliberate choice to leverage provider aggregatable space in a way that harms the customers of what is now Verizon Business. That this behavior is not as foul as the choice by the business unit that does FiOS to monetize individual IP addresses does not make it any less offensive. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From schiller at uu.net Sun Oct 7 12:04:28 2007 From: schiller at uu.net (Jason Schiller) Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710070809n4f961f70ge6f16f9b7a81a1b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bill, I think you are misunderstanding our intentions. The 50m line is classic UUNET AS701, but the data centers are not. The "classic UUNET Engineering" has no architectural authority over the data centers. I believe that the original UUNET data centers were not in AS701 due to the fact that some data center equipment could not be in the AS701 IGP. I believe those issues have been resolved. Unfortunately now all the data centers are engineered and operated by the legacy Digex folks. So they are following their own standards. I would certainly like to see the engineering and operations of the data centers merged with AS701 so that we could rationalize the routing, and have expressed this opinion in the past, but I lack the authority make this happen. You as a customer have more power to persuade this change happening. I would recomend contacting your sales person, and raising the issue to a sufficently high level. Can I count on your support? ___Jason ========================================================================== Jason Schiller (703)886.6648 Senior Internet Network Engineer fax:(703)886.0512 Public IP Global Network Engineering schiller at uu.net UUNET / Verizon jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that it increases traffic on the Internet. On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, William Herrin wrote: > Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:09:25 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: "desterdick at verizon.com" > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses > > On 10/7/07, desterdick at verizon.com wrote: > > the multiple mergers that formed what is now Verizon, > >(first Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, each made up of multiple > >separate Bell Operating Companies, then GTE and then > >MCI and other miscellaneous companies that have been > >acquired or spun off along the way), there has been both > >organizational and network consolidation. However, there > >are still multiple separate corporate entities within the > >Verizon umbrella, along with multiple separate organizations > >managing multiple autonomous networks. > > Mark, > > Yes, Verizon has had a great deal of difficulty and delay merging its > operations in a sensible manner. Given the performance, one wonders if > the regulators were asleep at the wheel when they approved the latter > acquisitions. > > However, that is not at issue here. The 50 meg line I ordered is > classic UUnet - AS701. The Ashburn data center was built by UUnet > shortly before the Worldcom buyout. Architecting that part of the > network so that customers could not easily move their IP addresses was > no accident of consolidation. It was a deliberate choice to leverage > provider aggregatable space in a way that harms the customers of what > is now Verizon Business. > > That this behavior is not as foul as the choice by the business unit > that does FiOS to monetize individual IP addresses does not make it > any less offensive. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From ppml at rsuc.gweep.net Sun Oct 7 15:08:40 2007 From: ppml at rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:08:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710070809n4f961f70ge6f16f9b7a81a1b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <3c3e3fca0710070809n4f961f70ge6f16f9b7a81a1b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071007190840.GA99522@gweep.net> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 11:09:25AM -0400, William Herrin wrote: [snip] > Yes, Verizon has had a great deal of difficulty and delay merging its > operations in a sensible manner. Given the performance, one wonders if > the regulators were asleep at the wheel when they approved the latter > acquisitions. Some silos and imepediments to merging operations in all of the major LEC M&A stems directly *FROM* telco regulatory constraints. While large corporate entities tend to have too many feifdoms, several 'lines of business' cannot even talk during some time periods after these mergers. Specifically, look up the actual FCC merger conditions, noting section 272 and its sunset provisions. att just got theirs last month, and VZ has had it for about six months. Any steering of the corporate iceberg will take a while, however I'm dubious of the direct PPML relevance of further rehashing of FCC/PUC public documents. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE From arin-contact at dirtside.com Mon Oct 8 01:10:06 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 01:10:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <3c3e3fca0710070809n4f961f70ge6f16f9b7a81a1b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710072210udc6f2dj93e5f7101ae08b00@mail.gmail.com> On 10/7/07, Jason Schiller wrote: > I would certainly like to see the engineering and operations of > the data centers merged with AS701 so that we could rationalize the > routing, and have expressed this opinion in the past, but I lack the > authority make this happen. Jason, I'm well aware. Two Verizon vice presidents of Governmental Affairs were unable to make it happen. They couldn't make it happen for a 3 month transition window. They couldn't even arrange for GRE tunnel for 3 months. > You as a customer have more power to persuade this change happening. I > would recomend contacting your sales person, and raising the issue > to a sufficently high level. Can I count on your support? This all played out a year ago. If anyone had the clout, you'd think the Democratic Party would. VB screwed the DNC two months ahead of the '06 election, negatively impacting the fundraising efforts. The only part of that account which remains today are the yet uncorrected billing errors. That, and the lessons that can be learned from it. Experiences like this one offer insight into number resource policy questions like: What real-world price is paid for the emphasis on PA address space? Are the LIRs as a group capable of responsibly managing of number resources? Should the LIRs be expected to apply the same operating model to their customers that ARIN applies to them? Conversely, should ARIN apply the same operating model to the LIRs that the LIRs apply to their customers? So you see Jason, your company's public spanking is actually relevant to the discussion on this mailing list. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From raul at lacnic.net Mon Oct 8 09:42:37 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:42:37 -0300 Subject: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and Support/Non-Support Requested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071008100825.048fc7f8@lacnic.net> Ed: As you suggest, I think that there are implication of some policies in others. While I usually don't particpate very much in policy discussions, this issue is of a great importance for the future of the RIR's system, so, I will make an exception. My view is that we need some kind of "soft landing" proposal, but we face two probable problems. 1) The current IANA-RIRs IPv4 allocation policies works in a way in which as much IPv4 addresses an RIR allcocate to their custumers/members, as much IPv4 addresses they can receive from IANA. So, to apply this kind of policies in one region would probably put that region in disadvantage in relation to the other regions. So, the first problem is that a policy like this probably would not be adopted only in one region. The challenge is coordination. Coordination means from my perspective to have a cross-regional dialogue in order to analyze the pertinence of promotint some kind of "soft landing" proposals in every region. (not necessarily the same policy in every region, but based in the same concept/objective) 2) As you pointed out, there is a relation between soft landing proposal and the other proposals that are being discussed. (distribution of the last part of the free IPv4 pool) But, IMHO the relation is the opposite of what you mentioned. Since the distribution of the last part of the IPv4 pool will naturally take off pressure from the unallocated pool and will help to avoid a competition for that pool, it probably will create a better environment to implement "soft landing" policies. I will submit a proposal to all the RIRs' lists in order to address what I identify as the first problem, but it should not be considered as an opposition to the David's proposal. Ra?l At 11:32 a.m. 05/10/2007, Edward Lewis wrote: >At 16:10 -0500 10/2/07, Bill Darte wrote: > > >As shepherd of the ARIN Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing, I would like to > >ask the community to once again consider this proposal in advance of the > >Albuquerque Public Policy and Membership Meetings > >(http:/ > /www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/index.html) and voice support or non-support > >for this proposal with concise reasoning. > >It would certainly be bad to "abdicate responsibility"... > >On the one hand I like the way this proposal >thinks, but it thinks like an engineer. It >certainly has the mechanics in it to achieve the >goal of softening the transition pains. > >But I also waver over whether it is worth the >effort. At the APNIC meeting (yes, I know, not >"our" region, yet a public policy meeting none >the less) there was a discussion between two >proposals. The two were similar up to a >parameter. Each proposal mandated that IANA >operate as is until there were either 1x5 or 2x5 >/8's left (assuming the number of RIRs is >5). Once the last 5 or 10 /8's were left they >were handed out evenly to the RIRs regardless of burn rates. > >Of the two, I preferred the handing out of 1 /8 >(not the 2 /8). The reason is that this >approach is largely ceremonial. While it is >true that the burn rate of a /8 varies region to >region, for 1 /8, this isn't a significant >difference. (There could be a sharp rise in >membership at the lower burn rate organizations, >but really, there isn't much to get at that >point.) In the lower burn rate regions, the >symbolism of being given as much a the higher rate seems somewhat important. > >Those proposals are lightweight work-wise, least >command-econonmyish, have probably the right >dose of ceremonial benefit, and aren't trying to >delay the pain of the IPv4 run out. > >So, on the other hand, I think that the IPv4 >Soft Landing might be "trying to hard" to protect ourselves. > >Ultimately, in a vacuum, it's a good >proposal. But considering other ideas floating >around I have doubt that it's the right mechanism. > >As an aside - if we delay the run out of IPv4 by >12 months, is there an indication that the >obstacle to IPv6 will be removed in that 12 month period? >If it is the routing system, will 12 more months >improve/strengthen it? (I guess I have never >understood the rationale for "rationing" the >remaining IPv4 addresses. They aren't a >consumable {water, oil} and the last won't tide >us over until there's a rescue.) > >-- >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 >NeuStar > >Think glocally. Act confused. >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are >subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy >Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml >Please contact the ARIN Member Services >Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Mon Oct 8 12:33:53 2007 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:33:53 +0200 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <03b401c8088e$39f588b0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <03b401c8088e$39f588b0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <20071008163353.GE12017@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > I'll also note that I have personal experience with at least one > mega-ISP that insisted on SWIPing a /23 to my company, even though we > had our own (smaller) PI space and didn't want to use theirs. This seems to point to an opportunity for ARIN to perform more thorough auditing of existing address space utilisation when that unnamed mega-ISP requests more address space in the future. --apb (Alan Barrett) From rgaglian at antel.net.uy Mon Oct 8 13:12:09 2007 From: rgaglian at antel.net.uy (Roque Gagliano) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:12:09 -0200 Subject: [ppml] Global Policy Updata Message-ID: <1191863529.17471.122.camel@jessy.antel.net.uy> I wanted to give you all an update on the discussion of the "Global Policy for the Allocation of the remaining IPv4 Address Space" before heading to Alburqueque. As I mentioned on the policy proposal the text of the policy allowed to have two discussion: is such a policy needed? and what should be the size of the last allocation form IANA?. We have made a great progress in the first issue and some in the second. Here is an update: - LACNIC, the policy reached consensus. - APNIC, there was consensus that a global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space such as this one was needed. Not consensus on the size that allocation or the text. - AFRINIC, idem APNIC. So up to now, three of the five RIR have a positive opinion that a global policy is needed. Here are the main arguments showed on these three meetings: - It is a RIR issue: the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is an issue that should be solved inside the RIR community and a global policy will be a clear signal to other actors (there are some governmental documents on the IGF preparation). - Central Pool: This policy releases the pressure on the central pool. - Certainty: this policy brings certainty to every RIR on what to expect as a last allocation. Without this policy there are different scenarios of what could happen, and which would be the first RIR to run out of addresses. - Conservation: after approving this policy the scenario will be such that each RIR could analyze more conservative policies such as the proposed "soft-landing" or the reservation of addresses to specific infrastructure. The current "on demand" policy encourage the consumption of addresses until the end of the IPv4 space. - easy to implement: This policy is strait-forward to implement. See you in Albuquerque, Roque -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian at antel.net.uy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Oct 8 13:45:05 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:45:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >John Curran >Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 7:31 AM >To: William Herrin >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses > > >At 10:11 AM -0400 10/6/07, William Herrin wrote: >>That having been said, this discussion is moot. The xlarge entities >>have the votes to keep the favorable fee structure. > >I have no particular viewpoint on the matter of whether our >fee schedule needs to be changed, but want to be clear on >the ability to change the fees. The ARIN Board sets the fee >schedule, and it's been generally based on the feedback we >receive at the member meetings. Then, John, I would like to request, as a member, that at the next meeting you advance for discussion an agenda item titled along the lines of "Would fee adjustment affect IPv4 uptake rates, and if so would it be appropriate to modify fees to affect IPv4 uptake rates" Leave out the discussion of whether it would or would not be a good idea to affect IPv4 uptake rates entirely, it would be useful I think to know if the ARIN Board would think it would it be a good or bad idea, would there be unwanted side effects, etc. Ted From mje at pop.co.za Mon Oct 8 14:14:25 2007 From: mje at pop.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:14:25 +0200 Subject: [ppml] Global Policy Updata In-Reply-To: <1191863529.17471.122.camel@jessy.antel.net.uy> References: <1191863529.17471.122.camel@jessy.antel.net.uy> Message-ID: <1191867266.10506.24.camel@localhost> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 15:12 -0200, Roque Gagliano wrote: > I wanted to give you all an update on the discussion of the "Global > Policy for the Allocation of the remaining IPv4 Address Space" before > heading to Alburqueque. > > As I mentioned on the policy proposal the text of the policy allowed > to have two discussion: is such a policy needed? and what should be > the size of the last allocation form IANA?. > > We have made a great progress in the first issue and some in the > second. > > Here is an update: > - LACNIC, the policy reached consensus. > - APNIC, there was consensus that a global policy for the > allocation of the remaining IPv4 space such as this one was needed. > Not consensus on the size that allocation or the text. > - AFRINIC, idem APNIC. A bit more on this as far as AfriNIC is concerned. Regarding what the size of the last allocation should be.. a show of hands was asked for. For the size to be either one or two "/8's" - the votes were equal. For sizes larger than two - there were no votes. ie - we equally chose one and two. I might read this as being - AfriNIC does not feel we need more than two "/8's". I think we (AfriNIC members) understand that we do not want IPv4 addresses years after the rest of the world has run out, has moved over to IPv6 - and left Africa even further behind. I don't think many AfriNIC members would mind that much either if other areas chose and got a value greater than two (ie five) and we only had two. Disclaimer: This is my own interpretation of what happened. I speak for myself. -- . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 From randy at psg.com Mon Oct 8 16:51:51 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:51:51 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Global Policy Updata In-Reply-To: <1191863529.17471.122.camel@jessy.antel.net.uy> References: <1191863529.17471.122.camel@jessy.antel.net.uy> Message-ID: <470A9867.8010201@psg.com> > - APNIC, there was consensus that a global policy for the allocation > of the remaining IPv4 space such as this one was needed. Not > consensus on the size that allocation or the text. i suspect that a careful reading of the minutes or transcription would show that o consensus was *not* reached that such a proposal was needed o consensus *was* reached that, if such a proposal was needed that one /8 per rir was the appropriate number randy, co-chair apnic policy sig but speaking without consulting other chairs and without coffee and before 06:00 From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Oct 8 17:11:06 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:11:06 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: <200710052114.l95LEMDK020056@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Cliff Bedore >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 9:25 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? > > >I originally sent this to John Curran directly but after reading more >comments, I thought I'd post it to the group > > >As a legacy holder who has recently joined the PPML list, I can see certain >advantages to joining ARIN. I'm just not sure of the best way to keep my >network number safe if I join. I have a Class C (/24) and use it >actively but >don't use 50% of the numbers at the current time. If ARIN were to >have an RSA >that lets us join, pay our $100.00 per year and leave us alone with our >networks, I'd be happy to join. Do I want to pay $100.00 per >year? No but it >won't break my small consulting firm and it's probably a good >thing to do. I >tend to be suspicious of groups that say "We're from the governmet >and we're >here to help you" I have never seen a government/quasi-government >group shrink >or give up any power/control except at the point of a gun and I expect most >legacy users feel the same way. I expect most are willing to take >their chances >by maintaining their "legacy" status of being grandfathered into ARIN's >in-addr-ARPA service unless there is a very strong specific RSA >protecting their >status quo. This is not to say that if they need more resources, >they should >have free rein to get them. People keep working around this but >all proposals >seem to have more stick than carrot. > >It would seem to me that the ARIN leadership needs to look at the >way to get >people to join. There seems to be no concensus on the list about how to do >this but if ARIN's goal is to get people to join, they need to take a >pro-active stance to get it done. The choices seem to be to leave >the legacy >owners alone and codify their right to ARIN in-addr service or take strong >action to make them default members of ARIN by whatever means >necessary. This >could go to the point of offering free membership and guarantees >of safe harbor >for existing numbers with limited other benefits (maybe no voting etc) and >then allow full membership for a nominal fee. > >As others have stated, this is a v4 problem only and will disappear when v6 >takes over. I think it is to ARIN's advantage as the numbers get >tight toward >the end to have as many as possible legacy folks under the ARIN/other RIRs >umbrella. >The problems of hijacked legacy numbers will only cost ARIN more >time and money for lawyers and dispute resolution Why? As ARIN is not legally obligated to the legacy holders to do anything, any attempt to involve them in a dispute can merely be ignored. There is no gain to ARIN to be involved in someone else's lawsuit with some other person. >and I think any >action that >ARIN takes to get legacy users under ARIN should be taken. It's already been done. ARIN has setup the mechanism that a legacy holder can use to become a member - just contact them and sign an agreement and start paying the fees. This >would/should/could include free limited membership and any other incentives >needed. Is it fair to the newcomers? In some ways probably not >but if they >have to pay increased fees to cover the costs of dispute resolution because >the legacy users have not joined, they won't be happy about that either. > I would rather pay the legal fees because I am pretty confident that anything that comes out of such a dispute is going to result in the Judge telling the plantiff and defendant that they have to submit to ARIN's rules. And once a few cases like that have been filed and rulings like this, there won't be any more of these disputes involving ARIN because both parties know that they will give up their autonomy as legacy holders if they try to involve ARIN. >I look at this somewhat like Ford's pardon of Nixon. Was it >"fair" for Nixon >to walk? No but it was better for the country to get past the >embarrassment >and back to more important things. That is very arguable. The fact that Nixon was pardonded turned off an entire generation in disgust to US politics. Arguably, the disillusionment added to the lower voter turnouts of subsequent presidential elections, which then allowed minority factions like the Christian Right Wing to get a foothold and ultimately take over the Republican party and got Raygun elected. Imagine Nixon taking dictation from the likes of Jerry Falwell - it would never have happened in Nixon's time. The argument that "the country needs to get past..." has been used to justify a whole host of nasty things in US politics, everything from treatment of Vietnam Vets to the 2000 election, to the Japanese internment not being recognized as even happening for almost 50 years... It is rarely better for the embarrassment to be swept under the rug. Ted From dean at av8.com Mon Oct 8 20:08:22 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >As a legacy holder who has recently joined the PPML list, I can see > >certain advantages to joining ARIN. I'm just not sure of the best > >way to keep my network number safe if I join. I have a Class C (/24) > >and use it actively but don't use 50% of the numbers at the current > >time. If ARIN were to have an RSA that lets us join, pay our $100.00 > >per year and leave us alone with our networks, I'd be happy to join. You lose more than this. > >As others have stated, this is a v4 problem only and will disappear > >when v6 takes over. I think it is to ARIN's advantage as the numbers > >get tight toward the end to have as many as possible legacy folks > >under the ARIN/other RIRs umbrella. IPv4 will never go away, even after IPv6 'takes over', which seems pretty doubtful, but I won't go there now. > >The problems of hijacked legacy numbers will only cost ARIN more time > >and money for lawyers and dispute resolution > > Why? As ARIN is not legally obligated to the legacy holders to do > anything, any attempt to involve them in a dispute can merely be > ignored. There is no gain to ARIN to be involved in someone else's > lawsuit with some other person. This is not true. Any true hijacking of records that ARIN maintains involves ARIN. Like Kremen v. ARIN, a case could involve jurisdiction of a court. There is no contest that ARIN isn't subject to court jurisdiction over such records. Kremen was dismissed on a statute of limitations technicality. Kremen essentially won all the court orders up to then. BTW, Curran has corrected himself: There is indeed no formal statement on the subject from ARIN counsel. I've asked for a formal statement to be produced, but haven't heard back whether they will do that. The statement from Sprunk to IETF relies on an informal statement of Counsel and Sprunk omitted significant qualifying context from the informal statement. > >and I think any action that ARIN takes to get legacy users under ARIN > >should be taken. > > It's already been done. ARIN has setup the mechanism that a legacy > holder can use to become a member - just contact them and sign an > agreement and start paying the fees. This is optional. ARIN doesn't (and can't) compel this action. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Oct 8 20:17:00 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:17:00 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:08 PM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >BTW, Curran has corrected himself: There is indeed no formal statement >on the subject from ARIN counsel. I've asked for a formal statement to >be produced, but haven't heard back whether they will do that. Dean - The request was noted and will be brought before the Board. >The statement from Sprunk to IETF relies on an informal statement of >Counsel and Sprunk omitted significant qualifying context from the >informal statement. The full transcript (including Counsel's response to the question) is available online; you can keep repeating that Steven omitted context but a carefully reading doesn't support that conclusion. /John From dean at av8.com Tue Oct 9 00:51:21 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:51:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > At 8:08 PM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote: > >BTW, Curran has corrected himself: There is indeed no formal statement > >on the subject from ARIN counsel. I've asked for a formal statement to > >be produced, but haven't heard back whether they will do that. > > Dean - The request was noted and will be brought before the Board. Good. When can we expect to have this statement? > >The statement from Sprunk to IETF relies on an informal statement of > >Counsel and Sprunk omitted significant qualifying context from the > >informal statement. > > The full transcript (including Counsel's response to the question) > is available online; you can keep repeating that Steven omitted > context but a carefully reading doesn't support that conclusion. I don't know how you can possibly say that with a straight face, given your correction already. Sprunk said to the IETF: "[ARIN] Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments, though it does have a moral one since that was a condition of ARIN's creation. Counsel also stated, however, it is unclear that ARIN could assign those same numbers to someone else later." Sprunk's full message is at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg48312.html In fact, Counsel did not assert "that ARIN [doesn't have] any legal obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments". Counsel said nothing of the sort, as the full text below reveals. Counsel acknowledges an agreement; a 'government give-away of rights without strings': "I have never seen the United States government give away anything without any strings attached before." Counsel then notes that government contract holders' space was probably 'government furnished', and therefore should be returned at the end of contract. Counsel goes on to acknowledge there are indeed legacy holders to whom "carrots" rather than sticks must be offered. Implicitly, this denies the notion that those legacy's have no legal rights, as Sprunk implies. Counsel then acknowledges the special unencumbered value of this Legacy space: "Because there's a window coming that intersects with the IPv4 exhaustion issue, where for a brief time, these resources will actually become financially more valuable if they were unencumbered, and where that value will only be for a limited period." In this section, Counsel says they can deny free services to people _without_an_agreement_. But virtually every Legacy in fact has an agreement in the form of a paper registration, a kind of license that doesn't terminate. My FAA-issued pilot's license also never expires. All that can be disputed is the terms of the agreement. Further, Mr Ryan notes that he hasn't thought much about it. He notes that an Act of Congress may be needed to take back this space. He notes that such an Act might not be constitutional. He notes he's only started to play with theories. "it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law. I've thought about it that far. I haven't thought carefully about what would be the stick beyond denial of those free services. And in my view, the two are quite different. The stick might be that we -- for example, I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for authority to have the government obtain back that which the government gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've started to play with different theories here." None of this is very definite. So from an implied formal statement that 'legacies have no rights', that Sprunk reported, we've shown that Atty Ryan actually stated: * an acknowledgement of a group of legacy's possessing a government right with no strings attached * notes requirement of an Act of Congress to take back legacy space * notes that such an Act might not be constitutional * notes that he is 'playing with theories' that haven't been thought through yet. That's a pretty big change in meaning from Sprunk and Curran. Sprunk has omitted the significant qualifications and context from the transcript, as I have cited, and which Curran also omits. Sprunk's report is indeed inaccurate and misleading, as I reported. Curran's support for Sprunk's report is similarly unfounded in fact. I've identified a number of issues that Sprunk omitted. A close reading of Sprunk's email doesn't find those issues mentioned. Rather, reading Sprunk's report to the IETF one gets the impression that 1. ARIN has in its possession a legal opinion that it in fact doesn't have, and 2. that ARIN has made a decision that it in fact hasn't made. Therefore, Sprunk's message to the IETF is misleading, and Curran stands corrected. IETF remains misled and deceived by incorrect reports of the actual events. John Curran has also been misreading the statement, asserting incorrectly for example, that there was a formal statement when there wasn't such a statement. Curran has agreed to correction, but still asserts mysteriously that Sprunk is correct. Someone should inform the IETF that Sprunk and Curran have misled them. The transcript is here http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 The complete relevant text is here: MR. RYAN: Well, from a legal perspective, this is why I love you guys. I have never seen the United States government give away anything without any strings attached before. And so there's a real question in my mind whether -- with regard to some of the legacy address holders who received early addresses who were in the Defense or academic community but held Defense contracts, whether the issuance of space at that time was pursuant to traditional government theories of government-furnished material or government-furnished equipment. The paper record is really pretty strange when one looks at it. And it does appear -- to the extent that I've had an opportunity to look at some of the paperwork -- that it's one of the few times in the history of governments that they gave away something seemingly without a clear set of strings attached to it. I believe that those who are government contractors and who received it as government contractors actually have the weakest case to argue that they have some enhanced right over other members of the community in this regard. And I'm still evaluating the legal theories that address that. But looking more generally, there are clearly legacy address holders who are not government contractors who did get early resources, and who are clearly not covered by GFM, GFE -- any kind of theories with regard to that. And with regard to those people, from my legal standpoint as a person who has adopted the notion of RFC 2008 and all of the sort of learning of the community, I think what we need to do is fashion a -- I do think we need to fashion a policy proposal or a series of proposals that creates a series of carrots, but not particularly sticks, that would be intended to entice legacy holders to bring their resources into the system, to give up those resources that they don't need, and to actually come out of that process benefited as opposed to being treated in a detrimental or in a pejorative or even a negative way in any regard. And I think the sooner we adopt such a set of policies that are well-thought-out by this community, the better off we'll be legally as we address this situation. Because there's a window coming that intersects with the IPv4 exhaustion issue, where for a brief time, these resources will actually become financially more valuable if they were unencumbered, and where that value will only be for a limited period. So in that sense as a lawyer, I look forward to working with you to try and describe mechanisms that are affirmative, positive, and that entice people to feel that it is a civic duty, but maybe even a beneficial civic duty, to perform in that way. MR. CURRAN: Can I ask one question, Steve? And this is asking as Counsel to ARIN. You said potentially, for those folks who have received legacy addresses who didn't necessarily get them through government contracts or GFE, that it might be useful to try to take an approach or a policy or a set of policies or actions that entice them to participate in the community -- the use of carrots, not sticks. My question is, is the shying away from sticks because it's not felt ARIN has any useful ones, or is it because of the liability that's entailed by doing that? MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law. I've thought about it that far. I haven't thought carefully about what would be the stick beyond denial of those free services. And in my view, the two are quite different. The stick might be that we -- for example, I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for authority to have the government obtain back that which the government gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've started to play with different theories here. -- 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 Oct 9 01:05:57 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:05:57 -0500 Subject: [ppml] ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses References: Message-ID: <028201c80a32$44aa4070$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Jason Schiller" > On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> The point is that right now, all your (VZB's) new addresses are >> _free_ from ARIN because you use/waste so much of them. >> That gives your sales people _no_ reason not to give customers >> as much as they want at no extra charge other than the general >> practice of squeezing them for as much as possible. This _is_ >> used as a competitive tactic -- mega-ISPs will give address >> space to customers at no extra charge as one way to win deals >> because their smaller competitors have to pay up to $5/yr/IP to >> ARIN (which they have to add to the customer's bill, one way or >> another, unlike you) just to get the same space. Instead of >> encouraging customers to conserve, a mega-ISP encourages >> customers to waste by giving them free IPs -- which they may >> never even use. If the mega-ISPs actually paid for their >> addresses, they'd be encouraging customers to conserve like >> their smaller competitors are forced to. > > I don't know about other ISPs, but we require customers to justify > all of thier IP space. This way it is possible to get IP space from > ARIN when we need it. Our customers conserve IP space > because we uphold ARIN policies. That's a very loose definition of conservation. It also completely fails to address the point that you get IPs free from ARIN while your smaller competitors pay up to $5/yr/IP, which gives you a significant competitive advantage. If you had to recover per-IP fees from your customers, they (and you) would be more interested in real conservation (i.e. above what ARIN policies require). > Verizon Business does not charge for space, so our customers > do not get as much as they can pay for. Instead they get only as > much as they can justify. In theory. > I do understnd your point though. When customers pay for > address space, they feel entilted to as much address space as > they pay for. And since sales people want to sell as many > services as possible, they are likely to they and pile on extra > IP addresses to raise the cost. And if the customer doesn't actually _need_ those addresses, whether or not they're "justified" under ARIN rules, they'd turn them down. Today, your salespeople throw addresses at them for free and the customer has no reason to conserve because it costs them nothing -- because waste costs _you_ nothing. >> > The question I have is do we want to limit the use of IP >> > addresses based on address utilization or based on the >> > amount of money an org is willing to pay for each address? >> >> The utilization requirement still applies. Requiring payments >> in addition to (not instead of) encourages people to use less >> than they can justify, i.e. conserve. >> > As I said above using payment as a justification (even in part) for IP > addresses muddies the waters. I never said money should be involved in the justification process. However, you seem to have no problem with your smaller competitors having to pay per IP _in addition to technical justification_, so why shouldn't you be required to as well? S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 9 01:33:27 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 01:33:27 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:51 AM -0400 10/9/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > >> At 8:08 PM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >> >BTW, Curran has corrected himself: There is indeed no formal statement >> >on the subject from ARIN counsel. I've asked for a formal statement to >> >be produced, but haven't heard back whether they will do that. >> >> Dean - The request was noted and will be brought before the Board. > >Good. When can we expect to have this statement? I will bring the matter to the Board. I do not know the outcome at this time. >None of this is very definite. I'm sorry that you're having trouble assessing the situation and have heard the request for formal statement as noted above. >Someone should inform the IETF that Sprunk and Curran have misled them. > >The transcript is here >http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 Alas, Dean, I've given you my assessment, as has Steven. As the full transcript is online, so each may judge the situation on their own, and decide accordingly. /John From dean at av8.com Tue Oct 9 02:24:30 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 02:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > At 12:51 AM -0400 10/9/07, Dean Anderson wrote: > >On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > > > >> At 8:08 PM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote: > >> >BTW, Curran has corrected himself: There is indeed no formal statement > >> >on the subject from ARIN counsel. I've asked for a formal statement to > >> >be produced, but haven't heard back whether they will do that. > >> > >> Dean - The request was noted and will be brought before the Board. > > > >Good. When can we expect to have this statement? > > I will bring the matter to the Board. I do not know the > outcome at this time. When will the board consider this? > >None of this is very definite. > > I'm sorry that you're having trouble assessing the situation > and have heard the request for formal statement as noted > above. I'm having no trouble 'assessing the situation'. > >Someone should inform the IETF that Sprunk and Curran have misled them. > > > >The transcript is here > >http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13 > > Alas, Dean, I've given you my assessment, as has Steven. As the full > transcript is online, so each may judge the situation on their own, and > decide accordingly. The IETF doesn't have this information, and so can't judge the situation on their own. The assessment reported by Sprunk and approved by Curran wasn't based on facts from the transcript. It would be helpful if you stuck to actual facts found in the transcript rather than made baseless summary statements that suggest unfounded conclusions that most certainly weren't in the transcripts. The longer you wait with correction, the more IETF members will repost the incorrect assessments on other lists, and the harder it will be for you to correct these misapprehensions. I don't think that is too much to ask from ARIN Board members in general and the chairman in particular. Especially, since it has been established now that there is no formal statement, and no formal decision from ARIN. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 9 02:28:23 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 02:28:23 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:24 AM -0400 10/9/07, Dean Anderson wrote: > > I will bring the matter to the Board. I do not know the >> outcome at this time. > >When will the board consider this? At our meeting next week. >The IETF doesn't have this information, and so can't judge the situation >on their own. Feel free to forward them a link to the meeting transcript so they also can make their own judgement. /John From raul at lacnic.net Tue Oct 9 09:17:58 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:17:58 -0300 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> Dear all: I would like to share with all of you this proposal. Since it is not a policy proposal, I don't know really how to proceed, but I guess that it is enough to send it to the list. This proposal doesn't intend to substitute the Policy Proposal "2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing" and is not incompatible with the discussion of this proposal and/or its eventual adoption. I will send the same proposal to the others RIRs' poilicy lists. Ra?l ========================================== Proposal for the creation of a cross-regions working group Some proposals have been submitted through some RIR?s policy development process, which focus on the gradual modification of the requirements for receiving IPv4 addresses as the pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses diminishes. Most or all proposals which have been made appear to be incomplete and ineffective if approved in only one region. Therefore, it is proposed the creation of a working group made up by two appropriate respected individuals active in the policy process within each region?s community. These ten individuals would work on one or more joint proposals that could then be processed in every region according to their corresponding policy development processes. The objective of the working group would not be to produce proposals for global policies, but proposals to be sumbitted to every RIRs. The conclusion could be, of course, that the proposals should be different in each region. Since the proposal (if there are any) should go later through each Policy Development Process, there will not be any impact of this proposal in the independence of each region to adopt the poclicies that are considered more convenients. Naturally, the proposals that have already been presented in relation to this issue would be important input for this working group, one possible conclusion being that these proposals contain the best possible policies and should be presented. Without this level of coordination, it will be difficult to obtain proposals to be submitted for discussion in all regions with reasonable chances of success. One member of each RIRs staff would also participate in this working group, in the capacity of observers, so as to provide all the support, advice and information that the group deems necessary. IANA will also be invited to appoint up to two persons to the working group in the same condition of observers. The working schedule would be defined by the group itself, but it should be anticipated that the proposals, in case it is decided they are needed, be presented for their discussion as soon as possible. The following are some of the ideas that have already been presented either formally or informally and that will be available for the consideration of this working group (but not limited to) : ? Increasing the requirements for receiving additional allocations as IANA?s central pool of addresses diminishes. ? Adding to the current requirements the requirement to develop the availability of IPv6 infrastructure. ? Reducing the sizes of the blocks that are allocated as IANA?s central pool of addresses diminishes. ? Including within the gradual increase of restrictions the requirement that when one RIR runs out of addresses the others will automatically be moved to a more conservative phase in order to minimize RIR shopping. =============== From rgaglian at antel.net.uy Tue Oct 9 09:24:30 2007 From: rgaglian at antel.net.uy (Roque Gagliano) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:24:30 -0200 Subject: [ppml] Global Policy Updata In-Reply-To: <470A9867.8010201@psg.com> References: <1191863529.17471.122.camel@jessy.antel.net.uy> <470A9867.8010201@psg.com> Message-ID: Randy, I should have said a majority was reached at APNIC and consensus at AFRINIC. Roque >> - APNIC, there was consensus that a global policy for the allocation >> of the remaining IPv4 space such as this one was needed. Not >> consensus on the size that allocation or the text. > > i suspect that a careful reading of the minutes or transcription would > show that > o consensus was *not* reached that such a proposal was needed > o consensus *was* reached that, if such a proposal was needed that > one /8 per rir was the appropriate number > > randy, co-chair apnic policy sig but speaking without consulting other > chairs and without coffee and before 06:00 ------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian at antel.net.uy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dean at av8.com Tue Oct 9 13:28:48 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > >The IETF doesn't have this information, and so can't judge the situation > >on their own. > > Feel free to forward them a link to the meeting transcript > so they also can make their own judgement. Unfortunatly, due to improper and unlawful 'hardball tactics' by this very same group of people, (Sprunk et al), I have been banned from the IETF list. See pages at http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/ for more information. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 9 13:33:25 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:33:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dean - I'm happy to make sure that the discussion of this topic is well-informed on any mailing list. If you know of a discussion thread ongoing which doesn't include a solid set of references, please contact me directly and I'm happy to work with you on an appropriate message and post accordingly. Thanks, /John At 1:28 PM -0400 10/9/07, Dean Anderson wrote: >On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote: > >> >The IETF doesn't have this information, and so can't judge the situation >> >on their own. >> >> Feel free to forward them a link to the meeting transcript >> so they also can make their own judgement. > >Unfortunatly, due to improper and unlawful 'hardball tactics' by this >very same group of people, (Sprunk et al), I have been banned from the >IETF list. > >See pages at http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/ for more information. > > --Dean > >-- >Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? >www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service >617 344 9000 From sleibrand at internap.com Tue Oct 9 15:20:09 2007 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:20:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <470BD469.5040209@internap.com> Raul, Another option for coordinating policy between the RIRs would be to simply submit the proposal to multiple RIRs and have each RIR run the proposal through their own public policy process. I think that's happening now, and has happened in the past with other policy proposals. I'm very much in favor of coordination between RIRs on matters of policy (while maintaining each RIR's independence to decide on its own policy where appropriate). I think that we may already have enough existing mechanisms (such as: staff coordination, reports at ARIN meetings of activity in other RIRs, open mailing lists at each RIR so individuals can participate and contribute in the public policy process of multiple RIRs, etc.) to facilitate such coordination. There's always the possibility of expanding the use of such existing mechanisms, and I think that might be more successful than trying to establish a new mechanism. -Scott Raul Echeberria wrote: > Dear all: > > I would like to share with all of you this > proposal. Since it is not a policy proposal, I > don't know really how to proceed, but I guess > that it is enough to send it to the list. > > This proposal doesn't intend to substitute the > Policy Proposal "2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing" and > is not incompatible with the discussion of this > proposal and/or its eventual adoption. > > I will send the same proposal to the others RIRs' poilicy lists. > > Ra?l > > > ========================================== > > Proposal for the creation of a cross-regions working group > > > > Some proposals have been submitted through some > RIR?s policy development process, which focus on > the gradual modification of the requirements for > receiving IPv4 addresses as the pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses diminishes. > > Most or all proposals which have been made appear > to be incomplete and ineffective if approved in > only one region. Therefore, it is proposed the > creation of a working group made up by two > appropriate respected individuals active in the > policy process within each region?s community. > These ten individuals would work on one or more > joint proposals that could then be processed in > every region according to their corresponding policy development processes. > > The objective of the working group would not be > to produce proposals for global policies, but > proposals to be sumbitted to every RIRs. The > conclusion could be, of course, that the > proposals should be different in each region. > > Since the proposal (if there are any) should go > later through each Policy Development Process, > there will not be any impact of this proposal in > the independence of each region to adopt the > poclicies that are considered more convenients. > > Naturally, the proposals that have already been > presented in relation to this issue would be > important input for this working group, one > possible conclusion being that these proposals > contain the best possible policies and should be > presented. Without this level of coordination, it > will be difficult to obtain proposals to be > submitted for discussion in all regions with > reasonable chances of success. One member of > each RIRs staff would also participate in this working > group, in the capacity of observers, so as to > provide all the support, advice and information > that the group deems necessary. IANA will also be > invited to appoint up to two persons to the working > group in the same condition of observers. > > The working schedule would be defined by the > group itself, but it should be anticipated that > the proposals, in case it is decided they are > needed, be presented for their discussion as soon as possible. > > The following are some of the ideas that have > already been presented either formally or > informally and that will be available for the > consideration of this working group (but not limited to) : > > > ? Increasing the requirements for > receiving additional allocations as IANA?s > central pool of addresses diminishes. > ? Adding to the current requirements the > requirement to develop the availability of IPv6 infrastructure. > ? Reducing the sizes of the blocks that > are allocated as IANA?s central pool of addresses diminishes. > ? Including within the gradual increase of > restrictions the requirement that when one RIR > runs out of addresses the others will > automatically be moved to a more conservative > phase in order to minimize RIR shopping. > > =============== > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Oct 9 17:28:13 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:28:13 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> Message-ID: Hi Raul, Just a quick comment. You recognize that we have separate RIR's because it was recognized that different regions cannot all operate the same way. You should also recognize that the diminishing pool of unallocated IPv4 is not the same level of concern in all regions and that some regions do not need or want to implement policy affecting it. I think it would be wise to wait for consensus on dealing with IPv4 runout in ARIN first, before trying to encourage the rest of the RIR's to go make policy regarding IPv4 runout. In all liklihood, for the ones that runout is a non-issue, they are merely waiting to see what ARIN does anyway and then just do that. Ted >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Raul Echeberria >Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:18 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. > > > > >Dear all: > >I would like to share with all of you this >proposal. Since it is not a policy proposal, I >don't know really how to proceed, but I guess >that it is enough to send it to the list. > >This proposal doesn't intend to substitute the >Policy Proposal "2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing" and >is not incompatible with the discussion of this >proposal and/or its eventual adoption. > >I will send the same proposal to the others RIRs' poilicy lists. > >Ra?l > > >========================================== > >Proposal for the creation of a cross-regions working group > > > >Some proposals have been submitted through some >RIR?s policy development process, which focus on >the gradual modification of the requirements for >receiving IPv4 addresses as the pool of unallocated IPv4 addresses >diminishes. > >Most or all proposals which have been made appear >to be incomplete and ineffective if approved in >only one region. Therefore, it is proposed the >creation of a working group made up by two >appropriate respected individuals active in the >policy process within each region?s community. >These ten individuals would work on one or more >joint proposals that could then be processed in >every region according to their corresponding policy development processes. > >The objective of the working group would not be >to produce proposals for global policies, but >proposals to be sumbitted to every RIRs. The >conclusion could be, of course, that the >proposals should be different in each region. > >Since the proposal (if there are any) should go >later through each Policy Development Process, >there will not be any impact of this proposal in >the independence of each region to adopt the >poclicies that are considered more convenients. > >Naturally, the proposals that have already been >presented in relation to this issue would be >important input for this working group, one >possible conclusion being that these proposals >contain the best possible policies and should be >presented. Without this level of coordination, it >will be difficult to obtain proposals to be >submitted for discussion in all regions with >reasonable chances of success. One member of >each RIRs staff would also participate in this working >group, in the capacity of observers, so as to >provide all the support, advice and information >that the group deems necessary. IANA will also be >invited to appoint up to two persons to the working >group in the same condition of observers. > >The working schedule would be defined by the >group itself, but it should be anticipated that >the proposals, in case it is decided they are >needed, be presented for their discussion as soon as possible. > >The following are some of the ideas that have >already been presented either formally or >informally and that will be available for the >consideration of this working group (but not limited to) : > > >? Increasing the requirements for >receiving additional allocations as IANA?s >central pool of addresses diminishes. >? Adding to the current requirements the >requirement to develop the availability of IPv6 infrastructure. >? Reducing the sizes of the blocks that >are allocated as IANA?s central pool of addresses diminishes. >? Including within the gradual increase of >restrictions the requirement that when one RIR >runs out of addresses the others will >automatically be moved to a more conservative >phase in order to minimize RIR shopping. > >=============== > >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >ARIN Public Policy >Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the >ARIN Member Services >Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From narten at us.ibm.com Wed Oct 10 10:00:07 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:00:07 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <470BD469.5040209@internap.com> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> <470BD469.5040209@internap.com> Message-ID: <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> Scott Leibrand writes: > Raul, > Another option for coordinating policy between the RIRs would be to > simply submit the proposal to multiple RIRs and have each RIR run > the proposal through their own public policy process. I think that's > happening now, and has happened in the past with other policy > proposals. IMO, the process for getting globally-coordinated policies adopted locally within each region has signficant flaws. For starters, in an ideal world, it takes 2 cycles in each RIR to get something done. So we are talking something like 18 months to 2 years in practice. Can you say "miss the window of opportunity"? I also believe many of the policies that are being discussed really only make sense if done more globally. The fact is (as Raul said in his initial note) that many of the policies just don't make sense if done differently in different regions. The challenge is that address policies in practice often have global impact (e.g., on route table size, on long term consumption rates, etc.). Treating them as local policies significantly misses the point. Or, if there are significant differences in the details in practice, can lead to RIR shopping by entities looking for address space with the best terms. Speaking also as someone who has participated in globally-coordinated policy development, it is really, really, really hard to pull it off in practice. Consider the travel involved, for starters. (It is a fact that the face-to-face meetings are an important part of the process, and to be effective one needs to participate in those meetings.) In my experience, the only way to get any significant (or contentious) globally-coordinated policy adopted in practice requires the help of a team of people (from multiple regions) to work together to help coordinate the activities and to help folk understand the nuances of how each individual RIR works. And to come up with specific proposals that have a chance of being adopted by each region. I think the basic proposal Raul is making is a recognition of the challenges involved in getting significant policies adopted, and should be given serious consideration. Bottom line: how much time do the RIRs _really_ have to get any sort of IPv4 end game policy adopted before it is too late to matter? Thomas From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Oct 10 10:18:53 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:18:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> <470BD469.5040209@internap.com> <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20071010141853.GA69818@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:00:07AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > IMO, the process for getting globally-coordinated policies adopted > locally within each region has signficant flaws. For starters, in an > ideal world, it takes 2 cycles in each RIR to get something done. So > we are talking something like 18 months to 2 years in practice. Can > you say "miss the window of opportunity"? I'm afraid Thomas has hit the nail on the head. I actually think it's a bit worse; each RIR is developing its own "style" and thus it's harder and harder to make a global policy fit in a way that makes sense. ARIN has been tweaking the IPv6 section of the policy manual since it was adopted as a more-or-less global policy, for example. Policy proposal 2007-12 (IPv4 Countdown, from our friends in Japan) encountered as much difficult in the ARIN region due to it's formatting and style not matching ARIN's as it did for content reasons. I've also been vocal over the years that our process for ARIN to pass a global policy of putting it in the ARIN policy manual first is broken. For ARIN to forward it on as approved we have to adopt it and put it in our policy manual, even though all four other RIR's may reject it. That would leave us in a position of having to do another policy cycle to remove it. There's no mechanism (in any RIR that I know of) to say "We approve this policy, and will put it in our policy manual as soon as all 5 RIR's have approved it." I have actually mused recently to several people in private that we may never see another global policy passed. The barriers get larger as the RIR's policies drift further from a common base and as there are more RIR's. Travel costs have accelerated in recent years with airfair, and hotel rates seeing double digit inflation over the past 2-3 years. What's worse, is more and more of the large issues (e.g. "IPv4 end game") leave the RIR's with a prisoners dilemma of sorts, and human nature rarely overcomes those situations. Today the NRO's job is one of auditor, they certify that all 5 RIR's have passed a global policy. I have to wonder if the world would be better served if it were transformed to where the NRO could set binding policy for all 5 RIR's. Now that's a can of worms. -- 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 jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 10 10:38:09 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:38:09 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> <470BD469.5040209@internap.com> <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: At 10:00 AM -0400 10/10/07, Thomas Narten wrote: >I also believe many of the policies that are being discussed really >only make sense if done more globally. The fact is (as Raul said in >his initial note) that many of the policies just don't make sense if >done differently in different regions. The challenge is that address >policies in practice often have global impact (e.g., on route table >size, on long term consumption rates, etc.). Treating them as local >policies significantly misses the point. Or, if there are significant >differences in the details in practice, can lead to RIR shopping by >entities looking for address space with the best terms. If the particular global policy is important enough, shouldn't the potential downside of the risk of significant differences (and "RIR shopping") be considered a relatively small price to pay? >In my experience, the only way to get any significant (or contentious) >globally-coordinated policy adopted in practice requires the help of a >team of people (from multiple regions) to work together to help >coordinate the activities and to help folk understand the nuances of >how each individual RIR works. And to come up with specific proposals >that have a chance of being adopted by each region. I also believe that this is the most successful path. In the past, it appears to have occurred on an ad-hoc basis. >Bottom line: how much time do the RIRs _really_ have to get any sort >of IPv4 end game policy adopted before it is too late to matter? Since the WG proposal has the output is to go through the individual region policy development processes, it does not appear intended to speed up the overall process, but instead the goal appears to be to increase the probability of approval of a common result. /John From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Oct 10 10:39:22 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:39:22 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net><470BD469.5040209@internap.com><200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> <20071010141853.GA69818@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <007c01c80b4e$519d5840$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Leo Bicknell" > There's no mechanism (in any RIR that I know of) to say "We > approve this policy, and will put it in our policy manual as soon > as all 5 RIR's have approved it." What is stopping someone from putting "Upon adoption by all other RIRs" in the "Timetable for implementation" slot of the policy template? We could pass a proposal but it wouldn't go into the NRPM or be implemented by staff until that occurred. Given how nearly all proposals give a timetable of "immediately", such a trick seems like the only purpose for having that field... S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Oct 10 11:20:26 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:20:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <007c01c80b4e$519d5840$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <20071010141853.GA69818@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <007c01c80b4e$519d5840$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <20071010152026.GA76174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:39:22AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > What is stopping someone from putting "Upon adoption by all other RIRs" in > the "Timetable for implementation" slot of the policy template? We could > pass a proposal but it wouldn't go into the NRPM or be implemented by staff > until that occurred. Given how nearly all proposals give a timetable of > "immediately", such a trick seems like the only purpose for having that > field... Truthfully, I'm not entirely clear. If you look at http://www.nro.net/documents/nro4.html the problem seems to be in step 4: ] 4. This common text will be ratified by each RIR, by methods of its own ] choosing. I'm not sure if it's ARIN's interpretation, or the NRO's interpretation of ARIN's policies, but "ratified" seems to mean a passed policy proposal added to the NRPM. That's not to say it has to be implemented, e.g. ARIN actively doing what it is the policy states, but it needs to be in the ARIN NRPM somewhere. This gives rise to some fairly absurd (at least to me) situations. Consider this global policy: http://www.nro.net/policy/iana-rir-ipv6-allocation-proposal.html So the RIR's have to each put in their own policy process information on how IANA is going to hand them blocks as if it were so, so the NRO can approve it and then IANA can do it. It's just backwards. How IANA hands out space to RIR's should not appear in any RIR's policy manuals, that's not something an RIR can implement. RIR's should have input, and the method of making that policy should be bottom up; I don't want to change any of that. I do feel strongly there should be a way for RIR's to send off delegates or statements or something though to the central policy making group and have this end up as a central, global policy in a much more straight forward method though. -- 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 Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Oct 10 11:36:49 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:36:49 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> <470BD469.5040209@internap.com> <200710101400.l9AE07L6027929@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Taking a quote potentially out of context... At 10:00 -0400 10/10/07, Thomas Narten wrote: >IMO, the process for getting globally-coordinated policies adopted >locally within each region has signficant flaws. For starters, in an >ideal world, it takes 2 cycles in each RIR to get something done. I agree that the process of getting a "global policy" approved has flaws. What can be done? For one I think policies should be labeled as global or local and have different process paths in each RIR. Not that the processed need to be similar to each other, but speaking from general ARIN experience and the IPv4 Countdown example, I don't think the one process ARIN has is the right fit for global policies. It's not the fault of the ARIN process, the ARIN process fits well for ARIN region policies. It's because the global policy has to cycle through each RIR - a result of the calendar of RIR meetings (they are clumped together without overlapping) and that each region has a different perspective. (Vividly I recall witnessing the progression of a policy from ARIN to RIPE to APNIC that took surprising turns as it was presented from one place to the next, each time tuned to the previous audience.) What I think is best is for the originator (instigator) of the policy to quickly assemble an ad hoc group representing all of the regions. The goal of the inter-RIR ad hoc group formation is to try to beat out the right words for the proposal that will fit into each region's Internet dialect. The reason for this is that the current road filled with cycles of present, get beaten up, fix, and present to the next region. There is cycling through the RIRs for the instigator, there are cycles inside the RIR for consideration by the audiences. It would be good to be able to make the process more parallel, to get the edits from one region fed into the proposal in other regions. Otherwise I don't think we will see any more global policies passed - assuming we need them. (And if we do see some, they might be approved way too late.) I think too that because of regional differences in policy proposals processes, messages from one meeting to the next (e.g., from APNIC's to ARIN's) gets confusing. The ARIN straw poll is often confused for a vote, having a proposal on the table is sometimes used as a statement of endorsement when presenting to the next RIR on the calendar. It's good that we have cross attendees to the meetings to help straighten out mistaken messages, but cross attendees (whether RIR staff or others) are bearing a cost to do this. I don't have a desire to make it easier for globally policy proposals to succeed. But I think the current process is too slow for the ones we do need and it is rather confusing. I think instigators should be able to do more ad hoc outreach (which is something they can do) but I also think that with in the ARIN region we have a separate (perhaps quite similar, but still) process for global policy proposals. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Think glocally. Act confused. From dean at av8.com Wed Oct 10 14:01:20 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry (fwd) Message-ID: Some legacy's have emailed me off-list with interest in setting up a legal defense fund, and to investigate the idea of forming a new registry to handle legacy assignments. I've started the work on forming the defense fund. Legacy's can mail me directly for details. --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 Wed Oct 10 14:21:03 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:21:03 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> Defense from what? While there are a few people on the PPML and arin-discuss who have suggested various forms of fee structures and such, but, there hasn't been anything even close to consensus in favor of such a thing. I believe that the majority of ARIN members support the idea of outreach and desire to build a positive relationship with legacy holders working towards a situation where legacy holders join the ARIN fold and there is no longer a need for such a distinction. Most legacy holders I talk to do not see the $100/year fee as a significant issue. Most do not have a significant issue with the idea of an RSA which preserves their status quo. I think both are feasible and I believe that is what the majority of the ARIN community supports. Further, I believe that support for that includes the idea that both of those things should be voluntary on the part of the legacy holder, although there are some who support a policy of terminating WHOIS and RDNS services for legacy holders who do not sign up within some time period. Frankly, I'd oppose the idea of terminating such services. As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature and unnecessary. I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get buy-in from IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe has theoretical control of said address space. Owen On Oct 10, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Dean Anderson wrote: > Some legacy's have emailed me off-list with interest in setting up a > legal defense fund, and to investigate the idea of forming a new > registry to handle legacy assignments. I've started the work on > forming > the defense fund. Legacy's can mail me directly for details. > > --Dean > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the > ARIN Discussion > Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact > the ARIN Member > Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From steveb at eagle.ca Wed Oct 10 14:54:13 2007 From: steveb at eagle.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:54:13 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry In-Reply-To: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> Message-ID: <470D1FD5.9050405@eagle.ca> > Further, I believe > that support for that includes the idea that both of those things should > be voluntary on the part of the legacy holder, although there are some > who support a policy of terminating WHOIS and RDNS services for > legacy holders who do not sign up within some time period. > > Frankly, I'd oppose the idea of terminating such services. The only way termination would be fair IMHO, would be in a case where a legacy holder applied for additional address space (be it v6 or v4) and was eventually caught having lied about holding any legacy space on the application. Perhaps the application templates should have an implicit 'List any legacy IP address space you currently control, whether in use or not' under the justification section, in addition to the current 'Indicate all IP addresses in use in your network today'? Steve From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Oct 10 15:03:12 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:03:12 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. References: <20071010141853.GA69818@ussenterprise.ufp.org><007c01c80b4e$519d5840$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <20071010152026.GA76174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <00c801c80b70$7157eed0$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake"Leo Bicknell" > In a message written on Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:39:22AM -0500, Stephen > Sprunk wrote: >> What is stopping someone from putting "Upon adoption by all >> other RIRs" in the "Timetable for implementation" slot of the >> policy template? We could pass a proposal but it wouldn't go >> into the NRPM or be implemented by staff until that occurred. >> Given how nearly all proposals give a timetable of >> "immediately", such a trick seems like the only purpose for >> having that field... > > Truthfully, I'm not entirely clear. If you look at > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro4.html the problem seems to > be in step 4: > > ] 4. This common text will be ratified by each RIR, by methods of > ] its own choosing. > > I'm not sure if it's ARIN's interpretation, or the NRO's interpretation > of ARIN's policies, but "ratified" seems to mean a passed policy > proposal added to the NRPM. That's not to say it has to be > implemented, e.g. ARIN actively doing what it is the policy states, > but it needs to be in the ARIN NRPM somewhere. ARIN's world is a bit different due to having a single monolithic manual as opposed to publishing each individual policy that has been passed; this is IMHO superior as a reference work for applicants and staff, but it puts us at odds with how the other RIRs work when it comes to inter-RIR matters. Still, I don't think this should be an obstacle for the NRO's purposes. The text shouldn't need to be identical (heck, what are we supposed to do if LACNIC passes their policies in Spanish?) as long as the effect and intent is the same. My interpretation is that ARIN could pass a policy proposal, which would satisfy the NRO's needs, but not implement it or add it to the NRPM until the other RIRs passed it as well. We might end up deciding not to add it into the NRPM at all, though that's more a matter for the BoT to discuss. IIRC, there is nothing in the Charter that requires a NRPM in the first place -- just that the BoT vote on policy proposals. > RIR's should have input, and the method of making that policy > should be bottom up; I don't want to change any of that. I do feel > strongly there should be a way for RIR's to send off delegates > or statements or something though to the central policy making > group and have this end up as a central, global policy in a much > more straight forward method though. Sending delegates means some method of selecting delegates and hoping they'll do something the community would have formed consensus around anyways. I don't like that model. I'm growing to like the proposal for a inter-RIR WG. Such a group would work together to draft a single coherent proposal, present it to all the RIR communities simultaneously, collect feedback, and reconcile the changes needed to gain consensus (if possible) within one or two policy cycles. This would at least be superior to the current process of authors chasing whatever RIR has its meeting next, making changes, then getting shot down in the next one -- lather, rinse, repeat. The fundamental problem, of course, is what if it's simply not possible to get the various RIRs to agree on anything due to divergent views on a particular topic? It's entirely possible we'll still be bickering about v4 allocations to RIRs after the last one is handed out... S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From mksmith at adhost.com Wed Oct 10 15:52:09 2007 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:52:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry In-Reply-To: References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Hello Dean: > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:35 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Public Policy Mailing List > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy > Registry > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Defense from what? > > Defense from ARIN, if it decides there are no legal obligations to > Legacies. > I thought we had already established that there is no legal obligation today, let alone moving forward. The services provided by ARIN for legacy address holders are based upon a "moral" obligation agreed upon in principal when ARIN was first formed. > > As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature > > and unnecessary. > > That's why we investigate the option. Its never premature to > investigate > the options. > > Having a separate registry certainly solves the problem of non-legacy's > continuing to want to impose new rules on Legacies. And it solves the > continuing problem of non-legacy's complaining about having to pay for > legacy services. > > Some of ARINs resources would be transferred to the Legacy Registry in > order to severe and terminate ARIN's obligations, probably a > significant > chunk of ARIN surplus, whois software, etc. An annuity on say, > $15million, would probably fund a Legacy registry forever, since the > Legacy's don't impose a significant burden on changes and there are no > new legacy's. Its a fixed cost operation. In-addr.arpa is already > merged from several registry's. And then provide electronic whois > services. > > It looks like a pretty good idea so far. > If a separate registry was formed, it seems to me that the funding for this registry would be accounted for from within the membership, i.e. the legacy address holders participating in the registry. I can't think of a reason why ARIN would be responsible for these costs. As a Member, it concerns me that the legacy holders only pay $100.00 into the coffers, although I understand the reasoning. Having my contributed dollars allocated to a registry that I will never use doesn't seem like an appropriate use of funds. Then again, you don't approve of the 50k going to NANOG and I do, so to each his own. > > I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get buy-in from > > IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe has theoretical > > control of said address space. > > If the Legacy community decides it wants to have its own registry. I > don't know why IANA (a DoC function performed under contract by ICANN) > or DoC would object to their wishes. > Only one way to know. Regards, Mike From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Oct 10 16:59:38 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:59:38 -0500 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and LegacyRegistry References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Message-ID: <016901c80b84$cf40faf0$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" > If a separate registry was formed, it seems to me that the > funding for this registry would be accounted for from within the > membership, i.e. the legacy address holders participating in the > registry. I can't think of a reason why ARIN would be responsible > for these costs. I am assuming that Dean's theory is that ARIN promised to provide registry services for legacy holders, therefore it would fund a separate registry to do so. However, doing so would impose additional costs due to the separation of operations, and therefore it doesn't make fiscal sense. In reality, the creation of such a registry (if it were possible) would release ARIN from its moral obligation and need to be funded by its registrants. Note that these folks are the subset of ARIN registrants who have largely refused to pay ARIN money for the services they receive today, so I fail to see how an alternate registry, without fee-paying registrants, would be able to operate. > As a Member, it concerns me that the legacy holders only pay > $100.00 into the coffers, although I understand the reasoning. Actually, the vast majority of them pay nothing. Only a very few, AFAIK, have joined the ARIN process and pay the $100/yr maintenance fee. The remainder get their registration services for free, funded by the (mostly non-legacy) fee-paying members of the community. Those folks're getting a free ride. Frankly, it'd be a lot cheaper for them to join PPML and shout down any policy proposal that would adversely affect them (which costs exactly $0) than it would be to form any sort of "legal defense fund" -- which is a misleading name itself, since that term is commonly used for "defense" against lawsuits, and there is no indication that ARIN has any intent of suing anybody. What it really is is a "legal attack fund", i.e. a way for legacy holders to pool their money to sue ARIN. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Oct 10 18:48:13 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:48:13 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and LegacyRegistry In-Reply-To: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Owen DeLong >Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:21 AM >To: Dean Anderson >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Public Policy Mailing List >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and >LegacyRegistry > > >Defense from what? > >While there are a few people on the PPML and arin-discuss who have >suggested various forms of fee structures and such, but, there hasn't >been anything even close to consensus in favor of such a thing. > Such a group of legacy holders wouldn't even be able to gain consensus to create an RFP for 5,000 tinfoil hats. >I believe that the majority of ARIN members support the idea of outreach >and desire to build a positive relationship with legacy holders working >towards a situation where legacy holders join the ARIN fold and there >is no longer a need for such a distinction. > A lot of legacy holders have BOTH legacy assignments and non-legacy assignments. And ANY legacy holder that has ANY IPv6 also has a foot in both sides. >Most legacy holders I talk to do not see the $100/year fee as a >significant >issue. Most do not have a significant issue with the idea of an RSA >which >preserves their status quo. I think both are feasible and I believe >that >is what the majority of the ARIN community supports. I do not agree. I think that the majority of the community supports legacy holder status on IPv4 ONLY. I believe some of this smoke and mirrors is an attempt by certain people to get legacy status applied to "IP numbering" in general, rather than "IPv4 IP numbering" that is why they use such imprecise language all the time, constantly blurring the distinction between IPv4 and IPv6 numbering. If you look at ALL of Dean's responses to the subject you will find that he NEVER uses the precise terms "IPv4 IP numbering" and "IPv6 numbering" when referring to legacy holders. When people point this out he ignores it most of the time, the few times he responds it's along the line that the definition of a legacy holder is an IPv4 holder - conveniently ignoring that all the historical literature he's basing his arguments on is pre-IPv6 and thus DOES NOT draw a distinction either. > >As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature >and >unnecessary. I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get >buy-in from IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe >has theoretical control of said address space. > I really think the whole thing is preposterous. I can think of many reasons that infighting, lack of legal jurisdiction in different regions, the fact that many legacy holders would have to start paying twice - once for IPv6 resources to ARIN and once to this alternate registry, and the fact that an alternate would have no support from the existing governing structure, would doom such an effort. Keep in mind that an alternate registry couldn't force ARIN to update it's whois - and ARIN will not replace legacy WHOIS records to allow legacy numbers to be sold to a new entity, that's against current policy. The more you think about it the more silly it becomes. Just because it's possible to do something doesen't mean it's ever going to happen. I think Dean is confusing the possible with the practical. Ted From ez at zoovy.com Wed Oct 10 19:46:29 2007 From: ez at zoovy.com (Eric Ziegast) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:46:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Elections (Re: ARIN IP conservation and FREE IP Addresses) In-Reply-To: <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> References: <200710060645430.SM02832@mikesplace> <3c3e3fca0710060711m7f378037tda87b00cbafa0b96@mail.gmail.com> <20071006160015.GB41201@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <2E0D9844-08F4-46F3-A569-D5E0B9E8CD67@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <470D6455.2090500@zoovy.com> David Conrad wrote: > Where are these ARIN meetings in which these "hundreds if not > thousands" of companies are participating? The ARIN meetings I go to > (and the e-mail discussions I see) have the same few dozen of people, > most of which are funded by their very large corporations to attend > said meetings. > As a member of ARIN lurking from a small corner of the Internet, I'd like to remind other members that they should make sure they're registered to vote and encourage them to participate in any upcoming elections (mid-late October?). https://app.arin.net/election/ Also, members should look at simulcast info before the Albuquerque meeting if they can't attend. http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/webcast.html David continues: > I will also note that it is the very large corporations who have the > lawyers who can pummel ARIN into the ground if policies change in a > way they don't particularly like (regardless of the merit or legality > of those changes). Welcome to business in the USA... Team ARIN! Help us! Cili Rool is sending in the lawyers! Would a legal defense fund be a good place to stash that extra IPV4 renewal money? ;^) -- Eric Ziegast PS: Hi, y'all! From owen at delong.com Wed Oct 10 20:29:53 2007 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:29:53 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Message-ID: > > If a separate registry was formed, it seems to me that the funding for > this registry would be accounted for from within the membership, i.e. > the legacy address holders participating in the registry. I can't > think > of a reason why ARIN would be responsible for these costs. As a > Member, > it concerns me that the legacy holders only pay $100.00 into the > coffers, although I understand the reasoning. Having my contributed > dollars allocated to a registry that I will never use doesn't seem > like > an appropriate use of funds. Then again, you don't approve of the 50k > going to NANOG and I do, so to each his own. > You are mistaken here... Legacy holders don't pay anything into the coffers. Those who have End-User assignments under RSA pay $100/year regardless of whether they were previously legacy holders, or, whether they are ARIN issued direct assignments. Owen From plzak at arin.net Thu Oct 11 06:25:06 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:25:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <20071010152026.GA76174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <20071010141853.GA69818@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <007c01c80b4e$519d5840$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <20071010152026.GA76174@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: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:20 AM > To: ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. > > How IANA hands out space to RIR's should not appear in any RIR's policy > manuals, that's not something an RIR can implement. Leo - If you look the Global v4 and v6 policy both contain criteria that the RIRs must follow, hence must implement. Ray From bicknell at ufp.org Thu Oct 11 08:30:10 2007 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:30:10 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: References: <20071010141853.GA69818@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <007c01c80b4e$519d5840$523816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> <20071010152026.GA76174@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20071011123009.GA80329@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:25:06AM -0400, Ray Plzak wrote: > Leo - If you look the Global v4 and v6 policy both contain criteria > that the RIRs must follow, hence must implement. I have no problem with those elements being put into ARIN's NRPM. Rather than being one or two line items buried in section 10 of the manual, 90% of which ARIN staff cannot implement those items should be pulled out and integrated into the appropriate section of the manual. -- 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 info at arin.net Thu Oct 11 17:21:17 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:17 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Legacy RSA Message-ID: <470E93CD.4080506@arin.net> On 17 October 2007 ARIN will release an additional version of the Registration Services Agreement ("RSA") that will be offered to those organizations and individuals in the ARIN service region who hold legacy Internet number resources that are not covered by any other registration services agreement with ARIN. Legacy holders who sign up are guaranteed the same services as ARIN members. The low annual fees charged may be waived if the organization returns unused address space. This legacy RSA also contractually promises ARIN Internet number resource policies adopted after the contract is signed will not lessen the legacy RSA address holder?s contract rights. This legacy RSA will be described during presentations at the upcoming NANOG meeting, ARIN Public Policy Meeting, and ARIN Members meeting. Regards, Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From Keith at jcc.com Thu Oct 11 20:13:34 2007 From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:13:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA Message-ID: Ray, I look forward to reading this RSA. 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: arin-announce-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-announce-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:21 PM > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > On 17 October 2007 ARIN will release an additional version of > the Registration Services Agreement ("RSA") that will be > offered to those organizations and individuals in the ARIN > service region who hold legacy Internet number resources that > are not covered by any other registration services agreement > with ARIN. Legacy holders who sign up are guaranteed the same > services as ARIN members. The low annual fees charged may be > waived if the organization returns unused address space. This > legacy RSA also contractually promises ARIN Internet number > resource policies adopted after the contract is signed will > not lessen the legacy RSA address holder's contract rights. > > This legacy RSA will be described during presentations at the > upcoming NANOG meeting, ARIN Public Policy Meeting, and ARIN > Members meeting. > > Regards, > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Announce > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce Please > contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Thu Oct 11 22:29:04 2007 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Re Legacy RSA Message-ID: <200710120229.l9C2T4I7017512@cjbsys.bdb.com> I also am very interested in reading this proposal. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Fri Oct 12 01:49:06 2007 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:49:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. Message-ID: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> ----- Original Message ----- From: Raul Echeberria To: ppml at arin.net Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:17:58 -0300 > Dear all: > > I would like to share with all of you this > proposal. Since it is not a policy proposal, I > don't know really how to proceed, but I guess > that it is enough to send it to the list. > > This proposal doesn't intend to substitute the > Policy Proposal "2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing" and > is not incompatible with the discussion of this > proposal and/or its eventual adoption. > > I will send the same proposal to the others RIRs' poilicy > lists. > > Ra?l > > > ========================================= > Proposal for the creation of a cross-regions working group > > > > Some proposals have been submitted through some > RIR?s policy development process, which focus on > the gradual modification of the requirements for > receiving IPv4 addresses as the pool of unallocated IPv4 > addresses diminishes. > > Most or all proposals which have been made appear > to be incomplete and ineffective if approved in > only one region. Therefore, it is proposed the > creation of a working group made up by two > appropriate respected individuals active in the > policy process within each region?s community. > These ten individuals would work on one or more > joint proposals that could then be processed in > every region according to their corresponding policy > development processes. Could be perceived as an attempt to manipulate regional PDP's. Are you asking for the RIR's to officially sanction this? Or as you just asking for volunteers? If it's the latter, and you are suggesting that whatever came out of such a thing would have to still traverse the ARIN PDP and ICANN MoU/Attachment global policy process, this sounds just fine to me. -M< From raul at lacnic.net Fri Oct 12 09:45:41 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:45:41 -0300 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> References: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071012102857.0411d808@lacnic.net> Dear all: Just to clarify. There have been many interesting comments about the Global Policy Development Process, and I think that those comments could be the basis for a revision of that process, but I am not proposing now to develop a global policy. IMO at some point, the RIRs have to start to apply different criteria for allocating IPv4 addresses. In fact, we have already seen some proposals like David's one. The problem that I see is that it will be difficult that some RIRs adopt that kind of policies if the others don't do that. So, the working group would analyze the issue from a multiregional perspective (I am avoinding to use the word "global") and conclude if a common proposal could be presented in every region or different policy proposal for each region , but based in the same concept and aiming the same objective, would be more appropriate. The proposal or proposals should go later trhough each regional PDP, so this WG would not be an intereference with the currently established PDPs. As John commmented in his mail, the goal is to increase the probability of approval of the WG suggestions and get all the RIRs moving in the same direction with exactly the same policies or not. Ra?l From raul at lacnic.net Fri Oct 12 09:55:29 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:55:29 -0300 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> References: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20071012105326.036b2fe8@lacnic.net> At 02:49 a.m. 12/10/2007, Martin Hannigan wrote: >Could be perceived as an attempt to manipulate regional >PDP's. I don't think so. > Are you asking for the RIR's to officially sanction >this? Or as you just asking for volunteers? I think that the WG could be composed by people with relevant roles in their region's PDP, like policy chairs or Advisory group members. I don't think it needs an official sanction. >If it's the latter, and you are suggesting that whatever >came out of such a thing would have to still traverse the >ARIN PDP and ICANN MoU/Attachment global policy process, That's exactly what i propose. >this sounds just fine to me. Thanks, Ra?l From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Oct 12 10:25:59 2007 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:25:59 -0500 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <470E93CD.4080506@arin.net> References: <470E93CD.4080506@arin.net> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670763D@mail> That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my contract that my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-announce-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-announce-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:21 PM > To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > On 17 October 2007 ARIN will release an additional version of > the Registration Services Agreement ("RSA") that will be > offered to those organizations and individuals in the ARIN > service region who hold legacy Internet number resources that > are not covered by any other registration services agreement > with ARIN. Legacy holders who sign up are guaranteed the same > services as ARIN members. The low annual fees charged may be > waived if the organization returns unused address space. This > legacy RSA also contractually promises ARIN Internet number > resource policies adopted after the contract is signed will > not lessen the legacy RSA address holder's contract rights. > > This legacy RSA will be described during presentations at the > upcoming NANOG meeting, ARIN Public Policy Meeting, and ARIN > Members meeting. > > Regards, > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Announce > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce Please > contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Fri Oct 12 11:46:46 2007 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:46:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071012105326.036b2fe8@lacnic.net> References: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> <7.0.1.0.1.20071012105326.036b2fe8@lacnic.net> Message-ID: At 10:55 -0300 10/12/07, Raul Echeberria wrote: >I think that the WG could be composed by people >with relevant roles in their region's PDP, like >policy chairs or Advisory group members. >I don't think it needs an official sanction. I think it is better if the WG is ad hoc and does not have an official sanction, even if the members have "designated" positions (like chairs, elected members, even staff). In theory the output would be a "considered opinion" yet not have any special (preferred) status while going through the individual policy development processes. If the group is set up, mail list, telecons, in person meetings over the next three weeks of RIR-type travel, I'd volunteer to participate. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Think glocally. Act confused. From sleibrand at internap.com Fri Oct 12 13:19:06 2007 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:19:06 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20071012102857.0411d808@lacnic.net> References: <470f0ad2.179.35f.9062@batelnet.bs> <7.0.1.0.1.20071012102857.0411d808@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <470FAC8A.8080209@internap.com> Raul, Thanks for the clarification. Notwithstanding my earlier comments, I support such an effort, provided that (as you state below) the output still goes through the normal policy development process (albeit hopefully more smoothly, the proposal having been crafted to achieve consensus). Thanks for your efforts, Scott Raul Echeberria wrote: > Dear all: > > Just to clarify. > There have been many interesting comments about > the Global Policy Development Process, and I > think that those comments could be the basis for > a revision of that process, but I am not > proposing now to develop a global policy. > > IMO at some point, the RIRs have to start to > apply different criteria for allocating IPv4 > addresses. In fact, we have already seen some proposals like David's one. > The problem that I see is that it will be > difficult that some RIRs adopt that kind of > policies if the others don't do that. > So, the working group would analyze the issue > from a multiregional perspective (I am avoinding > to use the word "global") and conclude if a > common proposal could be presented in every > region or different policy proposal for each > region , but based in the same concept and aiming > the same objective, would be more appropriate. > > The proposal or proposals should go later trhough > each regional PDP, so this WG would not be an > intereference with the currently established PDPs. > > As John commmented in his mail, the goal is to > increase the probability of approval of the WG > suggestions and get all the RIRs moving in the > same direction with exactly the same policies or not. > > Ra?l > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 12 13:44:11 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:44:11 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry In-Reply-To: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com> Message-ID: Not commenting on Dean's suggestion, but to clarify one bit: On Oct 10, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature > and unnecessary. I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed > or get buy-in from IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe > has theoretical control of said address space. If I understand what is being suggested, IANA or US government buy-in is irrelevant. Anyone at any time can create their own IP registration database. What matters is whether or not anyone (particularly ISPs when they determining whether or not to accept a customer's assertion that the customer "owns" the address space being presented to the ISP) looks at it. Regards, -drc From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 12 14:19:43 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:19:43 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670763D@mail> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >Kevin Kargel >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM >To: ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my contract that >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. > Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an "IPv6 Legacy Holder" I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere within it, there is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 only holder" That way there is no chance in the future that some court could misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 assignments. This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6. The official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will replace it. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate the system into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet. But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to keep routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic. Ask yourself, what is a reasonable expectation as to how long the rest of the Internet will be willing to continue to do this, before telling the Legacy holders (and, indeed, ALL IPv4 holders) that they must switch to IPv6. That is the true length of time that these so called "rights" will have any actual value. Ted From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 12 14:29:55 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:29:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200710121430457.SM02952@mikesplace> First let me state that I am not a legacy holder. > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:20 PM > To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On > Behalf Of > >Kevin Kargel > >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM > >To: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > > > > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my > contract that > >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. > > > > Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. > IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an > "IPv6 Legacy Holder" > > I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that > you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one > of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store > a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) > > My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere > within it, there > is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 only holder" > That way there is no chance in the future that some court could > misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 assignments. > > This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6. The > official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will > replace it. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there > (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate the system > into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 > environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy > holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet. You do not consider the free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large members unpaid, drag on the Internet? > > But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy > holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to keep > routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic. Ask yourself, > what is a reasonable expectation as to how long the rest of > the Internet > will be willing to continue to do this, before telling the Legacy > holders (and, indeed, ALL IPv4 holders) that they must switch to IPv6. > That is the true length of time that these so called "rights" > will have > any actual value. > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact > the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 12 15:11:21 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:11:21 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <200710121430457.SM02952@mikesplace> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com] >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:30 AM >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > >First let me state that I am not a legacy holder. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:20 PM >> To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On >> Behalf Of >> >Kevin Kargel >> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM >> >To: ppml at arin.net >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> > >> > >> > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my >> contract that >> >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. >> > >> >> Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. >> IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an >> "IPv6 Legacy Holder" >> >> I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that >> you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one >> of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store >> a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) >> >> My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere >> within it, there >> is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 only holder" >> That way there is no chance in the future that some court could >> misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 assignments. >> >> This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6. The >> official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will >> replace it. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there >> (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate the system >> into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 >> environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy >> holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet. > >You do not consider the free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large >members unpaid, >drag on the Internet? > NO, of course not. The reason why is that hardly anybody now is advertising IPv6. But when most people out there advertisng IPv6 then I would assume that people who are paying for IPv4 assignments will have an incentive to return them and stop advertising them and stop getting billed for them. Everyone, that is - except these legacy IPv4 holders who are STILL going to be faced with "I either got to IPv6 and start paying a lot of money or I keep using my free IPv4 and try to convince the rest of the world to continue supporting them." If the legacy holders don't do anything they will greatly increase the amount of advertisements and cause a lot of people to delay switchover, that is the drag I'm talking about. Same goes for these "free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large members" your referring to - although we are having a fee discussion on them as I'm sure you may have seen the prior posts on. ALthough it is a little early to get into this because IPv4 runout hasn't happened, you do realize of course that once IPv4 runout does happen, we will have to put into policy, incentives to get people to stop using it and to switch to IPv6. Fee adjustments are the most obvious. Ted From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Oct 12 15:06:39 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:06:39 -0500 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA References: Message-ID: <022501c80d04$6ad2f6a0$573816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" > Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. > IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an > "IPv6 Legacy Holder" ... > My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere within > it, there is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 > only holder" That way there is no chance in the future that some > court could misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over > IPv6 assignments. That's not exactly correct. A legacy assignment is one made before ARIN's formation. A "Legacy RSA" would logically only apply to legacy assignments. It happens that only ASNs and IPv4 assignments can be legacy; there are no legacy IPv6 assignments or allocations. If a legacy holder also has non-legacy resources, those resources would be covered under a standard RSA. I'm sure ARIN's counsel covered these bases when drafting the Legacy RSA. > But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy > holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to > keep routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic. Ask > yourself, what is a reasonable expectation as to how long the > rest of the Internet will be willing to continue to do this, before > telling the Legacy holders (and, indeed, ALL IPv4 holders) that > they must switch to IPv6. That is the true length of time that > these so called "rights" will have any actual value. They will have value as long as ISPs are willing to take money to route their traffic. There is no reason to think ISPs will turn down their money in the forseeable future. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From mike at mathbox.com Fri Oct 12 15:26:45 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:26:45 -0400 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:RE: [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200710121526441.SM04668@mikesplace> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:11 PM > To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: SPAM-WARN:RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com] > >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:30 AM > >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net > >Subject: RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > > > >First let me state that I am not a legacy holder. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > >> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:20 PM > >> To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > >> > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On > >> Behalf Of > >> >Kevin Kargel > >> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM > >> >To: ppml at arin.net > >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > >> > > >> > > >> > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my > >> contract that > >> >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. > >> > > >> > >> Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. > >> IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an > >> "IPv6 Legacy Holder" > >> > >> I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that > >> you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one > >> of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store > >> a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) > >> > >> My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere > >> within it, there > >> is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 > only holder" > >> That way there is no chance in the future that some court could > >> misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 > assignments. > >> > >> This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6. The > >> official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will > >> replace it. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there > >> (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate > the system > >> into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 > >> environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy > >> holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet. > > > >You do not consider the free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large > >members unpaid, > >drag on the Internet? > > > > NO, of course not. The reason why is that hardly anybody now > is advertising > IPv6. Sorry, I should have articulated that more clearly. As a group, the Xtra Large Members hold 900,000+ IPV4 /24 blocks that are registered with ARIN, where said registration of those 900,000+ IPV4 /24 blocks was free of charge. Do you not consider that to be an unpaid, drag on the Internet? > > But when most people out there advertisng IPv6 then I would assume > that people who are paying for IPv4 assignments will have an incentive > to return them and stop advertising them and stop getting > billed for them. > Everyone, that is - except these legacy IPv4 holders who are > STILL going > to be faced with "I either got to IPv6 and start paying a lot of money > or I keep using my free IPv4 and try to convince the rest of the world > to continue supporting them." If the legacy holders don't do anything > they will greatly increase the amount of advertisements and > cause a lot > of people to delay switchover, that is the drag I'm talking about. > > Same goes for these "free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large members" > your referring to - although we are having a fee discussion on them > as I'm sure you may have seen the prior posts on. > > ALthough it is a little early to get into this because IPv4 runout > hasn't happened, you do realize of course that once IPv4 runout does > happen, we will have to put into policy, incentives to get people > to stop using it and to switch to IPv6. Fee adjustments are the most > obvious. > > Ted Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 12 15:33:24 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:33:24 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <022501c80d04$6ad2f6a0$573816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:07 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > >They will have value as long as ISPs are willing to take money to route >their traffic. There is no reason to think ISPs will turn down >their money >in the forseeable future. > Of course - but what about their upstreams, and their other upstreams, and so on? My traceroute to this very mailing list server passes through a couple of networks that I don't pay money to directly. I'm sure as long as I'm paying my feeds I'll be able to route whatever I want through them. But, I doubt it is going to go more and a hop or so and I won't be able to compel those other neworks to carry my obsolete traffic if they don't want to. The Internet isn't a fuedal system and I think a few people are going to figure that out to their distress in the not too distant future. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 12 17:23:43 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:23:43 -0700 Subject: [ppml] SPAM-WARN:RE: [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <200710121526441.SM04668@mikesplace> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com] >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:27 PM >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net >Subject: RE: SPAM-WARN:RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:11 PM >> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net >> Subject: SPAM-WARN:RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com] >> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:30 AM >> >To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'; 'Kevin Kargel'; ppml at arin.net >> >Subject: RE: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> > >> > >> >First let me state that I am not a legacy holder. >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> >> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt >> >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:20 PM >> >> To: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net >> >> Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On >> >> Behalf Of >> >> >Kevin Kargel >> >> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM >> >> >To: ppml at arin.net >> >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my >> >> contract that >> >> >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. >> >> IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an >> >> "IPv6 Legacy Holder" >> >> >> >> I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that >> >> you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one >> >> of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store >> >> a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) >> >> >> >> My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere >> >> within it, there >> >> is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 >> only holder" >> >> That way there is no chance in the future that some court could >> >> misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 >> assignments. >> >> >> >> This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6. The >> >> official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will >> >> replace it. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there >> >> (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate >> the system >> >> into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 >> >> environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy >> >> holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet. >> > >> >You do not consider the free 900,000+ /24 held by Xtra Large >> >members unpaid, >> >drag on the Internet? >> > >> >> NO, of course not. The reason why is that hardly anybody now >> is advertising >> IPv6. > >Sorry, I should have articulated that more clearly. As a group, the Xtra >Large >Members hold 900,000+ IPV4 /24 blocks that are registered with ARIN, where >said registration of those 900,000+ IPV4 /24 blocks was free of charge. Do >you not consider that to be an unpaid, drag on the Internet? > I already explained why not. Maybe someday. Not today. And to clarify, the legacy holders IPv4's are not an unpaid drag on the Internet at the current time. Once more, maybe someday. Not today. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 12 17:31:57 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:31:57 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710121258k5a8030f7xa317987a9d838a42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com]On Behalf Of William >Herrin >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:59 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: ARIN PPML >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > >On 10/12/07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> Of course - but what about their upstreams, and their other upstreams, >> and so on? >> >> My traceroute to this very mailing list server passes through a couple of >> networks that I don't pay money to directly. I'm sure as long >as I'm paying >> my feeds I'll be able to route whatever I want through them. >But, I doubt >> it is going to go more and a hop or so and I won't be able to compel >> those other neworks to carry my obsolete traffic if they don't want to. > >Ted, > >For every single packet at every single router on the Internet today, >either the packet's source or its destination has paid for it to be >there. This may be indirect at times: I pay Joe who pays Bob who pays >Alice. But its not particularly hard to follow the money. > OK, I have a list of spamming IP addresses, maybe you can explain how to use this money trail to get the admins of the blocks that the spammers are operating from to actually answer their mail, or their phone, or actually do something about getting the spammers offline? Uh huh. Thought so. IPv4 routing will go exactly the same way, you just watch. When problems happen and you can't get your IPv4 traffic through anymore, you will call and bitch and everyone you talk to will assure you in all seriousness that they are still routing IPv4 and they aren't seeing the problem your having, and by the way have you tried accessing it with IPv6 and did that work? And in the meantime their admins will continue ignoring the complaints about unroutable IPv4. Exactly how spamming is handled on the Internet today. Most large networks are run by telcos - and here's a copy of the "telco response 101 handbook" that these companies use to respond to problems: #1 "We don't see a problem it must be your equipment" #2 See rule#1 Ted From JOHN at egh.com Fri Oct 12 17:37:48 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:37:48 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1071012164409.7100C-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of > >Kevin Kargel > >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM > >To: ppml at arin.net > >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > > > > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my contract that > >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. > > > > Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. > IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an > "IPv6 Legacy Holder" So far as I know, no legacy holder has obtained or asked to obtain IPv6 addresses (or additional IPv4 addresses) without signing an RSA and becoming a non-legacy holder. I believe that some legacy holders may also hold non-legacy addresses, but I don't know that for sure. In any case, this is straw man. > > I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that > you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one > of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store > a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) Lots of contracts contain perpetual rights clauses. So what? > > My only concern with the "Legacy RSA" is that somewhere within it, there > is a statement that the term "Legacy holder" means "IPv4 only holder" > That way there is no chance in the future that some court could > misinterpret the contract and use it to extend over IPv6 assignments. > IANAL, but this seems extremely unlikely to me. The only way to obtain IPv6 assignments is to sign an RSA specifically applying to those resources, and no court is likely to ignore that. > This really comes down to your position on moving to IPv6. The > official word is that IPv4 runout is a fact, and that IPv6 will > replace it. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people out there > (like Dean) who apparently think that they can manipulate the system > into making the Internet some sort of permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 > environment - if that were to happen, the assignments of the Legacy > holders would become a permanent, unpaid, drag on the Internet. > There are a lot of incorrect assumptions here. 1) IPv6 will *not* replace IPv4, at least not for many years, if not decades. The "Internet" will be mixed IPv4/6 for a long time to come. 2) It is not a matter of "manipulation" to make the Internet a permanent shared IPv4/IPv6 environment, it is a natural consequence of a slow migration to a new technology. The only alternatives are either creating an entirely new, unconnected IPv6-only network (with virtually no users, providers, no Ebay nor Amazon nor YouTube nor CNN nor Kazaa nor emails of pictures from your brother-in-laws' cousin's bowling tournament), or a global flash-cut, where everyone has to toss out billions (trillions) of dollars worth of suddenly obsolete equipment. 3) I can't recall Dean (or anyone else) actually saying they want to acquire and think they have the right to acquire IPv6 resources without signing an RSA for them and without paying normal end-user fees (i.e. $100/year) just because they are a legacy v4 holder. Some people have proposed *offering* legacy v4 holders IPv6 and/or reductions in fees as an inducement to getting them to sign an RSA and return unneeded IPv4 assignments, but that is not the same thing at all. 4) Legacy IPv4 assignments can never increase, only decrease (as the holders go out of business, abandon their holdings, fail to find an ISP which will route for them, or move to IPv6.) It is fundamental mathematics that a monotoniclly decreasing function will tend toward zero, so the whole "permanent, unpaid drag on the Internet" argument is wrong. 5) At one time, the Internet consisted solely of legacy assignments. Are you saying, despite Moore's law operating over a decade and a half, it costs more now than it did 15 years ago to handle legacy traffic? > But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy > holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to keep > routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic. Ask yourself, This is yet another false assumption. I have a legacy class C (/24) that is of great value to my company, despite the fact that it doesn't get routed. We have 3 private-line connections to various customers, and if we renumbered to RFC1918 addresses, we would have to co-ordinate the usage with all 3 customers, and an unknown, much larger group of potential future customers. (The issues are routing, firewalls, traffic segregation, etc. and grow geometricly with the number of participants.) I've mentioned this before and lots of people have said they have similar situations. > what is a reasonable expectation as to how long the rest of the Internet > will be willing to continue to do this, before telling the Legacy > holders (and, indeed, ALL IPv4 holders) that they must switch to IPv6. > That is the true length of time that these so called "rights" will have > any actual value. Eventually, the last v4 host will be shut down. Long before that, the last v4 router in the DFZ will be shut down or converted to v6 (or v-next or whatever) only. So what? > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From stephen at sprunk.org Fri Oct 12 18:11:24 2007 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:11:24 -0500 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA References: Message-ID: <02b301c80d1e$07b6a750$573816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" >>They will have value as long as ISPs are willing to take money to >>route their traffic. There is no reason to think ISPs will turn down >>their money in the forseeable future. > > Of course - but what about their upstreams, and their other > upstreams, and so on? Capitalism means that as long as you're willing to pay the price, someone will sell you what you want. If some networks stop routing v4, BGP will route around the "failure" and life will go on. Perhaps at some point, that will involve tunnels over v6 to a handful of v4 exchange points, i.e. a 4Bone, but not any time soon. Of course, over time, the cost of providing v4 services may rise to the point where legacy holders are no longer willing to pay, but that's (a) their decision, and (b) far enough away that none of us can predict when or how it'll happen. My crystal ball gets real fuzzy about five years from now, and I'm quite sure we'll still have a native v4 DFZ then. > My traceroute to this very mailing list server passes through a > couple of networks that I don't pay money to directly. Not directly, no. However, all of the networks you see in that path are getting money directly or indirectly from you and/or ARIN. That's how the money flows in the modern Internet. > I'm sure as long as I'm paying my feeds I'll be able to route > whatever I want through them. But, I doubt it is going to go more > and a hop or so and I won't be able to compel those other > neworks to carry my obsolete traffic if they don't want to. Obsolete or not, if you're willing to pay the cost of moving your v4 bits plus a fair profit, someone will be happy to take your money. You may find at some point, though, that you can get your bits moved for less if they're v6. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Oct 12 18:38:38 2007 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:38:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <1071012164409.7100C-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:38 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > >On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of >> >Kevin Kargel >> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM >> >To: ppml at arin.net >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA >> > >> > >> > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my contract that >> >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. >> > >> >> Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. >> IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an >> "IPv6 Legacy Holder" > >So far as I know, no legacy holder has obtained or asked to obtain >IPv6 addresses (or additional IPv4 addresses) without signing an >RSA and becoming a non-legacy holder. I believe that some legacy >holders may also hold non-legacy addresses, but I don't know that >for sure. In any case, this is straw man. > I don't understand your comment, here. I was pointing out to Kevin that it isn't possible for these rights to be in perpetuity because they are tied up in IPv4, and IPv4 is going to end. You seem to agree later - but your arguing against my assertion here? I think you need to reread the discussion, your making exactly the same point I am. >> >> I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that >> you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one >> of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store >> a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) > >Lots of contracts contain perpetual rights clauses. So what? > That was exactly my response, so what? Which is why I illustrated it with the latticenet cards - perhaps you were unaware that latticenet is obsolete? >4) Legacy >IPv4 assignments can never increase, only decrease (as the holders >go out of business, abandon their holdings, fail to find an ISP >which will route for them, or move to IPv6.) Your other points I'm not going to discuss as they boil down to speculation - you and I can both make most logical arguments as to what is going to happen, and both make sense - but we won't know until it happens. However, I don't agree with the premise that Legacy IPv4 assignments are always going to decrease. If a legal precident is ever set that turns legacy numbers into "property" then they can be bought and sold and thus will not decrease - at least, not as a rate that is going to matter significantly. > >> But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy >> holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to keep >> routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic. Ask yourself, > >This is yet another false assumption. I have a legacy class C (/24) >that is of great value to my company, despite the fact that it doesn't >get routed. I should have clarified that. I don't mean of value to you. I mean value on the open market. While my 1975 orange and yellow Chevy Vega with the rusted out fenders and the seats that look like a cat clawed them may have "great value" to me, it is of no value.* Although I might, like you are doing with your legacy IPv4 block, argue with ferver that my precious baby has value to anyone with good sense to try to straighten me out. Ted * Note that I do -not- own such a vehicle, I merely used the most fugly car I could imagine for the example - my apologies to owners of yellow-orange Vegas everywhere - and my sympathies. ;-) From JOHN at egh.com Fri Oct 12 19:14:27 2007 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:14:27 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1071012185332.7100A-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] > >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:38 PM > >To: Ted Mittelstaedt > >Cc: Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net > >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > > > > > >On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of > >> >Kevin Kargel > >> >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:26 AM > >> >To: ppml at arin.net > >> >Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA > >> > > >> > > >> > That's a pretty good deal. I wish I could get it in my contract that > >> >my rights would never be lessened even if policy changed. > >> > > >> > >> Kevin, don't forget ARIN defines legacy holders as IPv4 holders. > >> IPve ONLY. In ARIN's definitions, there is no such thing as an > >> "IPv6 Legacy Holder" > > > >So far as I know, no legacy holder has obtained or asked to obtain > >IPv6 addresses (or additional IPv4 addresses) without signing an > >RSA and becoming a non-legacy holder. I believe that some legacy > >holders may also hold non-legacy addresses, but I don't know that > >for sure. In any case, this is straw man. > > > > I don't understand your comment, here. I was pointing out to Kevin that > it isn't possible for these rights to be in perpetuity because they are > tied up in IPv4, and IPv4 is going to end. You seem to agree later - > but your arguing against my assertion here? I think you need to reread the > discussion, your making exactly the same point I am. You can have perpetual rights to something that has no (or minimal) economic value (like your Vega). I agree that *eventually* IPv4 will go away and cease to have value, but the rights will persist. Someone still owns whatever intellectual property value resides in those latticenet cards (copyright on software, patents, whatever) until they expire and someone owns the physical cards themselves, even if they wouldn't sell for the cost of postage on Ebay. "Perpetual rights" don't expire just because they have no value any more. My point is that I think all legacy holders know that eventually the holdings will have no value. But they do have value now, and they (quite reasonably) don't want to be deprived of that value. > > >> > >> I'll be happy to write you a contract that states unequiocably that > >> you have permanent, perpetual rights in how to configure any one > >> of a box of Latticenet cards I happened to see in a junk store > >> a couple years ago. ;-) Or maybe Arcnet cards? ;-) ;-) > > > >Lots of contracts contain perpetual rights clauses. So what? > > > > That was exactly my response, so what? Which is why I illustrated it > with the latticenet cards - perhaps you were unaware that latticenet is > obsolete? > > > >4) Legacy > >IPv4 assignments can never increase, only decrease (as the holders > >go out of business, abandon their holdings, fail to find an ISP > >which will route for them, or move to IPv6.) > > Your other points I'm not going to discuss as they boil down to > speculation - you and I can both make most logical arguments as > to what is going to happen, and both make sense - but we won't know > until it happens. > > However, I don't agree with the premise that Legacy IPv4 assignments > are always going to decrease. If a legal precident is ever set that > turns legacy numbers into "property" then they can be bought and > sold and thus will not decrease - at least, not as a rate that > is going to matter significantly. > The question of whether legacy assignments can be bought and sold is entirely different than whether they can be taken away from the holder without the holder's consent, which is my main issue as a legacy holder. When I signed up for a network assignment in 1993, I did not expect to be able to make money by reselling my addresses. I wanted, then and now, to have static, unique addresses, so I wouldn't have to renumber and I wouldn't have to play elaborate NATing games (I don't know if NAT even existed at the time) to communicate with other entities. > > > >> But in the last analysis, the so called "rights of the (IPv4) Legacy > >> holders" are only of value as long as the rest of us continue to keep > >> routing their legacy traffic - ie: their IPv4 traffic. Ask yourself, > > > >This is yet another false assumption. I have a legacy class C (/24) > >that is of great value to my company, despite the fact that it doesn't > >get routed. > > I should have clarified that. I don't mean of value to you. I mean > value on the open market. > > While my 1975 orange and yellow Chevy Vega with the rusted out fenders > and the seats that look like a cat clawed them may have "great value" to > me, it is of no value.* > > Although I might, like you are doing with your legacy IPv4 block, argue > with ferver that my precious baby has value to anyone with good sense > to try to straighten me out. > My legacy block has real value, replacement value, since it would take large amounts of my and other people's time (time *is* money) to replace it. > Ted > > * Note that I do -not- own such a vehicle, I merely used the > most fugly car I could imagine for the example - my apologies > to owners of yellow-orange Vegas everywhere - and my sympathies. ;-) > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From steveb at eagle.ca Fri Oct 12 19:52:02 2007 From: steveb at eagle.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:52:02 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [arin-announce] Legacy RSA In-Reply-To: <1071012185332.7100A-100000@Ives.egh.com> References: <1071012185332.7100A-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: <471008A2.4030701@eagle.ca> > My legacy block has real value, replacement value, since it would > take large amounts of my and other people's time (time *is* money) to > replace it. Out of curiosity, at what point do the savings equal or exceed the cost of renumbering to yourself, your clients and/or the community? Although I am a learning rookie here, I do have a desire to learn. When will this price point reach the stage that it costs more to hold the legacy space as opposed to switch over? I've renumbered several networks. It can be a *very* costly business (or profitable, depending on which side of the fence one is on). However, are you willing to hold on to the legacy space until it becomes a liability as opposed to a cost saving? When do you forsee the straw begin to bend the opposite way? Steve From info at arin.net Sat Oct 13 21:59:28 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:59:28 -0600 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ Message-ID: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> The Legacy Registration Services Agreement (RSA), first referenced in the 11 October 2007 announcement, has been posted to the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf. A Frequently Asked Questions document is also available to assist the community at: http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa_faq.html An implementation date will be announced in the near future. Regards, Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From randy at psg.com Sun Oct 14 00:57:17 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:57:17 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> Message-ID: <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> amusingly one-sided. o arin may terminate if holder does not... but nothing about if arin does not o arin may choose to ignore change request, which may be solely why the holder is interested in doing this at all o 4d si all about holder following laws, ... but nothing about arin doing so o 5b says holder responsible for accurate whois, but 4b makes clear that arin controls all data, and thereby may prevent compliance o and on and on and on if this was drawn two parties negotiating a fair win-win contract, it would be far more balanced. but this is a "my way or the highway" contract drawn by one party thinking it controls all the cards. maybe in a few iterations, when it is less one-sided and arrogant, i will think about spending a lawyer's time looking at it. randy From randy at psg.com Sun Oct 14 01:29:08 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:29:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> <4711A5BA.2090209@psg.com> Message-ID: <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> > Almost of all the terms parallel the existing RSA agreement, only > with the addition of recognition that policies shall not diminish > existing right and privileges of a legacy holder oh? then what is section 9? yes, arin may not think the holder has such rights. but if that was really the case, why would arin make relinquishing them part of the contract? > nor shall ARIN take action or reduce services as a result of unused > legacy space. then why does it demand contractual right to audit? > Sorry... thanks for the reference (and I now realize your original > point that holder must xxx or else, but nowhere does it say ARIN must > YY or else) yep > It's not as clearly spelt out, but in 14(c) there's termination if > ARIN breaches the agreement and doesn't cure after 30 days. where is holder given 30 days to cure? see lack of parallel respect? randy From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Oct 14 01:56:38 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:56:38 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> <4711A5BA.2090209@psg.com> <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> Message-ID: At 10:29 PM -0700 10/13/07, Randy Bush wrote: > > Almost of all the terms parallel the existing RSA agreement, only >> with the addition of recognition that policies shall not diminish >> existing right and privileges of a legacy holder > >oh? then what is section 9? yes, arin may not think the holder has >such rights. but if that was really the case, why would arin make >relinquishing them part of the contract? >... >then why does it demand contractual right to audit? The terms of the current RSA include both of these as well. We tried to stay as close to the current RSA as possible (for fairness to existing members), with the addition of the language which recognizes the legacy holders status with respect to policies which might otherwise reduce their rights. /John From dean at av8.com Sun Oct 14 02:31:39 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> Message-ID: Having reviewed the Legacy RSA, I can say that it removes a number of significant rights from Legacies. With the exception of fees, it is about as onerous and encumbered as the regular RSA. Embedded in the document is again the threat of denial of services. The agreement states that by signing agreement, ARIN will Legacies get a fee of $100/yr through 2013. After 2013, the fees can go up. Section 3. A great deal of the agreement is at ARIN's sole discretion. It looks like a Legacy that signs this agreement can lose their block if ARIN "Determines in its sole discretion that it cannot provide services". Section 4. Under the new agreement, if one doesn't 'cooperate' with ARIN, again in its sole discretion, may take back the block. Wow. ARIN can take back a block if the applicant is ever found to violate 'any applicable laws, statutes or regulations by a ruling...'. Guess McDonalds won't be able to keep their block. They violate health regulations somewhere every day. ARIN can take back a block if the applicant _assists_ anyone doing something prohibited by this document. I guess that means ISC loses its blocks, because it assists SORBS and Alan Brown, who has been found in a court to violate the law for defamation. Oh wait, those aren't legacy blocks.... Applicant is responsible for timely management and accurate maintenance of whois data and SWIP data. So if your whois or SWIP gets out of date, you are in violation of the agreement; you lose your block. Wow. Section 8. ARIN may review your allocation once per year. If you don't comply with the allocation policy, ARIN can back your block. Section 12. Bankruptcy is another provision. If a legacy declares bankruptcy under any chapter (even debt reorganization!), then ARIN can take back the block. I can see taking back a block when a chapter 7 bankruptcy or other chapter leading to termination of business would justify taking back a block. However, there is no reason why chapter 11 (debt reorganization), which doesn't lead to business termination and in fact prevents creditors from halting operations, should be justification for ARIN taking back blocks. This is a flaw in the NPRM, too. What's worse, if SOMEONE ELSE files a bankruptcy petition against you, ARIN can take back the block. Wow. Guess there will be a lot of frivolous bankruptcy petitions against people they don't like. This is also in the RSA, but I hadn't noticed it before. Section 14. Term and Termination. ARIN can terminate immediately with cause (violations above), or at each year. Its a very lopsided agreement. Section 15. The only right the legacy keeps is the right to transfer. Well, not exactly. One now needs ARIN's written permission. There's also an anti-Kremen v ARIN, Kremen v. Cohen clause to say that blocks cannot be re-assigned involuntarilly by a Court. Wow. One of the serious flaws is that one must agree to resolve disputes through arbitration. Arbitration is a fine way to cheaply resolve small disputes, where all that is needed a reasonable third person to resolve trivial disputes. However, there is no appeal from arbitration. If one goes to Court, and the judge makes a mistake, that mistake can be corrected. But if an arbitrator makes a mistake, there is no way to correct that. An arbitrator also may not have any sophisticated understanding of the law. They are often lawyers, but need not be lawyers. Even where they are lawyers, they may not be experts in the legal issues relevant to your case. So, for any complicated case, where there is more possibility of mistake, there is no possibility that mistake can be corrected. This makes arbitration a very bad choice for anything of importance, where proper adherence to the law is important. So, I think it is a bad idea to agree to arbitration on any significant issue. Certainly, Legacies have not previously agreed to arbitration, nor anything else in this Legacy RSA. What a horribly unfair and lopsided agreement. The regular RSA is a real doozy, too, I just noticed. Time to write those letters to Congress. We definitely need a new, FAIR registrar. I think we can now say without doubt that this Legacy RSA removes rights from Legacies who sign it and transfers those rights to ARIN. And as a result, there is an even stronger argument that ARIN, by creating a fear of denial of services in the minds of Legacies, and then obtaining contract and property rights from Legacies, has engaged in extortion and racketeering as explained in my previous message (repeated below) It also remains unclear at what Board Meeting this was discussed. It remains unclear what NRPM change allows it to be accepted. It remains unclear why community input on the document wasn't solicited before it was released. It is however clear what benefits ARIN obtains from Legacies. >From my previous message (Friday): It occurs to me that the release of the Legacy RSA just announced violates the process of ARIN to solicit input from the membership before adopting a new license. The ARIN community should discuss the license and decide the terms just like any other significant change in ARIN. ARIN can't just drop a new licence without any discussion. It also occurs to me that Legacy RSA, if it removes _any_ privilege or value from Legacy's, is extortion. From Blacks Law dictionary: Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C.A section 871 et seq; section 1951 ARIN, in statements by it lawyer, and supported by Chairman Curran's statements, has threatened to deny service to Legacy's under the color of official right, creating fear and thereby inducing Legacy's to agree to an RSA that (presumably) removes valuable rights from Legacy's. There are references to the Hobbs Act (racketeering) if the extortion interferes with interstate commerce (it does, since whois and in-addr services are used in interstate commerce.) Anticipating that people might argue that IP Addresses aren't property, I looked up what property is. According to Black's Law Dictionary, in criminal law, the term 'property' includes contract rights, and that is exactly what the subject is here. --Dean On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Member Services wrote: > The Legacy Registration Services Agreement (RSA), first referenced in the 11 October 2007 announcement, > has been posted to the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf. > > A Frequently Asked Questions document is also available to assist the community at: > http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa_faq.html > > An implementation date will be announced in the near future. > > Regards, > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From aaron.dewell at woods.net Sun Oct 14 03:07:20 2007 From: aaron.dewell at woods.net (Aaron Dewell) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:07:20 +0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1192345640.6015.11.camel@gogo.woods.net> My interpretation of this is that you are not really looking for increased _fairness_ from ARIN, as by applying roughly the same (lack of) rights to all, they pretty much fufill the definition of fair. Your dispute is that you want more protection of your blocks, property, rights, whatever. That's a separate issue than "fairness". I believe the ARIN viewpoint is that these blocks are owned by them, retained by them, however, they allow you certain rights to use them. Those rights are fully revokeable at any time by ARIN, pretty much whenever they want to, as these resources are owned by them at all times. So by this view, it is in ARIN's sole discretion to allow you or not to allow you to use them. Now, you might dispute that viewpoint, and claim that these are assignable property/rights that should not be revoked except for more dramatic cause than what the current RSA allows. My point is that the issue is not "fairness", your issue is with what level of rights are associated with a registration (regardless of type). IMHO, the level of rights associated with registrations is pretty much set at this point, and while ARIN has the right to revoke any registration at pretty much any time, they have not done so arbitrarily to my knowledge. So trying to petition Congress to change the organization is rolling the dice as to whether the new organization would be as "fair" or would be more arbitrary. Aaron On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 02:31 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > Having reviewed the Legacy RSA, I can say that it removes a number of > significant rights from Legacies. With the exception of fees, it is > about as onerous and encumbered as the regular RSA. > > Embedded in the document is again the threat of denial of services. The > agreement states that by signing agreement, ARIN will > > Legacies get a fee of $100/yr through 2013. After 2013, the fees can > go up. > > Section 3. A great deal of the agreement is at ARIN's sole discretion. > It looks like a Legacy that signs this agreement can lose their block if > ARIN "Determines in its sole discretion that it cannot provide > services". > > > Section 4. Under the new agreement, if one doesn't 'cooperate' with > ARIN, again in its sole discretion, may take back the block. Wow. > > ARIN can take back a block if the applicant is ever found to violate > 'any applicable laws, statutes or regulations by a ruling...'. Guess > McDonalds won't be able to keep their block. They violate health > regulations somewhere every day. > > ARIN can take back a block if the applicant _assists_ anyone doing > something prohibited by this document. I guess that means ISC loses its > blocks, because it assists SORBS and Alan Brown, who has been found in a > court to violate the law for defamation. Oh wait, those aren't legacy > blocks.... > > Applicant is responsible for timely management and accurate maintenance > of whois data and SWIP data. So if your whois or SWIP gets out of date, > you are in violation of the agreement; you lose your block. Wow. > > Section 8. ARIN may review your allocation once per year. If you don't > comply with the allocation policy, ARIN can back your block. > > Section 12. Bankruptcy is another provision. If a legacy declares > bankruptcy under any chapter (even debt reorganization!), then ARIN can > take back the block. I can see taking back a block when a chapter 7 > bankruptcy or other chapter leading to termination of business would > justify taking back a block. However, there is no reason why chapter 11 > (debt reorganization), which doesn't lead to business termination and in > fact prevents creditors from halting operations, should be justification > for ARIN taking back blocks. This is a flaw in the NPRM, too. > > What's worse, if SOMEONE ELSE files a bankruptcy petition against you, > ARIN can take back the block. Wow. Guess there will be a lot of > frivolous bankruptcy petitions against people they don't like. This is > also in the RSA, but I hadn't noticed it before. > > Section 14. Term and Termination. ARIN can terminate immediately with > cause (violations above), or at each year. Its a very lopsided > agreement. > > Section 15. The only right the legacy keeps is the right to transfer. > Well, not exactly. One now needs ARIN's written permission. There's also > an anti-Kremen v ARIN, Kremen v. Cohen clause to say that blocks cannot > be re-assigned involuntarilly by a Court. Wow. > > One of the serious flaws is that one must agree to resolve disputes > through arbitration. Arbitration is a fine way to cheaply resolve small > disputes, where all that is needed a reasonable third person to resolve > trivial disputes. However, there is no appeal from arbitration. If one > goes to Court, and the judge makes a mistake, that mistake can be > corrected. But if an arbitrator makes a mistake, there is no way to > correct that. An arbitrator also may not have any sophisticated > understanding of the law. They are often lawyers, but need not be > lawyers. Even where they are lawyers, they may not be experts in the > legal issues relevant to your case. So, for any complicated case, where > there is more possibility of mistake, there is no possibility that > mistake can be corrected. This makes arbitration a very bad choice for > anything of importance, where proper adherence to the law is important. > So, I think it is a bad idea to agree to arbitration on any significant > issue. Certainly, Legacies have not previously agreed to arbitration, > nor anything else in this Legacy RSA. > > What a horribly unfair and lopsided agreement. The regular RSA is a real > doozy, too, I just noticed. Time to write those letters to Congress. We > definitely need a new, FAIR registrar. > > I think we can now say without doubt that this Legacy RSA removes rights > from Legacies who sign it and transfers those rights to ARIN. And as a > result, there is an even stronger argument that ARIN, by creating a fear > of denial of services in the minds of Legacies, and then obtaining > contract and property rights from Legacies, has engaged in extortion and > racketeering as explained in my previous message (repeated below) > > It also remains unclear at what Board Meeting this was discussed. It > remains unclear what NRPM change allows it to be accepted. It remains > unclear why community input on the document wasn't solicited before it > was released. > > It is however clear what benefits ARIN obtains from Legacies. > > >From my previous message (Friday): > > It occurs to me that the release of the Legacy RSA just announced > violates the process of ARIN to solicit input from the membership before > adopting a new license. The ARIN community should discuss the license > and decide the terms just like any other significant change in ARIN. > ARIN can't just drop a new licence without any discussion. > > It also occurs to me that Legacy RSA, if it removes _any_ privilege or > value from Legacy's, is extortion. From Blacks Law dictionary: > > Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful > use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of > official right. 18 U.S.C.A section 871 et seq; section 1951 > > ARIN, in statements by it lawyer, and supported by Chairman Curran's > statements, has threatened to deny service to Legacy's under the color > of official right, creating fear and thereby inducing Legacy's to agree > to an RSA that (presumably) removes valuable rights from Legacy's. > > There are references to the Hobbs Act (racketeering) if the extortion > interferes with interstate commerce (it does, since whois and in-addr > services are used in interstate commerce.) > > Anticipating that people might argue that IP Addresses aren't property, > I looked up what property is. According to Black's Law Dictionary, in > criminal law, the term 'property' includes contract rights, and that is > exactly what the subject is here. > > --Dean > > > > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Member Services wrote: > > > The Legacy Registration Services Agreement (RSA), first referenced in the 11 October 2007 announcement, > > has been posted to the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf. > > > > A Frequently Asked Questions document is also available to assist the community at: > > http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa_faq.html > > > > An implementation date will be announced in the near future. > > > > Regards, > > > > Raymond A. Plzak > > President & CEO > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy > > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services > > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > From randy at psg.com Sun Oct 14 06:52:05 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:52:05 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> <4711A5BA.2090209@psg.com> <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> Message-ID: <4711F4D5.6000508@psg.com> John Curran wrote: > At 10:29 PM -0700 10/13/07, Randy Bush wrote: >>> Almost of all the terms parallel the existing RSA agreement, only >>> with the addition of recognition that policies shall not diminish >>> existing right and privileges of a legacy holder >> oh? then what is section 9? yes, arin may not think the holder has >> such rights. but if that was really the case, why would arin make >> relinquishing them part of the contract? >> ... >> then why does it demand contractual right to audit? > The terms of the current RSA include both of these > as well. We tried to stay as close to the current RSA > as possible (for fairness to existing members), with > the addition of the language which recognizes the > legacy holders status with respect to policies which > might otherwise reduce their rights. section 9 is a wonderful example of rights reduction. randy From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Oct 14 07:27:22 2007 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:27:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <4711F4D5.6000508@psg.com> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> <4711A5BA.2090209@psg.com> <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> <4711F4D5.6000508@psg.com> Message-ID: At 3:52 AM -0700 10/14/07, Randy Bush wrote: >John Curran wrote: > >... > > The terms of the current RSA include both of these >> as well. We tried to stay as close to the current RSA >> as possible (for fairness to existing members), with >> the addition of the language which recognizes the >> legacy holders status with respect to policies which >> might otherwise reduce their rights. > >section 9 is a wonderful example of rights reduction. One can look at it that way, but it comes along with 10(b) which states: "ARIN will take no action to reduce the services provided for Included Number Resources that are not currently being utilized by the Legacy Applicant." This may be an example of rights enhancement; particular if one considers that it effectively undoes existing language of RFC2050 regarding underutilized resource reclamation. One trades the present undefined state for an agreement which provides clarity for the legacy holder's ability to use their address space, have access to ARIN services for data record maintenance, and not be subject to future policies that would reduce their rights. There is a policy proposal active (2007-15) which would require a Legacy RSA agreement, so the Board took the action to prepare the necessary agreement. /John From randy at psg.com Sun Oct 14 08:41:30 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 05:41:30 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> <4711A5BA.2090209@psg.com> <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> <4711F4D5.6000508@psg.com> Message-ID: <47120E7A.4000601@psg.com> >>> The terms of the current RSA include both of these >>> as well. We tried to stay as close to the current RSA >>> as possible (for fairness to existing members), with >>> the addition of the language which recognizes the >>> legacy holders status with respect to policies which >>> might otherwise reduce their rights. >> section 9 is a wonderful example of rights reduction. > > One can look at it that way, but it comes along with 10(b) > which states: "ARIN will take no action to reduce the services > provided for Included Number Resources that are not currently > being utilized by the Legacy Applicant." and that ameliorates section 9 exactly how? to be clear, no one's lawyer, who has half a clue, will advise them to enter into this contract, section 9 being the poster child. randy From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Sun Oct 14 09:19:55 2007 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:19:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <4711F4D5.6000508@psg.com> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40748D294@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Everyone potentially affected by the Legacy RSA can make up their own minds, with their own legal counsel. Each person can also make their own determination of the value of amateur legal counsel on Internet mailing lists. Constructive suggestions to ARIN are wonderful and encouraged. > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Randy Bush > > section 9 is a wonderful example of rights reduction. > > randy No, it says that number resources are not property. Lee From vixie at vix.com Sun Oct 14 11:07:18 2007 From: vixie at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: 14 Oct 2007 15:07:18 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <47120E7A.4000601@psg.com> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> <4711A5BA.2090209@psg.com> <4711A924.5010301@psg.com> <4711F4D5.6000508@psg.com> <47120E7A.4000601@psg.com> Message-ID: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) writes: > to be clear, no one's lawyer, who has half a clue, will advise them to > enter into this contract, section 9 being the poster child. that just ain't so, and i know the lawyer in question. while i did not keep ISC's interests in mind during the drafting of this RSA, i do plan to have ISC enter into this contract as soon as it's executable. i guess this means i consider the contract to be in the best interests of both ARIN and ISC, or that it memorializes the agreement i thought these two parties were already (informally) in, or perhaps both. -- Paul Vixie From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sun Oct 14 12:30:46 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:30:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710140930x750ea519mf39daed62e872a8c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/07, Member Services wrote: > http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf. First, thanks to Ray and the rest. This is a big step in the right direction. I'd like to offer some thoughts and suggestions: Major suggestions: As others have mentioned, this contract is a little lopsided against the registrant. This can be directly cured in 14d and 14e. Consider the following replacements: (d) Termination by Legacy Applicant Through Return of Number Resources. Legacy Applicant shall have the right to terminate this agreement by submitting thirty (30) days prior written notice to ARIN of its intent to end the agreement. (e) Effect of Termination. If this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated: (i) ARIN may immediately cease providing services including but not limited to whois and reverse DNS delegation and will have no liability for doing so, (ii) Legacy Applicant must immediately pay ARIN any outstanding fees that Legacy Applicant owes, (iii) All involuntary revocation activity taken by ARIN against the registrant in the 90 days preceding termination shall be void, and (iv) All legal rights to use the number resources then remaining active under the Legacy Agreement shall return to the legacy registrant. Explanation: This would give the legacy registrant the final trump card, which is as it should be. If ARIN ever meaningfully oversteps its bounds, the Legacy Registrant reserves the right to walk away. ARIN would have no further legal or moral responsibilities due that registrant (no RDNS, no whois, nothing) but ARIN would also have no rights arising under this agreement to reclaim the number resources unless the agreement itself continues. Minor suggestions: Remove 15i. Its obviously false and might piss off the court in an action arising out of the contract. I understand the purpose; it attempts to get around a normal legal right associated with non-negotiated contracts. Don't do it; the courts have good reason to construe contracts against the drafter. Regards, Bill Herrin From randy at psg.com Sun Oct 14 13:07:15 2007 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:07:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0710140930x750ea519mf39daed62e872a8c@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <3c3e3fca0710140930x750ea519mf39daed62e872a8c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47124CC3.3070402@psg.com> > (e) Effect of Termination. If this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated: > ... > (ii) Legacy Applicant must immediately pay ARIN any outstanding fees > that Legacy Applicant owes, what if termination was due to breach by arin? randy From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sun Oct 14 13:24:12 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:24:12 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <47124CC3.3070402@psg.com> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <3c3e3fca0710140930x750ea519mf39daed62e872a8c@mail.gmail.com> <47124CC3.3070402@psg.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710141024y55f5051cm8cec2c505fe5b1f0@mail.gmail.com> On 10/14/07, Randy Bush wrote: > > (e) Effect of Termination. If this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated: > > ... > > (ii) Legacy Applicant must immediately pay ARIN any outstanding fees > > that Legacy Applicant owes, > > what if termination was due to breach by arin? Randy, Then pay the hundred bucks you owe and walk away. Seriously, isn't a hundred bucks in one direction or the other a petty matter in this discussion? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From drc at virtualized.org Sun Oct 14 14:48:15 2007 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:48:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40748D294@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40748D294@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: <164D3B28-9EBC-497D-ADA9-F00E622C1A16@virtualized.org> Hi, On Oct 14, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Howard, W. Lee wrote: > Everyone potentially affected by the Legacy RSA can make up their > own minds, with their own legal counsel. Indeed. I applaud ARIN for making a constructive effort towards some resolution to issues involving "legacy" address space (regardless of how it is defined). These issues will likely become more and more critical as the IPv4 is further depleted and it is good to bring discussions to the table. I have no comments about the legal terms of the Legacy RSA. In fact, most of my comments are actually in relation to the FAQ. My concerns: a) I have been told that given the Legacy RSA is a contractual document, the proper mechanism for asking questions about the document is the ARIN Consulting and Suggestions process. The fact that ARIN board members are discussing this document on PPML does alleviate this concern somewhat, but it would be helpful if an official statement regarding the status of the posted Legacy RSA and the appropriate venue/mechanism for discussing it were made. b) The definition of "legacy" address space in the FAQ may be confusing given how (at least) APNIC initially operated prior to the creation of ARIN. I might recommend defining legacy address space to be something like "address space allocated without a formal agreement on the part of the requester and the registry". c) Q&A 5 of the FAQ states: "Q5. What will happen to unused number resources I choose to relinquish? A5. Such resources will eventually be assigned to new applicants who can demonstrate the appropriate need for such resources per the need- based number resource policies in the ARIN region. If ARIN receives more unused resources than are needed in its service area, the number resources can be returned to IANA for its use or assignment to other RIRs." I personally believe this to be wholly inappropriate. IP addresses are global resources and returned legacy address space should be returned to IANA for disposition according to global policies, not returned to ARIN for reassignment by ARIN in the ARIN service area according to ARIN policies. d) in Q&A 6 of the FAQ (or in a new FQA item) it would probably be worthwhile to make explicit what ARIN believes its obligations are, if any, to legacy address holders who do NOT sign the RSA. Again, I believe the posting of the Legacy RSA is a good first step towards addressing the legacy address space situation. I look forward to further discussions on the policies, both implied and assumed, that create the environment in which a Legacy RSA can be implemented. Regards, -drc (speaking personally) From arin-contact at dirtside.com Sun Oct 14 15:31:00 2007 From: arin-contact at dirtside.com (William Herrin) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:31:00 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <164D3B28-9EBC-497D-ADA9-F00E622C1A16@virtualized.org> References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40748D294@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> <164D3B28-9EBC-497D-ADA9-F00E622C1A16@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0710141231rd98fb0ew8842d49d6d035f80@mail.gmail.com> On 10/14/07, David Conrad wrote: > b) The definition of "legacy" address space in the FAQ may be > confusing given how (at least) APNIC initially operated prior to the > creation of ARIN. I might recommend defining legacy address space to > be something like "address space allocated without a formal agreement > on the part of the requester and the registry". David, Technically, its not even that, at least not as I understand it. Legacy address space is space which was assigned prior to ARIN's existance for which for which ARIN currently provides the registration services (RDNS, Whois). The old /8's, for example, are not ARIN Legacy Registrants. > A5. Such resources will eventually be assigned to new applicants who > can demonstrate the appropriate need for such resources per the need- > based number resource policies in the ARIN region. If ARIN receives > more unused resources than are needed in its service area, the number > resources can be returned to IANA for its use or assignment to other > RIRs." > > I personally believe this to be wholly inappropriate. IP addresses > are global resources and returned legacy address space should be > returned to IANA for disposition according to global policies, not > returned to ARIN for reassignment by ARIN in the ARIN service area > according to ARIN policies. Again, these registrations are already in ARIN-managed space. The point here as I take it is that if there were some outpouring of addresses that freed up /8s faster that ARIN registrants consumed them, ARIN would return those /8's to IANA. > d) in Q&A 6 of the FAQ (or in a new FQA item) it would probably be > worthwhile to make explicit what ARIN believes its obligations are, > if any, to legacy address holders who do NOT sign the RSA. I respectfully disagree. The whole point is that if you don't sign the Legacy RSA, your future is uncertain. But then, perhaps that should be said explicitly: Legacy Registrants who choose not to sign the RSA will be subject to whatever laws, ICANN policies and ARIN policies are eventually enacted to deal with such registrants. That should scare everybody into signing. :) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jis at MIT.EDU Sun Oct 14 16:09:31 2007 From: jis at MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Schiller) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:09:31 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> References: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net> <4711A1AD.5020002@psg.com> Message-ID: <1192392571.5954.23.camel@jis-desktop> Disclaimer: I work for MIT, the holder of "Legacy" address space (including a /8). That said, I am speaking here as an individual and not a representative of MIT (though I can speak from the experience of operating MIT's network for > 20 years). Looking over the Legacy RSA I see if addresses two different goals: 1. Arrange for "Legacy" holders receiving services from ARIN (WHOIS, Reverse DNS) to enter into an agreement with ARIN and to pay their fair share for the services rendered. 2. Arrange for Legacy holders to "acknowledge" ARIN as their registration agent and to bring their assignments under ARIN's policies (albeit with a few extra privileges). The current legacy RSA mixes these two goals, and as others have pointed out, it has more then a few issues associated with it. I would propose that ARIN consider yet another legacy RSA which only deals with [1] above. It doesn't go into address assignment issues at all (though it may require that the applicant assert that they are a legacy holder and demonstrate it in some way). I suggest that such an agreement would be a much easier sell and would get more organizations into the ARIN "tent". This would have the benefit that it would not only bring in some more revenue for ARIN (and address some of people's fairness concerns about who is paying for providing WHOIS and Reverse DNS services) it would also improve the communities records of who all of the legacy holders are. Last time I checked (albeit a while ago) there wasn't a good way to update information in ARIN's database unless you signed an RSA. The upshot of this is that there may well be stale information that would be updated if organizations could sign an RSA that didn't deal with [2]. -Jeff -- ======================================================================== Jeffrey I. Schiller MIT Network Manager Information Services and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Room W92-190 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 617.253.0161 - Voice jis at mit.edu ======================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 2164 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dean at av8.net Sun Oct 14 15:06:51 2007 From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB40748D294@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote: > Everyone potentially affected by the Legacy RSA can make up > their own minds, with their own legal counsel. Each person > can also make their own determination of the value of > amateur legal counsel on Internet mailing lists. > Constructive suggestions to ARIN are wonderful and encouraged. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Randy Bush > > > > section 9 is a wonderful example of rights reduction. > > > > randy > > No, it says that number resources are not property. It makes both parties agree. There was previously property rights in IP Addresses. I have long been under the impression that there were no _ownership_ rights in IP Blocks. However, as I look back at the documents, I can find no official statement to this effect, either. --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.net Sun Oct 14 15:20:04 2007 From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: <1192345640.6015.11.camel@gogo.woods.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Aaron Dewell wrote: > > My interpretation of this is that you are not really looking for > increased _fairness_ from ARIN, as by applying roughly the same (lack > of) rights to all, they pretty much fufill the definition of fair. Your > dispute is that you want more protection of your blocks, property, > rights, whatever. That's a separate issue than "fairness". 'Fairness' in a contract means that both sides have some rights. A contract must be a 'fair bargain' to be valid. Indeed, a contract that gives no rights to one party is invalid. The RSA (both I suspect) could be invalid for that reason. Fairness between legacy terms and non-legacy terms, fairness of pricing between a small non-legacy allocation and a large non-legacy allocation are about the differences between one contract an another contract. But such differences don't generally make the contracts invalid, no matter how unfair the differences in the terms between one contract and another contract are. I don't think the Legacies have an unfair deal, despite the differences in terms. Legacies are just reaping the benefits of the sweat and toil and risk that non-legacies didn't contribute to, but still benefited from. --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.net Sun Oct 14 17:32:14 2007 From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 14 Oct 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: > randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) writes: > > to be clear, no one's lawyer, who has half a clue, will advise them to > > enter into this contract, section 9 being the poster child. > > that just ain't so, and i know the lawyer in question. > > while i did not keep ISC's interests in mind during the drafting of this > RSA, i do plan to have ISC enter into this contract as soon as it's > executable. i guess this means i consider the contract to be in the best > interests of both ARIN and ISC, or that it memorializes the agreement i > thought these two parties were already (informally) in, or perhaps both. As far as I can tell, by implication of the procedures and dates, ISC does not have (should not have) any legacy allocations that haven't already been converted to RSA, I found 6 allocations for ISC (ISC-NET[1-6]) comprising 12 different blocks totaling 76,544 IP addresses. That's a lot of IP addresses for a company that claims not to be in the internet service business. These blocks were all updated on October 5th, 2004, presumably to effect the ORG name change. On the premise that the blocks have a different name, I looked at our BGP view to see what blocks originate in AS1280, AS3557, AS27312, AS27322, AS30130, AS30131, AS30132 AS33072, AS33074, and AS33075. BTW, can you explain why there are no ARIN records for AS27322, AS30130, or AS30131? These are in ARIN AS Blocks. RADB has records that point to ISC, and ISC Address blocks originate from these AS numbers. [More unusual record-keeping problems for ARIN BoT Members related to RADB, too. tsk.tsk.] There are a number of corporations that might be known as "ISC": INTERNET SOFTWARE CONSORTIUM, California, 1997 950 Charter Street, Redwood City, CA 94043 INTERNET SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM, INC, Delaware non-profit, 2003 (no address available) INTERNET SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM, INC, California, 2004 950 Charter Street, Redwood City, CA 94043 INTERNET SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Delaware general (for profit) 2005 (no address available) INTERNET SYSTEMS CORPORATION, California, 2006 950 Charter Street, Redwood City, CA 94043 Quite a complicated web of incorporation activity. Only one is a 501(c)3 non-profit. Which one is that? How do you distinguish the for-profit ISC from the non-profit ISC? (this distinction seems very questionable to me. I thought one wasn't allowed to mix non-profit and for-profit money) It is my understanding that changing the ORG name of a block requires an RSA. So, since ISC changed the ORG name in 2004, that would require a new contract, and so ISC must be subject to the RSA for those 6 blocks. Maybe you mean the Palo Alto Unified School District's /17? That appears like it could be a legacy block. Or maybe you mean the PSI block 154.17/16 that is originated by ISC on AS3557. That doesn't seem to belong to ISC, but it looks like it might be a legacy block. There are some other probably legacies associate with ISC, originated by ISC. Carl Malamud's TRYSTERO block (Malamud was an ISC founder) Brian Reid's BKR-HOME-NET block. City of Palo Alto NETBLK-PA-CITY-NET block And now that I look into it, you also have several blocks that aren't advertised 199.6.2.0/24 nit 199.6.8.0/22, 1024 nit 199.6.12.0/23, 512 nit 199.6.14.0/24 256 nit I imagine those can go back to ARIN, right? --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From info at arin.net Sun Oct 14 18:38:05 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:38:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7 - Staff Assessment Message-ID: <47129A4D.4000600@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2006-7 Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria ARIN Staff Assessment The assessment of this proposal includes comments from ARIN staff and the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal, and resource concerns regarding the implementation of this policy proposal as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language of the proposal may necessitate further analysis by staff and Counsel. I. Proposal Policy Proposal 2006-7 is available as Annex A below and at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_7.html II. Understanding of the proposal ARIN staff understands this proposal would add to the list of criteria for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space (NRPM section 6.5.1.1.). Specifically, in addition to the common criteria, if an ISP is not known, nor can it provide a plan, it can instead attempt to justify intent to announce the address space within one year. III. Comments A. ARIN staff 1. Change I - the statement be a ?known ISP? is still contained in this policy. This term is ambiguous and open to interpretation and should be defined. It should be noted that there is no authoritative definition for either ISP or LIR. 2. ARIN staff is concerned about confusion that may occur if the text is inserted as the author indicated (letter "d" already has an "or"). ARIN staff has suggested alternative placement; see Annex B below. 3. What criteria would staff use to verify that an organization is new to providing "Internet services"? 4. What actions should staff take at the end of 1 year if the v6 block is not announced? 5. The requirement to announce the v6 block at the end of 1 year would seem to preclude the use of this address space on a private network. Is that the intent of this proposal? B. ARIN General Counsel This policy as proposed poses no significant legal risks for ARIN. IV. Resource Impact - Minimal The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as minimum. Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be implemented within 30 - 90 days from the date of the ratification of the policy by the ARIN Board of Trustees. Implementation would not require the acquisition of staff personnel or equipment. It will require the following: - Revisions to registration guidelines - Staff Training Respectfully submitted, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ##*## Annex A Policy Proposal 2006-7 Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria Proposal type: Insert a new additional line item e. to 6.5.1.1 of NRPM Policy term: permanent Policy statement: New organizations need a policy that allows them to apply for IPv6 address space. To provide this we need to insert a new additional line item to 6.5.1.1. The new line item would be line 'e' as follows: e. OR be an organization new to providing internet services, and can justify intent to announce the requested IPv6 address space within one year, through records such as contracts, inventory and/or other applicable documentation. Rationale: - New organizations who do not want to use IPv4 at all and start off using IPv6 addresses only, need a policy that gives them permission to do so. This is also valid for existing companies that may or may not have assigned IPv4 addresses and now want to start offering IPv6 services. These organizations may also wish to request IPv4 at the same time. - One year is given as the sufficient time frame to actually implement usage of the IPv6 address space and reveal if the 'said organization' is truly using the IPv6 space granted. - Every means of documentation that can reveal 'true intent of use' is not listed as this can be a very long list and should be left to the discretion of the RIR staff. - An ISP or LIR may decide to assign a different prefix size than /48. For example, a cellular operator may use /64. - ASN is not required because as long as they are statically routed to an upstream and don't want to run bgp/announce directly to the Internet, they don't need an ASN, therefore we shouldn't create policy that would contribute to ASN bloat. - Organization in this is defined as a Corporation, ISP, LLC et al. In SUMMARY if this policy is implemented the change to the NRPM would read as follows: 6.5.1.1 Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPV6 address space, an organization must: a. be a LIR; b. not be an end site; c. plan to provide IPV6 connectivity to which it will assign IPV6 address space, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; d. be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200/48 assignments to other organizations within five years. e. OR be an organization new to providing internet services, and can justify intent to announce the requested IPV6 address space within one year, through records such as contracts, inventory and/or other applicable documentation. Timetable for implementation: Immediate ##*## Annex B ARIN staff suggested format for the insertion of the policy text 6.5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: a. be an LIR; b. not be an end site; c. plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it will assign IPv6 address space, by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d. meet at least one of the following: 1. be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region. 2. have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within five years. 3. be an organization new to providing internet services that can justify intent to announce the requested IPv6 address space within one year, through records such as contracts, inventory and/or other applicable documentation. From info at arin.net Sun Oct 14 18:39:53 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:39:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-13 - Staff Assessment Message-ID: <47129AB9.9090001@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-13 Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User ARIN Staff Assessment The assessment of this proposal includes comments from ARIN staff and the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal, and resource concerns regarding the implementation of this policy proposal as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language of the proposal may necessitate further analysis by staff and Counsel. I. Proposal Policy Proposal is available as Annex A below and at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_13.html II. Understanding of the proposal ARIN staff understands that this proposal would remove NRPM Section "4.3.4 Additional considerations" in order to remove text that conflicts with Section "4.2.1.6 Immediate need". III. Comments A. ARIN Staff If the immediate need clause is removed from this policy, then the immediate need policy (Number Resource Policy Manual section 4.2.1.6) needs to be amended to provide for end users. Otherwise, ARIN may not be able to meet the needs of end users who have no current address space in use. B. ARIN General Counsel No legal implications. Resource Impact ? Minimal The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as minimum. Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be implemented within 120 days from the date of the ratification of the policy by the ARIN Board of Trustees. It will require the following: - Updates to Guidelines will be required - Staff training will be required Respectfully submitted, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ##*## Annex A Policy Proposal 2007-13 Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User Author: Rob Seastrom, David Williamson, Owen DeLong Proposal type: delete Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Delete section 4.3.4, which reads: 4.3.4. Additional considerations End-users may qualify for address space under other policies such as Immediate need [4.2.1.6] or Micro-allocation [4.4]. from the NRPM. Rationale: As discussed at ARIN XIX, section 4.3.4 creates a conflict with section 4.2.1.6 in that section 4.2.1.6 specifically excludes end users while section 4.3.4 is specifically for end users. Prior to the development of the multihoming policy for end users, the immediate need policy was required in order to support end users being able to get address space under some circumstances. The "immediate need" title is a misnomer as it is more an issue of "initial need without prior address utilization" than "immediate need". Such initial needs for end users are now addressed best through the multihoming policy. Timetable for implementation: immediate From info at arin.net Sun Oct 14 18:40:34 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:40:34 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-14 - Staff Assessment Message-ID: <47129AE2.8080502@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-14 Resource Review Process ARIN Staff Assessment The assessment of this proposal includes comments from ARIN staff and the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal, and resource concerns regarding the implementation of this policy proposal as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language of the proposal may necessitate further analysis by staff and Counsel. I. Proposal Policy Proposal is available as Annex A below and at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_14.html II. Understanding of the proposal This policy proposal provides clear policy authority to audit or reclaim resources, guidelines for how it shall be done, and a guarantee of a (minimum) six-month grace period so that the current user shall have time to stop using any resources to be reclaimed. III. Comments A. ARIN Staff 1) 2c does not reconcile with the RSA, which grants ARIN authority to request any data necessary and does not specify any sort of limitation to frequency. 2) Point 4 refers to ?ARIN delegation?. Does this include legacy registrations or is it only ARIN issued resources? 3) Point 3 requires ARIN notify an organization each time a review is conducted. ARIN interprets a review to mean a full audit of an organization's resources conducted by ARIN staff. 4) Points 4 and 5 use the term ?compliance?. ARIN interprets this as bringing the organization into compliance with current policy. 5) Point 4 uses the terms ?single aggregate block?.and ?whole resources?. Are these terms used synonymously to refer to a single CIDR prefix, or to ?a contiguous range of addresses?? 6) Point 6 sets the minimum hold time at 6 months. Current staff procedure is a minimum of one year. 7) Point 6 compels ARIN to take action which doesn?t reconcile with the RSA, which (as articulated above) allows ARIN to take whatever action is necessary. 8) Author did not indicate placement in the NRPM. We would insert as "Section 12 Resource Review Process." B. ARIN General Counsel "Counsel strongly supports some version of this policy being enacted and believes adoption of this policy will save significant future legal fees. This policy proposal spells out a series of customary and contractual policies and rights that are important to make as clear as possible. Counsel does not agree with that portion of the description which states ARIN "feels that current policy does not give them the power...." And believes such powers are adequately vested in ARIN' but believes instead such powers can always be more carefully delineated for ease of understanding." IV. Resource Impact ? Minimal The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as minimal. Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be implemented within 30 ? 90 days from the date of the ratification of the policy by the ARIN Board of Trustees. Depending on the impact to RSD this may require additional staff. It will require the following: Guidelines Changes Registration System Changes Staff training May increase RSD workload May increase turnaround times Respectfully submitted, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ##*## Annex A Policy Proposal 2007-14 Resource Review Process Author: Owen DeLong, Stephen Sprunk Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Add the following to the NRPM: Resource Review 1. ARIN may review the current usage of any resources issued by ARIN to an organization. The organization shall furnish whatever records are necessary to perform this review. 2. ARIN may conduct such reviews: a. when any new resource is requested, b. whenever ARIN has cause to believe that the resources had originally been obtained fraudulently, or c. at any other time without cause unless a prior review has been completed in the preceding 12 months. 3. ARIN shall communicate the results of the review to the organization. 4. If the review shows that existing usage is substantially not in compliance with current allocation and/or assignment policies, the organization shall return resources as needed to bring them substantially into compliance. If possible, only whole resources shall be returned. Partial address blocks shall be returned in such a way that the portion retained will comprise a single aggregate block. 5. If the organization does not voluntarily return resources as required, ARIN may revoke any resources issued by ARIN as required to bring the organization into overall compliance. ARIN shall follow the same guidelines for revocation that are required for voluntary return in the previous paragraph. 6. Except in cases of fraud, an organization shall be given a minimum of six months to effect a return. ARIN shall negotiate a longer term with the organization if ARIN believes the organization is working in good faith to substantially restore compliance and has a valid need for additional time to renumber out of the affected blocks. 7. Legacy resources in active use, regardless of utilization, are not subject to revocation by ARIN. However, the utilization of legacy resources shall be considered during a review to assess overall compliance. Delete NRPM sections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4 Remove the sentence "In extreme cases, existing allocations may be affected." from NRPM section 4.2.3.1. Rationale: ARIN feels that current policy does not give them the power to review or reclaim resources except in cases of fraud, despite this being mentioned in the Registration Services Agreement. This policy proposal provides clear policy authority to do so, guidelines for how and under what conditions it shall be done, and a guarantee of a (minimum) six-month grace period so that the current user shall have time to renumber out of any resources to be reclaimed. The nature of the "review" is to be of the same form as is currently done when an organization requests new resources, i.e. the documentation required and standards should be the same. The renumbering period does not affect any "hold" period that ARIN may apply after return or revocation of resources is complete. The deleted sections/text would be redundant with the adoption of this proposal. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Sun Oct 14 18:41:12 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:41:12 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15 - Staff Assessment Message-ID: <47129B08.7020804@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-15 Authentication of Legacy Resources ARIN Staff Assessment The assessment of this proposal includes comments from ARIN staff and the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal, and resource concerns regarding the implementation of this policy proposal as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language of the proposal may necessitate further analysis by staff and Counsel. I. Proposal Policy Proposal is available as Annex A below and at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_15.html II. Understanding of the proposal ARIN staff understands that the proposal would add new sections to the NRPM, 4.9 regarding legacy resources. The purpose is to encourage "legacy resource holders" to sign the RSA. III. Comments A. ARIN Staff ARIN interprets "evaluate and verify chain of custody of any resource records" as the standard ARIN vetting and verification procedures currently in use. B. ARIN General Counsel "This policy may have legal implications. The ARIN board has authorized the creation of legacy RSA 1.0 which contains very favorable terms for legacy address holders designed to entice, or provide incentives to both sign the specifically designed rsa to obtain continued future services, and to return under utilized resources to ARIN. Policy 2007-15 takes this one step further and adds the incentive of the future fixed date reduction of in-addr services, or stick, not carrot, to the policy alternatives. If the policy is adopted, there is modest risk legacy holders who have received free services in the past, without any agreement with ARIN, could attempt to litigate about such policy. Currently I am unaware of any contractually binding or implied duty of ARIN to maintain such service in the absence of policy to this effect. Therefore I have no current legal objection to the proposed policy." Resource Impact ? Significant The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as significant. Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be implemented from 6 months to 1 year from the date of the ratification of the policy by the ARIN Board of Trustees. It will require the following: - Updates to Registration Services Guidelines will be required - Staff training will be required - Additional staff may be required - Database changes - New tracking tools Respectfully submitted, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ##*## Annex A Policy Proposal 2007-15 Authentication of Legacy Resources Author: Andrew Dul Proposal type: New Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: Add new NRPM section 4.9 - Legacy Records 4.9 - Legacy Records Legacy resource record holders shall be permitted to sign a registration services agreement which permits the legacy organization which is currently using the resources as of January 1, 2007 to continue to use those resources as long as a valid registration services agreement is in effect for the organization. ARIN will evaluate and verify the chain of custody of any resource records prior to executing a registration services agreement with an organization. ARIN shall use all reasonable methods to attempt to contact legacy record holders starting on January 1, 2008 to notify them of this change in policy. 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. If a legacy resource holder requests additional IPv4 resources all IPv4 resources (legacy and non-legacy) shall be evaluated to determine utilization for additional allocations or assignments under NRPM sections 4.2 or 4.3. 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. This policy is similar to a policy which has been adopted in the APNIC region. (http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-018-v001.html) Some legacy resource holders have expressed concerns about committing to a registration service agreement (RSA) when the legacy resource holder cannot be assured that they will be permitted to retain their resources for the long-term. This policy proposal requests ARIN to develop a RSA which will allow legacy resource holders to continue to use IPv4 resources which were assigned or allocated prior to ARIN's formation. It is also 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 or provide fee-waivers as an incentive for legacy holders to sign a registration services agreement. 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 currently maintains the records including WHOIS and in-addr.arpa delegations in a best-effort fashion. Some believe that ARIN may not be obligated to maintain these records. ARIN has also 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 and a formal relationship with legacy record holders would assist ARIN and ISP's in insuring these records are maintained accurately. Legacy resource holders who sign a RSA 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. Timetable for implementation: As stated in policy From info at arin.net Sun Oct 14 18:41:46 2007 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:41:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-16 - Staff Assessment Message-ID: <47129B2A.2050507@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing ARIN Staff Assessment The assessment of this proposal includes comments from ARIN staff and the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal, and resource concerns regarding the implementation of this policy proposal as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language of the proposal may necessitate further analysis by staff and Counsel. I. Proposal Policy Proposal is available as Annex A below and at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_16.html II. Understanding of the proposal The proposal "aims to provide for a defined transition away from IPv4 address space towards IPv6 address space by imposing increasingly stricter requirements for new address allocations." III. Comments A. ARIN Staff General Comments ? 1. The policy seems to apply only to the general IPv4 ISP policy. Does this policy also apply to the other ISP additional policies like multiple discreet networks (NRPM 4.5) and cable (NRPM 4.2.6)? 2. Does this policy supersede the ISP additional request policy and any other ISP additional request policies? If so, this should be clearly stated. 3. In the policy statement, the author discusses utilization rates and refers to swip and rwhois. These terms should be removed because they are not necessarily relevant to all customers (those that assign smaller than /28s or orgs that manage dynamic address pools, Voip, etc?). 4. In the policy statement, the author refers to specific fields in the template. This should be removed since template fields will change over time. 5. A general question of fairness comes up when you consider that ISP?s will now be faced with much more difficulty in obtaining IP address space from ARIN while end users will feel no effect or change at all. Phase 0: No comments. Phase 1: No comments Phase 2: No comments Phase 3: No comments 6. Author indicated placement in the NRPM. All the text from "begin modification" to "end modification" would be placed in Section 4.2.4.1. Subsections would be created. The title of the section would be changed to "Utilization Requirements". We would strike the "80%" reference in 4.2.3.4.1. B. ARIN General Counsel Counsel does not see any legal implications with this policy. Resource Impact ? Moderate The resource impact of implementing this policy is moderate. Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be implemented within 3-6 months from the date of the ratification of the policy by the ARIN Board of Trustees It will require the following: - Significant staff training - Template changes - New Registration Services tools - Guidelines changes - Significant increase in processing time Respectfully submitted, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ##*## Annex A Policy statement Policy Proposal 2007-16 IPv4 Soft Landing Author: David Conrad Proposal type: New Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: This policy is intended to replace section 4.2.4.1 of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual with wording substantially along the lines of: --- begin modification --- 4.2.4.1 In order to encourage a smooth transition to IPv6, ARIN has instituted a set of IPv4 Address Allocation "phases" that vary the requirements for address allocation using the amount of address space remaining unallocated by IANA as a metric. As the amount of address space in the IANA free pool is reduced, the requirements for IPv4 address allocation are made more stringent. When requesting additional IPv4 address space, ISPs must meet the requirements of the IPv4 Address Allocation phase ARIN was in when the request was submitted. These phases will require the requester to demonstrate increasingly efficient utilization of previously allocated IPv4 address space, including all space reassigned to their customers. In addition, depending on the IPv4 Address Allocation phase ARIN was in when the request was submitted, there may be additional requirements that will need to be met by the requester such as completing a survey on IPv6 deployment plans, documentation of non-private address space used for internal infrastructure, documentation of IPv6 plans for offering connectivity and services, etc. The reassignment information section of the ARIN ISP Network Request Template should be completed for all address blocks that have been allocated to your organization. In the template, line 1b. Assigned: information will be verified via SWIP/RWHOIS and 1c. Reserved: should be used to indicate internal network information. Please note that until all requirements are met and your prior utilization is verified to meet the requirements specified in the IPv4 Address Allocation phase in which the request was received, ARIN can neither process nor approve a request for additional addresses. IPv4 Allocation Phases The thresholds and the requirements to justify an allocation of new IPv4 address space from ARIN are defined in this section. Phase: 0 Threshold: Greater than 40 /8s Requirements: Requesters must: * Demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of all previous IPv4 allocations and at least 80% utilization of the most recent allocation. * For downstream customers: - Demonstrate an immediate requirement of 25% utilization - Demonstrate a one year requirement of 50% utilization Phase: 1 Threshold: 40 /8s Requirements: Requesters must: * Provide a response to a survey (individual responses to be held in confidence by ARIN staff) exploring requester IPv6 transition plans and impediments, anonymized summary data of which may be published by ARIN. * Demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of all previous IPv4 allocations and at least 80% utilization of the most recent allocation. * For downstream customers: - Demonstrate an immediate requirement of 25% utilization - Demonstrate a one year requirement of 50% utilization * Provide a detailed listing of all non-RFC 1918 address space used for internal infrastructure and how it is used. Phase: 2 Threshold: 25 /8s Requirements: Requesters must: * Provide a response to a survey (individual responses to be held in confidence by ARIN staff) exploring requester IPv6 transition plans and impediments, anonymized summary data of which may be published by ARIN. * Demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of all previous IPv4 allocations and at least 85% utilization of the most recent allocation. * For downstream customers: - Demonstrate an immediate requirement of 50% utilization - Demonstrate a one year requirement of 75% utilization * Provide a detailed listing of all non-RFC 1918 address space used for internal infrastructure and how it is used. * Provide plans for migrating all non-RFC 1918 address space used for internal infrastructure either to IPv6 (preferred) or to private addressing where possible. Where such migration is not possible, provide documentation listing the use of addresses that are not migratable and the reasons for the inability to migrate. * Demonstrate documented plans for availability of production IPv6 infrastructure and connectivity services within 6 months of submitting the request. Phase: 3 Threshold: 10 /8s Requirements: Requesters must: * Provide a response to a survey (individual responses to be held in confidence by ARIN staff) exploring requester IPv6 transition plans and impediments, anonymized summary data of which may be published by ARIN. * Demonstrate efficient utilization of 100% of all previous IPv4 allocations and at least 90% utilization of the most recent allocation. * For downstream customers: - Demonstrate an immediate requirement of 75% utilization - Demonstrate a one year requirement of 90% utilization * Provide documentation demonstrating migration (where possible) of non-RFC 1918 address space used for internal infrastructure to either IPv6 (preferred) or private addressing. * Provide a detailed listing of all non-RFC 1918 address space used for internal infrastructure, how it is used, and why it is not possible to migrate those addresses to either IPv6 (preferred) or private addressing. * Demonstrate availability of production IPv6 infrastructure and connectivity services. Notes: * Phase 0 reflects current allocation requirements. * Phases 1 through 3 are to be implemented 30 days after IANA allocates address space from the IPv4 free pool that reduces that free pool to a number of /8s that are at or below the threshold specified. * If multiple thresholds should be crossed within a 30 day period, the requirements from the last threshold crossed will be applied to requesters for additional address space at the time of t