From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 1 00:35:41 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:35:41 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: <83826091-5E1B-4030-B481-BD8906DD7B13@delong.com> While I support the idea of community networks, I oppose this policy as written. The definition in section 2.8 does not qualify a number of true community networks in my perspective, and, does qualify a number of commercial entities which should not receive community network status. I would like to see the definition include at least the following attributes: + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status (501(c)5 should not qualify in my opinion). + The network should be able to be organized for purposes which may include connecting residences, but, could also be other purposes, such as supporting emergency or disaster-related communications, providing connectivity amongst collections of not-for-profits in the area, or, a host of other purposes I may not be able to imagine at the moment. Point being that ANY community-oriented purpose should be supported by a community networks policy and not just the connection of individual residents. I think that community networks should have the choice as to whether their implementation is more appropriate to an allocation or an assignment. I can see reasons for both and differing circumstances which could require either. At least one poster on this list suggested that the community network should be required to provide services to at least 50 distinct entities, so, in that case, it would almost be a requirement to issue allocations only. The policy as written only supports assignments. I believe that both should be allowed. I don't agree with the other poster about some arbitrary entry point of the number of distinct entities connected. Owen On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:57 AM, Josh King wrote: > Hello, > > Here's a revision of the 2008-3 policy proposal based upon the staff > recommendations. Sorry for the extreme lateness, I did not receive the > staff recommendations until yesterday due to problems with my email. > I've attempted to address the concerns expressed by staff, but some > points I've expressed may require further clarification, and I look > forward to further staff comments. > > Changes: > Added section 6.5.9 as per recommendation, listing allocation and user > requirements for Community Networks allocations. Largely based upon > 6.5.8.2 and .3, with revisions to attempt to reflect the fact that a > Community Network is neither an end-user or LIR. > > Modified section 6.5.8.1b to refer to section 6.5.9. > > -- Policy Proposal 2008-3 > Community Networks IPv6 Allocation > > Author: Joshua King > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 4 March 2008 > > Proposal type: new > > Policy term: permanent > > Policy statement: > > [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.] > > 2.8 Community Network > > A community network is a generic reference to any network that is > operated by a group of people living in a particular local area > organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network > services > to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional > municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, > county, > district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however > designated. > > [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.] > > b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the > IPv4 > policy currently in effect or be a Community Network as defined in > Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in section 6.5.9. > > [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.] > > 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations > > 6.5.9.1. Initial assignment size > > Organizations defined as Community Networks under section 2.8 are > eligible to receive a direct assignment. The minimum size of the > assignment is /48. Organizations requesting a larger assignment must > provide documentation of the characteristics of the Community > Network's > size and architecture that require the use of additional subnets. An > HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet utilization within the network > must be met for all assignments larger than a /48. > > These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix > and > shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44. This > reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at ARIN's > discretion. > > 6.5.9.2. Subsequent assignment size > > Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional > subnets > is justified. Justification will be determined based on a detailed > plan > of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio metric. When > possible, assignments will be made from an adjacent address block. > > 6.5.9.3. Number of customers > > Community Networks seeking an allocation must demonstrate that they > provide for a user base of at least 100 through connectivity to homes > and businesses, public facilities, public access points, or mobile > users. Community Networks with user bases of under 200 must also > submit > a plan for doubling their service base over the next year. > > Rationale: > > There are currently a number of projects globally that aim to develop > community network infrastructure and related technologies. These are > usually coordinated by volunteer-run, grassroots organizations which > lack many of the resources of traditional internet service providers > and > other network operators. They have diverse goals, including public > policy, software development, and implementation of community services > and resources. Many of them provide services free of charge, and thus > lack any paying user base. However, in order to create and maintain > community networks that are often composed of hundreds if not > thousands > of inexpensive, commodity hosts and devices, a significant amount of > address space will be required. Current-generation workarounds to this > problem, such as NAT, not only make it difficult to develop > next-generation decentralized network technology by segmenting the > community's architecture from the Internet as a whole, but will > cease to > be as viable a stopgap as the Internet moves towards IPv6 integration. > > Even now, common community networking software solutions such as > CUWiNware (http://www.cuwin.net) and Freifunk (http://www.freifunk.at) > have nascent IPv6 addressing support, but participating organizations > lack the address space for widespread testing or adoption. As such, it > is necessary to implement an procedure as soon as possible for these > segregated networks to acquire address space. These organizations do > not > meet the criteria traditionally defined for LIR's, and thus cannot > acquire address allocations through existing templates. By > establishing > a procedure by which these organizations can seek to acquire the > resources they require for further development, ARIN can reach out to > this active community and establish a small but definite space for > them > in the future of Internet. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate. > > Josh King > -- > josh at acornactivemedia.com > -- > Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media > (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) > System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) > -- > "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, > but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Apr 1 05:35:20 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:35:20 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F1986A.8010302@internap.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com><519DC8EB-A13C-4AFF-A988-20D0426744FA@cnet.com> <47F1986A.8010302@internap.com> Message-ID: > Under my reading of 6.5.1.1, a community network meeting the > criteria of this policy proposal would probably also meet the > criteria for getting an LIR /32. Likewise, any > local/regional ISP could probably qualify as a community > network if they chose. Agreed. That is one reason that I oppose this policy proposal. Another reason is that IPv6 experimentation could be done using ULA addresses. Traffic that is restricted to the community network will work fine using ULA addresses. If they want to provide Internet access as well, then they are an ISP and can apply as an LIR. --Michael Dillon From plzak at arin.net Tue Apr 1 05:54:02 2008 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:54:02 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <83826091-5E1B-4030-B481-BD8906DD7B13@delong.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com> <83826091-5E1B-4030-B481-BD8906DD7B13@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply stating not for profit would be sufficient. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM > To: Josh King > Cc: ppml at arin.net; policy at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 > > While I support the idea of community networks, I oppose this policy as > written. > > The definition in section 2.8 does not qualify a number of true > community > networks in my perspective, and, does qualify a number of commercial > entities which should not receive community network status. > > I would like to see the definition include at least the following > attributes: > > + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status > (501(c)5 > should not qualify in my opinion). > > + The network should be able to be organized for purposes > which > may include connecting residences, but, could also be > other > purposes, such as supporting emergency or disaster- > related > communications, providing connectivity amongst > collections > of not-for-profits in the area, or, a host of other > purposes > I may not be able to imagine at the moment. Point > being that > ANY community-oriented purpose should be supported by > a community networks policy and not just the connection > of > individual residents. > > I think that community networks should have the choice as to whether > their implementation is more appropriate to an allocation or an > assignment. I can see reasons for both and differing circumstances > which could require either. At least one poster on this list suggested > that the community network should be required to provide services > to at least 50 distinct entities, so, in that case, it would almost be > a requirement to issue allocations only. The policy as written only > supports assignments. I believe that both should be allowed. I > don't agree with the other poster about some arbitrary entry point > of the number of distinct entities connected. > > Owen > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:57 AM, Josh King wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Here's a revision of the 2008-3 policy proposal based upon the staff > > recommendations. Sorry for the extreme lateness, I did not receive > the > > staff recommendations until yesterday due to problems with my email. > > I've attempted to address the concerns expressed by staff, but some > > points I've expressed may require further clarification, and I look > > forward to further staff comments. > > > > Changes: > > Added section 6.5.9 as per recommendation, listing allocation and > user > > requirements for Community Networks allocations. Largely based upon > > 6.5.8.2 and .3, with revisions to attempt to reflect the fact that a > > Community Network is neither an end-user or LIR. > > > > Modified section 6.5.8.1b to refer to section 6.5.9. > > > > -- Policy Proposal 2008-3 > > Community Networks IPv6 Allocation > > > > Author: Joshua King > > > > Proposal Version: 1 > > > > Date: 4 March 2008 > > > > Proposal type: new > > > > Policy term: permanent > > > > Policy statement: > > > > [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.] > > > > 2.8 Community Network > > > > A community network is a generic reference to any network that is > > operated by a group of people living in a particular local area > > organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network > > services > > to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional > > municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, > > county, > > district or other municipality or other such geographic space, > however > > designated. > > > > [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.] > > > > b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the > > IPv4 > > policy currently in effect or be a Community Network as defined in > > Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in section 6.5.9. > > > > [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.] > > > > 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations > > > > 6.5.9.1. Initial assignment size > > > > Organizations defined as Community Networks under section 2.8 are > > eligible to receive a direct assignment. The minimum size of the > > assignment is /48. Organizations requesting a larger assignment must > > provide documentation of the characteristics of the Community > > Network's > > size and architecture that require the use of additional subnets. An > > HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet utilization within the network > > must be met for all assignments larger than a /48. > > > > These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix > > and > > shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44. This > > reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at ARIN's > > discretion. > > > > 6.5.9.2. Subsequent assignment size > > > > Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional > > subnets > > is justified. Justification will be determined based on a detailed > > plan > > of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio metric. When > > possible, assignments will be made from an adjacent address block. > > > > 6.5.9.3. Number of customers > > > > Community Networks seeking an allocation must demonstrate that they > > provide for a user base of at least 100 through connectivity to homes > > and businesses, public facilities, public access points, or mobile > > users. Community Networks with user bases of under 200 must also > > submit > > a plan for doubling their service base over the next year. > > > > Rationale: > > > > There are currently a number of projects globally that aim to develop > > community network infrastructure and related technologies. These are > > usually coordinated by volunteer-run, grassroots organizations which > > lack many of the resources of traditional internet service providers > > and > > other network operators. They have diverse goals, including public > > policy, software development, and implementation of community > services > > and resources. Many of them provide services free of charge, and thus > > lack any paying user base. However, in order to create and maintain > > community networks that are often composed of hundreds if not > > thousands > > of inexpensive, commodity hosts and devices, a significant amount of > > address space will be required. Current-generation workarounds to > this > > problem, such as NAT, not only make it difficult to develop > > next-generation decentralized network technology by segmenting the > > community's architecture from the Internet as a whole, but will > > cease to > > be as viable a stopgap as the Internet moves towards IPv6 > integration. > > > > Even now, common community networking software solutions such as > > CUWiNware (http://www.cuwin.net) and Freifunk > (http://www.freifunk.at) > > have nascent IPv6 addressing support, but participating organizations > > lack the address space for widespread testing or adoption. As such, > it > > is necessary to implement an procedure as soon as possible for these > > segregated networks to acquire address space. These organizations do > > not > > meet the criteria traditionally defined for LIR's, and thus cannot > > acquire address allocations through existing templates. By > > establishing > > a procedure by which these organizations can seek to acquire the > > resources they require for further development, ARIN can reach out to > > this active community and establish a small but definite space for > > them > > in the future of Internet. > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate. > > > > Josh King > > -- > > josh at acornactivemedia.com > > -- > > Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media > > (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) > > System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) > > -- > > "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, > > but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 farmer at umn.edu Tue Apr 1 10:38:06 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:38:06 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <83826091-5E1B-4030-B481-BD8906DD7B13@delong.com>, Message-ID: <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu> I will add that 501(c)3 is only one, the most general and common, form of a non-profit organization recognized by USIRC, several other 501(c) organizations could legitimately sponsor a Community Network, including a 501(c)6 Chamber of Commerce, 501(c)7 Recreational club, just to name a few other possibilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) Further, I could easily see a city or other political sub-division of government sponsoring a Community Network too, and they are not covered by 501(c) at all. So even if you are only dealing with the US, I think specifying 501(c)3 would not be a good idea. Then if you bring in other countries you probably can't be more specific than non-profit or not-for-profit. On 1 Apr 2008 Ray Plzak wrote: > Owen, > > An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the > US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good > thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local > equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply stating > not for profit would be sufficient. > > Ray > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > > Owen DeLong > > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM > > > > + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status > > (501(c)5 > > should not qualify in my opinion). > > ================================================= David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 ================================================= From info at arin.net Tue Apr 1 11:17:06 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:17:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: <47F251F2.5070604@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2008-3, Community Networks IPv6 Allocation, has been revised. This proposal is open for discussion on this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting. The current policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_3.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Josh King wrote: > Hello, > > Here's a revision of the 2008-3 policy proposal based upon the staff > recommendations. Sorry for the extreme lateness, I did not receive the > staff recommendations until yesterday due to problems with my email. > I've attempted to address the concerns expressed by staff, but some > points I've expressed may require further clarification, and I look > forward to further staff comments. > > Changes: > Added section 6.5.9 as per recommendation, listing allocation and user > requirements for Community Networks allocations. Largely based upon > 6.5.8.2 and .3, with revisions to attempt to reflect the fact that a > Community Network is neither an end-user or LIR. > > Modified section 6.5.8.1b to refer to section 6.5.9. > > -- Policy Proposal 2008-3 > Community Networks IPv6 Allocation > > Author: Joshua King > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 4 March 2008 > > Proposal type: new > > Policy term: permanent > > Policy statement: > > [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.] > > 2.8 Community Network > > A community network is a generic reference to any network that is > operated by a group of people living in a particular local area > organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network services > to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional > municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, county, > district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however > designated. > > [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.] > > b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 > policy currently in effect or be a Community Network as defined in > Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in section 6.5.9. > > [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.] > > 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations > > 6.5.9.1. Initial assignment size > > Organizations defined as Community Networks under section 2.8 are > eligible to receive a direct assignment. The minimum size of the > assignment is /48. Organizations requesting a larger assignment must > provide documentation of the characteristics of the Community Network's > size and architecture that require the use of additional subnets. An > HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet utilization within the network > must be met for all assignments larger than a /48. > > These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix and > shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44. This > reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at ARIN's > discretion. > > 6.5.9.2. Subsequent assignment size > > Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional subnets > is justified. Justification will be determined based on a detailed plan > of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio metric. When > possible, assignments will be made from an adjacent address block. > > 6.5.9.3. Number of customers > > Community Networks seeking an allocation must demonstrate that they > provide for a user base of at least 100 through connectivity to homes > and businesses, public facilities, public access points, or mobile > users. Community Networks with user bases of under 200 must also submit > a plan for doubling their service base over the next year. > > Rationale: > > There are currently a number of projects globally that aim to develop > community network infrastructure and related technologies. These are > usually coordinated by volunteer-run, grassroots organizations which > lack many of the resources of traditional internet service providers and > other network operators. They have diverse goals, including public > policy, software development, and implementation of community services > and resources. Many of them provide services free of charge, and thus > lack any paying user base. However, in order to create and maintain > community networks that are often composed of hundreds if not thousands > of inexpensive, commodity hosts and devices, a significant amount of > address space will be required. Current-generation workarounds to this > problem, such as NAT, not only make it difficult to develop > next-generation decentralized network technology by segmenting the > community's architecture from the Internet as a whole, but will cease to > be as viable a stopgap as the Internet moves towards IPv6 integration. > > Even now, common community networking software solutions such as > CUWiNware (http://www.cuwin.net) and Freifunk (http://www.freifunk.at) > have nascent IPv6 addressing support, but participating organizations > lack the address space for widespread testing or adoption. As such, it > is necessary to implement an procedure as soon as possible for these > segregated networks to acquire address space. These organizations do not > meet the criteria traditionally defined for LIR's, and thus cannot > acquire address allocations through existing templates. By establishing > a procedure by which these organizations can seek to acquire the > resources they require for further development, ARIN can reach out to > this active community and establish a small but definite space for them > in the future of Internet. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate. > > Josh King > -- > josh at acornactivemedia.com > -- > Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media > (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) > System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) > -- > "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, > but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 info at arin.net Tue Apr 1 11:36:39 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:36:39 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2007-17 In-Reply-To: <0A63064A-3AEA-4A0D-BD77-ED16D08E0E75@delong.com> References: <0A63064A-3AEA-4A0D-BD77-ED16D08E0E75@delong.com> Message-ID: <47F25687.3030808@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-17 Title: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation Policy Revised: 28 March 2008 Date of Assessment: 1 April 2008 ARIN Staff Assessment (Revised) 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 below and at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_17.html II. Understanding of the proposal ARIN staff understands that this proposal would replace the existing amnesty policy in NRPM Section 4.6. III. Comments A. ARIN Staff There is currently an amnesty policy (NRPM 4.6) and an aggregation policy (NRPM 4.7). Both policies contain clear and concise criteria and have been used successfully by the ARIN community since implementation. B. ARIN General Counsel Pending. IV. Resource Impact ? Moderate The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as moderate. Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be implemented within 90 - 180 days 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 ? Staff training ? Tracking tools for the return of the space and for the yearly contact requirement ? Creation of software that will flag records in WHOIS as "unreachable" Respectfully submitted, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ##*## Owen DeLong wrote: > > The following revised version of 2007-17 is submitted for consideration. > The amendments are being made to address concerns expressed by staff > in the "staff assessment" of the policy proposal. > > I ran these changes by staff prior to submitting them here. The changes > do address the concerns expressed by staff, but, staff may wish to revise > their "impact" statement. Beyond this statement, I'll leave it to staff > to comment further if they wish. > > Apologies for the late date on this amendment. Look forward to upcoming > changes to the IRPEP to improve this situation. > > Owen > > > Modifications: > > Extended 4.6.1 to allow ARIN to reject transactions of no benefit > to the community. (Hopefully this closes most of the abuse loopholes) > > Renumbered 4.6.6 to 4.6.7 Annual contact required > > Renumbered 4.6.5 to 4.6.6 RSA Required if new addresses received > > Inserted new 4.6.5 to spell out requirement for ARIN to work with > resource holders to specify a return timeframe in contract. > > Added text to rationale to clarify overriding intent and > > Policy Proposal 2007-17 > Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation > > Author: Owen DeLong > > Date: 21 February 2008 > > Proposal type: modify > > Policy term: permanent > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 4.6 as follows: > > 4.6 Amnesty and Aggregation requests > > 4.6.1 Intent of this policy > > This policy is intended to allow the community and ARIN staff to work > together with holders of address resources in the best interests of > the community by facilitating the return of unused address space and > the aggregation of existing space in a manner which is in the best > interests of both parties. > > All transactions under this policy must either create greater > aggregation (a reduction in the number of prefixes) or the return of > address space. ARIN should reject any transaction which staff judges > is not in the interests of the community. > > 4.6.2 No penalty for returning or aggregating > > ARIN shall seek to make the return of address space as convenient and > risk-free to the returning organization as possible. An organization > with several non-contiguous blocks seeking to aggregate and return > space at the same time should be accommodated if possible. If it is > possible to expand one block, for example, to facilitate the return of > other blocks, ARIN should do th.6.3 Return should not force renumbering > > An organization shall be allowed to return a partial block of any size > to ARIN. For any return greater than a /24, ARIN shall not require > that the non-returned portion of the block be renumbered unless the > returning organization wishes to do so. > > 4.6.4 Incentives > > The Board of Trustees should consider creating incentives for > organizations to return addresses under this policy. > > 4.6.5 Timeframe for return > > Any organization which is returning addresses under this policy shall > negotiate with ARIN an appropriate timeframe in which to return the > addresses after any new resources are received under this policy. In > the case of a simple return, the timeframe shall be immediate. In the > case where renumbering into new addresses out of existing addresses to > be returned is required, the returning organization shall sign a > contract with ARIN which stipulates a final return date not less than > 6 months nor more than 18 months after the receipt of new addresses. > If an organization misses this return date, but, ARIN believes the > organization is working in good faith to complete the renumbering, > ARIN may grant a single extension of 6-12 months as staff deems > appropriate to the situation. Such an extension must be requested in > writing (email to hostmaster at arin.net ) by > the organization at least 15 > days prior to the original expiration date. > > 4.6.6 RSA Required if new addresses received > > Any organization which receives any additional addresses under this > policy shall be required to sign an ARIN RSA which will apply to all > new addresses issued and to any retained blocks which are expanded > under this policy. > > 4.6.7 Annual contact required > > Any organization which participates in this policy shall be required > to sign an agreement stipulating that ARIN will attempt contact at > least once per year via the contact mechanisms registered for the > organization in whois. Should ARIN fail to make contact, after > reasonable effort the organization shall be flagged as "unreachable" > in whois. After six months in "unreachable" status, the organization > agrees that ARIN may consider all resources held by the organization > to be abandoned and reclaim such resources. Should the organization > make contact with ARIN prior to the end of the aforementioned six > month period and update their contact information appropriately, ARIN > shall remove the "unreachable" status and the annual contact cycle > shall continue as normal. If the organization pays annual fees to > ARIN, the payment of annual fees shall be considered sufficient contact. > > Rationale: > > Existing policy supports aggregation (4.7) and provides some amnesty > (existing 4.6) for returning blocks. However, a number of resource > holders have expressed discomfort with the current section 4.6 > believing that they will be forced to return their entire address > space and renumber rather than being able to make partial returns and > retain some of their existing space. > > This policy seeks to eliminate those concerns and make the return of > unused address space more desirable to the resource holders. > > A very high percentage of underutilized space is in the hands of > legacy holders who currently have no benefit to joining the ARIN > process and no way to return any portion of their address space > without incurring significant disadvantage as a result. > > A suggestion to the board would be to adopt benefits along the > following lines for people returning space. These benefits would > provide additional incentive for resource holders to make appropriate > returns and for legacy holders to join the ARIN process: > > 1. If the organization does not currently pay ARIN fees, they shall > remain fee exempt. > > 2. If the organization currently pays ARIN fees, their fees shall be > waived for two years for each /20 returned, with any fractional /20 > resulting in a one-time single year waiver. > > 3. Any organization returning address space under this policy shall > continue under their existing RSA or they may choose to sign the > current RSA. For organizations which currently do not have an RSA, > they may sign the current RSA, or, they may choose to remain without > an RSA. > > 4. All organizations returning space under this policy shall, if they > meet other eligibility requirements and so request, obtain an > appropriate IPv6 end-user assignment or ISP allocation as applicable, > with no fees for the first 5 years. Organizations electing to receive > IPv6 allocation/assignment under this provision must sign a current > RSA and must agree that their IPv4 resources are henceforth subject to > the RSA. > > The overriding intent of this policy proposal is to make it as easy as > possible for both ARIN and resource holders to "do the right thing" > with regard to excess resources or dis-aggregated (fragmented) address > blocks. It is the desire of the author that staff make any judgment > calls necessary under this policy with that ideal clearly in mind. > While the author has made a concerted effort to make the policy as > clear as possible and > as concrete as can be, the reality is that these types of transactions > must rely heavily on the judgment and expertise of the ARIN staff in > determining what is in the best interests of the community. > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 BillD at cait.wustl.edu Tue Apr 1 11:58:58 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:58:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections Message-ID: Hello, I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. Policy Proposal 2008-1 SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments Author: Joe Maimon I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this policy proposal at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback from the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further work. Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. Thank you for your involvement and continuing support of the proposal process! Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council From briand at ca.afilias.info Tue Apr 1 13:00:33 2008 From: briand at ca.afilias.info (Brian Dickson) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:00:33 -0400 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F26A31.8080709@ca.afilias.info> Bill Darte wrote: > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this > policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html > > It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback from > the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and > all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further > work. > > Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise > statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. > I am in favor of this policy change, and even if the language changes slightly, will still be in favor of it. Brian Dickson From walter at pienciak.org Tue Apr 1 13:04:22 2008 From: walter at pienciak.org (Walter Pienciak) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:04:22 -0600 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080401170421.GA4153@thunderdome.ieee.org> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:58:58AM -0500, Bill Darte wrote: > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this > policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html > > It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback from > the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and > all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further > work. > > Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise > statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. I support this proposal as it stands. Walter Pienciak Boulder, Colorado From mksmith at adhost.com Tue Apr 1 13:13:36 2008 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:13:36 -0700 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316039D6733@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Bill Darte > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:59 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections > > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this > policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html > > It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback > from > the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and > all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further > work. > > Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise > statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. > > Thank you for your involvement and continuing support of the proposal > process! > > Bill Darte > ARIN Advisory Council I support this proposal as written. Mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Apr 1 14:01:43 2008 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:01:43 -0400 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:58 -0500 4/1/08, Bill Darte wrote: >http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html >Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise >statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. It looks like a good idea, staff assessment raised no concerns, and I have no reason to not support it. (Lacking hands-on knowledge of reporting usage is why I say "no reason to not support.") So I support it. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 1 14:16:25 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 03:16:25 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <83826091-5E1B-4030-B481-BD8906DD7B13@delong.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this policy. I absolutely oppose the idea of including organizations organized under 501(c)5, or equivalent, for this purpose, and, there may be other 501(c) sections which I would not favor. I would say that 501(c)6 should not receive blanket automatic treatment under this policy. I'm not convinced that 501(c)7 is any more legitimate than 501(c)5. Personally, I do not believe we should allow the following under the proposed community networks policies: 501(c)1 501(c)2 Most, if not all 501(c)4 501(c)5 Most, if not all 501(c)6 Most, if not all 501(c)7 501(c)8 501(c)9 501(c)10 501(c)11 501(c)12 501(c)13 501(c)14 501(c)15 501(c)16 Most, if not all 501(c)17 501(c)18 Most, if not all 501(c)19 501(c)20 501(c)21 501(c)22 501(c)23 501(c)25 501(c)26 501(c)27 501(c)28 Here's a stab at a statement that describes what I feel should be included: To qualify as a community network under ARIN policy, the network must be owned and operated by an organization which is organized and/or chartered as a not-for-profit which is engaged in providing the service to the benefit of the local community at large and not limited to any subclass of the community by religion, union membership, pension status, or any other form of membership requirement other than if such membership is open to all members of the community with equal voting status and control of the organization at a cost which would not reasonably be considered prohibitive to any person living above the locally defined poverty level. This probably needs a lot of work, but, it's the best I could do without copying the tax code and I'm not willing to do that at 3:15 AM (which is the local time here at the moment). Owen On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David Farmer wrote: > I will add that 501(c)3 is only one, the most general and common, > form of a > non-profit organization recognized by USIRC, several other 501(c) > organizations could legitimately sponsor a Community Network, > including a > 501(c)6 Chamber of Commerce, 501(c)7 Recreational club, just to name a > few other possibilities. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) > > Further, I could easily see a city or other political sub-division > of government > sponsoring a Community Network too, and they are not covered by > 501(c) at > all. So even if you are only dealing with the US, I think > specifying 501(c)3 > would not be a good idea. Then if you bring in other countries you > probably > can't be more specific than non-profit or not-for-profit. > > On 1 Apr 2008 Ray Plzak wrote: > >> Owen, >> >> An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the >> US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good >> thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local >> equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply >> stating >> not for profit would be sufficient. >> >> Ray >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>> Behalf Of >>> Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM >>> >>> + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status >>> (501(c)5 >>> should not qualify in my opinion). >>> > > > ================================================= > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 > 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 > ================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jmaimon at chl.com Tue Apr 1 14:22:55 2008 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:22:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F27D7F.6000903@chl.com> Bill Darte wrote: > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this > policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html Still support it From tvest at pch.net Tue Apr 1 15:03:08 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN PPML Poll / Q1, Q2, Q3 In-Reply-To: <20080331160038.543A6A808A@mercury.arin.net> References: <20080331160038.543A6A808A@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Member Services wrote: > To register your opinion, simply click the link next to the answer > that most > represents your standing on the issue. You must make your opinion > known by > 12:00:00 ET on Thursday, 3 April 2008. > Topic: > Q1: Do you feel a transfer proposal to change the current transfer > policy should exist? > Q2: Do you feel that you have been informed enough on the pro's and > con's of what a change in the current transfer policy would have in > our internet community? > Topic: > Q3: Do you feel informed enough in general to make a decision > regarding a change to the current transfer policy? > Responses: > Yes - > No - > Undecided - > I don't care - > > This is a simple poll to gauge where the community stands. If you > would like to elaborate on this policy topic, please post a message > to the > PPML. > > Regards, > > ARIN Member Services I'd like to register a concern about the wording of these questions. There has been almost no discussion of "a transfer proposal to change the current transfer policy" to date. Instead there have been many conversations over the years about incremental modifications of the existing (strict construction) transfer language in NPRM Section 8 (e.g., 2007-8), which were lately displaced by vigorous debate over the very specific (loose construction) transfer proposal, 2008-2. However 2008-02 represents just one of a wide variety of conceivable (pro)transfer policies. Suggestion: Perhaps the best way to disambiguate question (1) would be to change the possible answers to Yes - and 2008-2 is it Yes - but not 2008-2 No Undecided I don't care Arguably, questions (2) and (3) should be dropped entirely, because of the fatal ambiguity of "a change to the current transfer policy". This ambiguity is eliminated if "a change" actually means 2008-2 -- every community member has a right to express an opinion / report on their personal feelings -- but how can anyone defensibly claim (i.e., why should anyone credit the claim) that they are sufficiently informed to evaluate the pros and cons of all conceivable transfer proposals? Suggestion: In Questions (2) and (3), "a change to the current transfer policy" should be replaced with explicit reference to 2008-2, or else the questions should be dropped. TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Tue Apr 1 20:45:54 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:45:54 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, Message-ID: <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote: > I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this policy. ... I have no problem being specific. I have a problem thinking that you are being specific by referencing sections of US Tax Code. First, its not valid outside the US. Second, it make ARIN policy changeable by the US Congress, probably a bad idea on multiple fronts. Referencing a 501(c)3 organization as an example of an organization that would likely meet the requirements is probably acceptable. > Here's a stab at a statement that describes what I feel should be > included: > > To qualify as a community network under ARIN policy, the network must > be owned and operated by an organization which is organized and/or > chartered as a not-for-profit which is engaged in providing the service > to the benefit of the local community at large and not limited to any > subclass of the community by religion, union membership, pension > status, or any other form of membership requirement other than if > such membership is open to all members of the community with > equal voting status and control of the organization at a cost > which would not reasonably be considered prohibitive to any person > living above the locally defined poverty level. > > This probably needs a lot of work, but, it's the best I could do without > copying the tax code and I'm not willing to do that at 3:15 AM (which > is the local time here at the moment). I like what I see, no references to US Tax Code and personally I don't think I can complain about the specifics, however I do have a question and some scenarios for you to think about; So you are saying that a Community Network must be incorporated for that purpose? Or could other non-profit organizations incubate a Community Network and then spin it out as a separate organization at a future date, or run it for ever as a D.B.A (Doing Business As). I was thinking that maybe some other community based organization should be allowed to sponsor a Community Network and act as the legal entity that can sign contracts on it behalf, with ARIN, etc... I know several Universities and other organizations that are doing this or that have done this kind of thing in the past. In fact much of the early Internet worked this way. A hypothetical example; let's say the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, wanted to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and basically started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, CoC is simply acting as the legal shell for doing business. And for sake of discussion lets say the CoC is organized as a 501(c)6, I have no idea if this is the case or not the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce might be a 501(c)3 for all I know. Another hypothetical example; let's say the University of Minnesota wanted to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and basically started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, UMN is simply acting as the legal shell for doing business. And for discussion UMN is not a 501(c)3, it is a Constitutional Corporation of the State of Minnesota, making it a political sub-division of state government, in this case I know this to be a fact. Just to be clear these are completely hypothetical, at least as far as I know, Minneapolis has a Public/Private partnership delivering community WIFI service already. And it is function as a LIR I believe, and not really the type of thing this policy is intended for. > Owen > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > I will add that 501(c)3 is only one, the most general and common, > > form of a > > non-profit organization recognized by USIRC, several other 501(c) > > organizations could legitimately sponsor a Community Network, > > including a > > 501(c)6 Chamber of Commerce, 501(c)7 Recreational club, just to name a > > few other possibilities. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) > > > > Further, I could easily see a city or other political sub-division > > of government > > sponsoring a Community Network too, and they are not covered by > > 501(c) at > > all. So even if you are only dealing with the US, I think > > specifying 501(c)3 > > would not be a good idea. Then if you bring in other countries you > > probably > > can't be more specific than non-profit or not-for-profit. > > > > On 1 Apr 2008 Ray Plzak wrote: > > > >> Owen, > >> > >> An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the > >> US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good > >> thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local > >> equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply > >> stating > >> not for profit would be sufficient. > >> > >> Ray > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > >>> Behalf Of > >>> Owen DeLong > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM > >>> > >>> + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status > >>> (501(c)5 > >>> should not qualify in my opinion). > >>> > > > > > > ================================================= > > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > > Office of Information Technology > > University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 > > 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 > > ================================================= > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > ================================================= David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 ================================================= From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 1 21:05:32 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:05:32 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:45 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this >> policy. > ... > > I have no problem being specific. I have a problem thinking that > you are > being specific by referencing sections of US Tax Code. First, its > not valid > outside the US. Second, it make ARIN policy changeable by the US > Congress, probably a bad idea on multiple fronts. Referencing a > 501(c)3 > organization as an example of an organization that would likely meet > the > requirements is probably acceptable. > I was not suggesting incorporating the US tax code into policy by reference. I was attempting to make a brief statement to PPML which could be understood by the author in such a way that he could use it to develop policy language that would fit my requirements. Hence my reference to "501(c)3 or local equivalent". Personally, I am not yet convinced that community networks so much need a policy change as they need an appropriate fee structure that can recognize their "limited income" status while still treating them appropriately as an LIR in the ARIN structure. >> Here's a stab at a statement that describes what I feel should be >> included: >> >> To qualify as a community network under ARIN policy, the network must >> be owned and operated by an organization which is organized and/or >> chartered as a not-for-profit which is engaged in providing the >> service >> to the benefit of the local community at large and not limited to any >> subclass of the community by religion, union membership, pension >> status, or any other form of membership requirement other than if >> such membership is open to all members of the community with >> equal voting status and control of the organization at a cost >> which would not reasonably be considered prohibitive to any person >> living above the locally defined poverty level. >> >> This probably needs a lot of work, but, it's the best I could do >> without >> copying the tax code and I'm not willing to do that at 3:15 AM (which >> is the local time here at the moment). > > I like what I see, no references to US Tax Code and personally I > don't think I > can complain about the specifics, however I do have a question and > some > scenarios for you to think about; > > So you are saying that a Community Network must be incorporated for > that > purpose? Or could other non-profit organizations incubate a Community > Network and then spin it out as a separate organization at a future > date, or > run it for ever as a D.B.A (Doing Business As). > I'm saying that the community network should be run by an organization which is chartered in such a way that the community it serves cannot be excluded from controlling the organization. I don't care whether the network is run by an organization chartered for that purpose or another organization, so long as whatever organization is in control is not the pet-project of some exclusionary group to the detriment of other members of the community. I don't believe my language prevents, for example, the Mormon church from creating an organization to run a community network. I don't believe that the organization needs to be incorporated, although certainly that makes it easier. However, the Mormon church would not be able to have exclusive control of the organization or the network, they would have to allow the community at large to join the organization and control the organization on equal footing. > I was thinking that maybe some other community based organization > should > be allowed to sponsor a Community Network and act as the legal > entity that > can sign contracts on it behalf, with ARIN, etc... I know several > Universities > and other organizations that are doing this or that have done this > kind of > thing in the past. In fact much of the early Internet worked this > way. > While that's true, I am not sure that such organizations need special treatment under ARIN policy to accomplish these goals. My bigger concern is that I don't want to start seeing "democrat-net", "republican-net", "abc- xyz-pac-net", "nazi-net", "jew-net", "mormon-net", etc. springing up under this policy and excluding community members that don't fit their idea of who should join. This is not intended as any slight or criticism (or support for that matter) of democrats, republicans, political action committees, nazis, jews, mormons, etc. I'll leave my opinions of those organizations for other fora. > A hypothetical example; let's say the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, > wanted to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and > basically started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, CoC is > simply > acting as the legal shell for doing business. And for sake of > discussion lets > say the CoC is organized as a 501(c)6, I have no idea if this is the > case or > not the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce might be a 501(c)3 for all I > know. > In general, any CoC has open membership. Additionally, the separate organization (DBA) run by the community members would be what I would count for policy purposes, even if it was the CoC that signed the documents. My concern is that for it to be a community network, management has to be open to all members of the community. > Another hypothetical example; let's say the University of Minnesota > wanted > to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and > basically > started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, UMN is simply > acting as > the legal shell for doing business. And for discussion UMN is not a > 501(c)3, > it is a Constitutional Corporation of the State of Minnesota, making > it a > political sub-division of state government, in this case I know this > to be a > fact. > Again, my intent is to exclude the classifications that DO NOT qualify rather than to limit what is included. I think there is room in my proposed language for this to work, although I am perfectly open to language which does a better job of stating this intent. > Just to be clear these are completely hypothetical, at least as far > as I know, > Minneapolis has a Public/Private partnership delivering community WIFI > service already. And it is function as a LIR I believe, and not > really the type > of thing this policy is intended for. > Understood. I think that the goal here needs to be to identify organizations that are doing good for the community at large by building these networks and make sure that they can receive the resources that they need in a non-punative manner and that ARIN needs to find a way to recognize that the traditional ISP fee structure simply does not meet their needs. I've put a suggestion into the ACSP to try and address the fee issue for community networks. In fact, I put it in at almost exactly the time this policy proposal was submitted. Neither the author of the proposal nor myself knew of the other's work at the time we submitted our respective proposals. Personally, I think that the fee structure is the major issue, but, I agree that there could be a policy element to it as well, and, I'm trying to help develop that policy in such a way that it won't prevent the fee structure issue from being addressed. >> Owen >> >> >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >>> I will add that 501(c)3 is only one, the most general and common, >>> form of a >>> non-profit organization recognized by USIRC, several other 501(c) >>> organizations could legitimately sponsor a Community Network, >>> including a >>> 501(c)6 Chamber of Commerce, 501(c)7 Recreational club, just to >>> name a >>> few other possibilities. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) >>> >>> Further, I could easily see a city or other political sub-division >>> of government >>> sponsoring a Community Network too, and they are not covered by >>> 501(c) at >>> all. So even if you are only dealing with the US, I think >>> specifying 501(c)3 >>> would not be a good idea. Then if you bring in other countries you >>> probably >>> can't be more specific than non-profit or not-for-profit. >>> >>> On 1 Apr 2008 Ray Plzak wrote: >>> >>>> Owen, >>>> >>>> An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the >>>> US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good >>>> thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local >>>> equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply >>>> stating >>>> not for profit would be sufficient. >>>> >>>> Ray >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>>>> Behalf Of >>>>> Owen DeLong >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM >>>>> >>>>> + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit >>>>> status >>>>> (501(c)5 >>>>> should not qualify in my opinion). >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ================================================= >>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 >>> 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 >>> ================================================= >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> > > > > ================================================= > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 > 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 > ================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > 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 sleibrand at internap.com Tue Apr 1 21:21:06 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:21:06 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <47F2DF82.9070404@internap.com> Owen DeLong wrote: >> On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this >>> policy. I'm still not sure I understand why it's so important to be exclusionary in policy on this issue. It seems to me that, if we're creating a more restricted set of services (an assignment instead of allocation), but requiring a plan for the same number of customers (200) as under existing policy, that we should leave the rest of the qualifications open, allowing each type of organization free to choose which set of services makes more sense for them. > Personally, I am not yet convinced that community networks so much > need a policy change as they need an appropriate fee structure that > can recognize their "limited income" status while still treating them > appropriately as an LIR in the ARIN structure. I agree that it would be good to provide a reduced fee structure for community networks, and that such a structure should be limited to not-for-profit organizations providing nondiscriminatory network services to their community. However, I think that for a community network to receive reduced fees, it should have to choose a reduced set of services (an assignment), so that ARIN isn't subsidizing such organizations by providing full LIR services at below cost. -Scott From sethm at rollernet.us Wed Apr 2 00:15:07 2008 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:15:07 -0700 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F3084B.8040401@rollernet.us> Bill Darte wrote: > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > I support this proposal. -- Seth Mattinen sethm at rollernet.us Roller Network LLC From steveb at eagle.ca Wed Apr 2 01:36:55 2008 From: steveb at eagle.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:36:55 -0400 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F31B77.1050205@eagle.ca> >> Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise >> statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. I support this proposal, regardless of language changes. > (Lacking hands-on knowledge of reporting usage is why I say "no > reason to not support.") I'm in the same boat, but with my support for the proposal comes an understanding that I will be more diligent in ensuring that my hands become a little more 'dirty'. Steve From josh at acornactivemedia.com Wed Apr 2 02:08:45 2008 From: josh at acornactivemedia.com (Josh King) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:08:45 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <47F322ED.6080408@acornactivemedia.com> David Farmer wrote: > On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this policy. > ... > > I have no problem being specific. I have a problem thinking that you are > being specific by referencing sections of US Tax Code. First, its not valid > outside the US. Second, it make ARIN policy changeable by the US > Congress, probably a bad idea on multiple fronts. Referencing a 501(c)3 > organization as an example of an organization that would likely meet the > requirements is probably acceptable. > >> Here's a stab at a statement that describes what I feel should be >> included: >> >> To qualify as a community network under ARIN policy, the network must >> be owned and operated by an organization which is organized and/or >> chartered as a not-for-profit which is engaged in providing the service >> to the benefit of the local community at large and not limited to any >> subclass of the community by religion, union membership, pension >> status, or any other form of membership requirement other than if >> such membership is open to all members of the community with >> equal voting status and control of the organization at a cost >> which would not reasonably be considered prohibitive to any person >> living above the locally defined poverty level. >> >> This probably needs a lot of work, but, it's the best I could do without >> copying the tax code and I'm not willing to do that at 3:15 AM (which >> is the local time here at the moment). > > I like what I see, no references to US Tax Code and personally I don't think I > can complain about the specifics, however I do have a question and some > scenarios for you to think about; > > So you are saying that a Community Network must be incorporated for that > purpose? Or could other non-profit organizations incubate a Community > Network and then spin it out as a separate organization at a future date, or > run it for ever as a D.B.A (Doing Business As). > > I was thinking that maybe some other community based organization should > be allowed to sponsor a Community Network and act as the legal entity that > can sign contracts on it behalf, with ARIN, etc... I know several Universities > and other organizations that are doing this or that have done this kind of > thing in the past. In fact much of the early Internet worked this way. > > A hypothetical example; let's say the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, > wanted to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and > basically started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, CoC is simply > acting as the legal shell for doing business. And for sake of discussion lets > say the CoC is organized as a 501(c)6, I have no idea if this is the case or > not the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce might be a 501(c)3 for all I > know. > > Another hypothetical example; let's say the University of Minnesota wanted > to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and basically > started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, UMN is simply acting as > the legal shell for doing business. And for discussion UMN is not a 501(c)3, > it is a Constitutional Corporation of the State of Minnesota, making it a > political sub-division of state government, in this case I know this to be a > fact. > > Just to be clear these are completely hypothetical, at least as far as I know, > Minneapolis has a Public/Private partnership delivering community WIFI > service already. And it is function as a LIR I believe, and not really the type > of thing this policy is intended for. In fact most of the community networks that I've encountered have existed as something other than a fully incorporated 501(c)3. Many are working groups of larger organizations or are fiscally sponsored by them. I have no problem with the idea that they should be not-for-profit, but I agree that a degree of flexibility is in order. > >> Owen >> >> >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >>> I will add that 501(c)3 is only one, the most general and common, >>> form of a >>> non-profit organization recognized by USIRC, several other 501(c) >>> organizations could legitimately sponsor a Community Network, >>> including a >>> 501(c)6 Chamber of Commerce, 501(c)7 Recreational club, just to name a >>> few other possibilities. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) >>> >>> Further, I could easily see a city or other political sub-division >>> of government >>> sponsoring a Community Network too, and they are not covered by >>> 501(c) at >>> all. So even if you are only dealing with the US, I think >>> specifying 501(c)3 >>> would not be a good idea. Then if you bring in other countries you >>> probably >>> can't be more specific than non-profit or not-for-profit. >>> >>> On 1 Apr 2008 Ray Plzak wrote: >>> >>>> Owen, >>>> >>>> An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the >>>> US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good >>>> thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local >>>> equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply >>>> stating >>>> not for profit would be sufficient. >>>> >>>> Ray >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>>>> Behalf Of >>>>> Owen DeLong >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM >>>>> >>>>> + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status >>>>> (501(c)5 >>>>> should not qualify in my opinion). >>>>> >>> >>> ================================================= >>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 >>> 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 >>> ================================================= >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. > > > > ================================================= > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 > 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 > ================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Josh King -- josh at acornactivemedia.com -- Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) -- "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From josh at acornactivemedia.com Wed Apr 2 02:43:20 2008 From: josh at acornactivemedia.com (Josh King) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:43:20 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:45 AM, David Farmer wrote: > >> On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this >>> policy. >> ... >> >> I have no problem being specific. I have a problem thinking that >> you are >> being specific by referencing sections of US Tax Code. First, its >> not valid >> outside the US. Second, it make ARIN policy changeable by the US >> Congress, probably a bad idea on multiple fronts. Referencing a >> 501(c)3 >> organization as an example of an organization that would likely meet >> the >> requirements is probably acceptable. >> > I was not suggesting incorporating the US tax code into policy by > reference. I was attempting to make a brief statement to PPML > which could be understood by the author in such a way that he > could use it to develop policy language that would fit my requirements. > Hence my reference to "501(c)3 or local equivalent". > > Personally, I am not yet convinced that community networks so much > need a policy change as they need an appropriate fee structure that > can recognize their "limited income" status while still treating them > appropriately as an LIR in the ARIN structure. > >>> Here's a stab at a statement that describes what I feel should be >>> included: >>> >>> To qualify as a community network under ARIN policy, the network must >>> be owned and operated by an organization which is organized and/or >>> chartered as a not-for-profit which is engaged in providing the >>> service >>> to the benefit of the local community at large and not limited to any >>> subclass of the community by religion, union membership, pension >>> status, or any other form of membership requirement other than if >>> such membership is open to all members of the community with >>> equal voting status and control of the organization at a cost >>> which would not reasonably be considered prohibitive to any person >>> living above the locally defined poverty level. >>> >>> This probably needs a lot of work, but, it's the best I could do >>> without >>> copying the tax code and I'm not willing to do that at 3:15 AM (which >>> is the local time here at the moment). >> I like what I see, no references to US Tax Code and personally I >> don't think I >> can complain about the specifics, however I do have a question and >> some >> scenarios for you to think about; >> >> So you are saying that a Community Network must be incorporated for >> that >> purpose? Or could other non-profit organizations incubate a Community >> Network and then spin it out as a separate organization at a future >> date, or >> run it for ever as a D.B.A (Doing Business As). >> > I'm saying that the community network should be run by an organization > which is chartered in such a way that the community it serves cannot be > excluded from controlling the organization. I don't care whether the > network > is run by an organization chartered for that purpose or another > organization, > so long as whatever organization is in control is not the pet-project > of some > exclusionary group to the detriment of other members of the community. > I don't believe my language prevents, for example, the Mormon church > from > creating an organization to run a community network. I don't believe > that > the organization needs to be incorporated, although certainly that makes > it easier. However, the Mormon church would not be able to have > exclusive > control of the organization or the network, they would have to allow the > community at large to join the organization and control the organization > on equal footing. > >> I was thinking that maybe some other community based organization >> should >> be allowed to sponsor a Community Network and act as the legal >> entity that >> can sign contracts on it behalf, with ARIN, etc... I know several >> Universities >> and other organizations that are doing this or that have done this >> kind of >> thing in the past. In fact much of the early Internet worked this >> way. >> > While that's true, I am not sure that such organizations need special > treatment > under ARIN policy to accomplish these goals. My bigger concern is that > I don't want to start seeing "democrat-net", "republican-net", "abc- > xyz-pac-net", > "nazi-net", "jew-net", "mormon-net", etc. springing up under this > policy and > excluding community members that don't fit their idea of who should > join. > This is not intended as any slight or criticism (or support for that > matter) > of democrats, republicans, political action committees, nazis, jews, > mormons, > etc. I'll leave my opinions of those organizations for other fora. > >> A hypothetical example; let's say the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, >> wanted to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and >> basically started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, CoC is >> simply >> acting as the legal shell for doing business. And for sake of >> discussion lets >> say the CoC is organized as a 501(c)6, I have no idea if this is the >> case or >> not the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce might be a 501(c)3 for all I >> know. >> > In general, any CoC has open membership. Additionally, the separate > organization (DBA) run by the community members would be what I would > count for policy purposes, even if it was the CoC that signed the > documents. > My concern is that for it to be a community network, management has to > be > open to all members of the community. > >> Another hypothetical example; let's say the University of Minnesota >> wanted >> to sponsor the creation of a Minneapolis Community Network, and >> basically >> started it as a D.B.A, community members run it, UMN is simply >> acting as >> the legal shell for doing business. And for discussion UMN is not a >> 501(c)3, >> it is a Constitutional Corporation of the State of Minnesota, making >> it a >> political sub-division of state government, in this case I know this >> to be a >> fact. >> > Again, my intent is to exclude the classifications that DO NOT qualify > rather > than to limit what is included. I think there is room in my proposed > language > for this to work, although I am perfectly open to language which does a > better job of stating this intent. > >> Just to be clear these are completely hypothetical, at least as far >> as I know, >> Minneapolis has a Public/Private partnership delivering community WIFI >> service already. And it is function as a LIR I believe, and not >> really the type >> of thing this policy is intended for. >> > Understood. I think that the goal here needs to be to identify > organizations > that are doing good for the community at large by building these > networks > and make sure that they can receive the resources that they need in a > non-punative manner and that ARIN needs to find a way to recognize that > the traditional ISP fee structure simply does not meet their needs. > > I've put a suggestion into the ACSP to try and address the fee issue for > community networks. In fact, I put it in at almost exactly the time > this policy > proposal was submitted. Neither the author of the proposal nor myself > knew of the other's work at the time we submitted our respective > proposals. > Personally, I think that the fee structure is the major issue, but, I > agree that > there could be a policy element to it as well, and, I'm trying to help > develop > that policy in such a way that it won't prevent the fee structure > issue from > being addressed. That's funny. The most initial version of my proposal had mention of fee structure, since due to my relative inexperience with this process I did not realize that policy was not an appropriate venue for that discussion. It was because of that correction that I removed ALL reference to fiscal matters, which is why there is no mention of not-for-profit status in the proposal. I'm glad to hear that there is work on the fee structure progressing simultaneously. :) However I do feel that there is sufficient reason for a policy addition as well as a fee revision, such as: -Many community networks span a sufficient area where they draw connectivity from multiple links to upstream ISPs. For instance a wireless mesh network may serve as a contiguous ad-hoc network providing internal routing to multiple gateways. If nodes are numbered by addresses assigned by the upstream provider, conflicts could arise without partitioning the network, which would interfere with bandwidth multiplexing and intranet services. -Many such networks are dynamically scalable on cheap, consumer-grade hardware. This means that these networks can grow arbitrarily large depending on community participation. The ability to assign externally routable addresses as opposed to the internal ones now used is, besides being more architecturally pleasing, that it largely or completely eliminates the need for NAT, which vastly increases the scalability when you have gateways running cheap, low-grade hardware upon which the resource strain increases exponentially with the size of the network requiring address translation. -Globally routable addresses help facilitate the interconnection of various community networks worldwide, through projects like COMMONS (http://www.caida.org/projects/commons) and Intercity VPN (http://wiki.freifunk.net/IC-VPN). -Most of all, I think it's important for these small organizations serving communities to participate in this process in order to carve out a niche for themselves as first-class internet citizens as systems migrate to IPv6. By providing a process by which a community network can acquire address space, I think it provides a useful path for organizations that wish to provide services without placing themselves on a competition footing with traditional LIRs/ISPs. I agree with the addition of language to mandate that community networks be run in an open fashion by not-for-profit community-driven entities. Because I know of many such organizations which are not fully-incorporated 501(c)3's in their own right, I don't know that it should be more specific than that, but I definitely wouldn't want the policy to be exploited. > >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David Farmer wrote: >>> >>>> I will add that 501(c)3 is only one, the most general and common, >>>> form of a >>>> non-profit organization recognized by USIRC, several other 501(c) >>>> organizations could legitimately sponsor a Community Network, >>>> including a >>>> 501(c)6 Chamber of Commerce, 501(c)7 Recreational club, just to >>>> name a >>>> few other possibilities. >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c) >>>> >>>> Further, I could easily see a city or other political sub-division >>>> of government >>>> sponsoring a Community Network too, and they are not covered by >>>> 501(c) at >>>> all. So even if you are only dealing with the US, I think >>>> specifying 501(c)3 >>>> would not be a good idea. Then if you bring in other countries you >>>> probably >>>> can't be more specific than non-profit or not-for-profit. >>>> >>>> On 1 Apr 2008 Ray Plzak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Owen, >>>>> >>>>> An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the >>>>> US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good >>>>> thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local >>>>> equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply >>>>> stating >>>>> not for profit would be sufficient. >>>>> >>>>> Ray >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>>>>> Behalf Of >>>>>> Owen DeLong >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> + IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit >>>>>> status >>>>>> (501(c)5 >>>>>> should not qualify in my opinion). >>>>>> >>>> >>>> ================================================= >>>> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >>>> Office of Information Technology >>>> University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 >>>> 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 >>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 >>>> ================================================= >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >> >> >> ================================================= >> David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 >> 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 >> ================================================= >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -- Josh King -- josh at acornactivemedia.com -- Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) -- "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 2 05:36:10 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:36:10 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <83826091-5E1B-4030-B481-BD8906DD7B13@delong.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: > I absolutely oppose the idea of including organizations > organized under 501(c)5, or equivalent, for this purpose, Aha! We have a lawyer on the list. Could you kindly take a look at the Income Tax Act and let us know which sections apply and do not apply, to your criteria for which non-profits should be eligible for special treatment? By the way, I am opposed to any special treatment at all for non-profits. If ARIN is going to issue allocations for the use of a single geographic community, then it should b e irrelevant whether the recipient of the allocation is a profit-making or non-profit organization. The key criteria should be that the addresses are to be used within the community. In fact, I would be in favor of ARIN allocating addresses to a community without any recipient at all. In that case, the reassignments would be done by ARIN or some agent of ARIN. --Michael Dillon From CWeakley at birch.com Wed Apr 2 09:30:07 2008 From: CWeakley at birch.com (Weakley, Charles "Eddie") Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:30:07 -0500 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E7BFD59A625645896314F7BCE35FEF03DBCB3C@KCDCEVS02.birch.com> I support this proposal as written. Thank You, Eddy Weakley Birch Telecom > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Bill Darte > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:59 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections > > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will > be presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public > policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to > review this policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html > > It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate > feedback from the community to assess a consensus for or > against this proposal (and all other, too) or consensus that > it is worthy, but in need of further work. > > Please register your support, objection or suggestions by > concise statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. > > Thank you for your involvement and continuing support of the > proposal process! > > 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 owen at delong.com Wed Apr 2 12:09:46 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 01:09:46 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F2DF82.9070404@internap.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> <47F2DF82.9070404@internap.com> Message-ID: On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>>> I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this >>>> policy. > > I'm still not sure I understand why it's so important to be > exclusionary in policy on this issue. It seems to me that, if we're > creating a more restricted set of services (an assignment instead of > allocation), but requiring a plan for the same number of customers > (200) as under existing policy, that we should leave the rest of the > qualifications open, allowing each type of organization free to > choose which set of services makes more sense for them. > 1. I don't think that assignments are necessarily the correct answer for community networks. 2. Separate from the policy issue, I'd like to see the BoT be able to put together some fee structures for community networks that provide more attractive (achievable) costs in appropriate circumstances while not providing a free handout to just any random organization. >> Personally, I am not yet convinced that community networks so much >> need a policy change as they need an appropriate fee structure that >> can recognize their "limited income" status while still treating them >> appropriately as an LIR in the ARIN structure. > > I agree that it would be good to provide a reduced fee structure for > community networks, and that such a structure should be limited to > not-for-profit organizations providing nondiscriminatory network > services to their community. However, I think that for a community > network to receive reduced fees, it should have to choose a reduced > set of services (an assignment), so that ARIN isn't subsidizing such > organizations by providing full LIR services at below cost. > We can agree to disagree on that. I don't think that there is much of a difference from ARIN cost perspective between LIR and non-LIR services and that by forcing community networks into assignments, we actually do a greater disservice to the larger community while not actually implementing any meaningful restriction on the community networks themselves. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Apr 2 12:22:08 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 01:22:08 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu> <47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> > > I agree with the addition of language to mandate that community > networks > be run in an open fashion by not-for-profit community-driven entities. > Because I know of many such organizations which are not > fully-incorporated 501(c)3's in their own right, I don't know that it > should be more specific than that, but I definitely wouldn't want the > policy to be exploited. >> OK... This thread has lead me to deeply regret using 501(c)3 as an initial EXAMPLE of ONE TYPE of acceptable organization because everyone seems to have gotten caught up in the idea of what is/isn't appropriate about that as a criteria. Please, let's drop the 501(c)3 debate. I apologize for attempting to use it as an example of an acceptable type of not-for-profit vs. the many other IRS categories for not-for-profit status which I would consider NOT acceptable for this policy. Let's focus instead on the meat of what should or should not qualify under this policy proposal and move on. 501(c)3 is a rathole and I apologize for introducing it. In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific enough that it does not provide openings to be exploited by PACs, random religious, political, or other groups organized in the interest of furthering an agenda in favor of some subgroup of society. Owen From ipgoddess at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 15:16:38 2008 From: ipgoddess at gmail.com (Stacy Taylor) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:16:38 -0700 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c16a4870804021216y13db5ba6jbe39e8204b5b117a@mail.gmail.com> I support this policy as written.Stacy On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Bill Darte wrote: > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this > policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html > > It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback from > the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and > all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further > work. > > Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise > statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. > > Thank you for your involvement and continuing support of the proposal > process! > > 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. > -- :):) /S -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sleibrand at internap.com Wed Apr 2 15:28:01 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:28:01 -0700 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections In-Reply-To: <1c16a4870804021216y13db5ba6jbe39e8204b5b117a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c16a4870804021216y13db5ba6jbe39e8204b5b117a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47F3DE41.4000505@internap.com> I also support this policy as written. -Scott Stacy Taylor wrote: > I support this policy as written. > Stacy > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Bill Darte > wrote: > > Hello, > > I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be > presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. > > Policy Proposal 2008-1 > SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments > Author: Joe Maimon > > I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this > policy proposal at: > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html > > It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback from > the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and > all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further > work. > > Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise > statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. > > Thank you for your involvement and continuing support of the proposal > process! > > 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. > > > > > -- > :):) > /S > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 linda at sat-tel.com Wed Apr 2 15:58:25 2008 From: linda at sat-tel.com (Linda) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:58:25 -0400 Subject: [ppml] 2008-1 - Please reiterate your support or objections Message-ID: <00a001c894fb$eb4ddd70$966600d0@Linda> I support 2008-1 SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments. Linda Satellite Communication Systems, Inc. On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Bill Darte wrote: Hello, I am an Advisory Council shepherd for this proposal and will be presenting on behalf of the author at the Denver public policy meeting. Policy Proposal 2008-1 SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments Author: Joe Maimon I would ask everyone actively engaged or lurking on ppml to review this policy proposal at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html It is important that the Advisory Council receive adequate feedback from the community to assess a consensus for or against this proposal (and all other, too) or consensus that it is worthy, but in need of further work. Please register your support, objection or suggestions by concise statement to the ppml between now and the meeting next week. Thank you for your involvement and continuing support of the proposal process! Bill Darte ARIN Advisory Council _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Wed Apr 2 19:51:36 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:51:36 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, , Message-ID: <47F3D5B8.21606.4CDC029@farmer.umn.edu> On 2 Apr 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > By the way, I am opposed to any special treatment at all > for non-profits. If ARIN is going to issue allocations for > the use of a single geographic community, then it should b e > irrelevant whether the recipient of the allocation is a > profit-making or non-profit organization. I think it is relevant, not because I think non-profits should be treated specially, but because a Community Network needs to be first and foremost acting in the communities interest. And it is difficult if not impossible for a for-profit organization to first and foremost act in the communities interest. By definition it is first and foremost to act in the fiscal interest of the owners or share-holders of the organization. Not-for-profits is one of the ways our society has created to create entities that act in the communitys interest. I'm not saying that for-profit entities can't and don't act in the community interest, it is usually good business to do so. But if for some reason it wasn't good business to act in the communities interest, a for-profit organization is obligated to act in the interest of the owners or share-holders and not the communities interest. > The key criteria > should be that the addresses are to be used within the > community. In fact, I would be in favor of ARIN allocating > addresses to a community without any recipient at all. In > that case, the reassignments would be done by ARIN or some > agent of ARIN. Not that I necessarily don't like this idea, but how do you propose this might work in more detail? Would this be for personal use only, commercial use too; what size assignments /64s, /60s, /56s; route table issue; what kind of fee structure are you thinking of; This seems like a lot more work for ARIN. > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > 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. ================================================= David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 ================================================= From randy at psg.com Wed Apr 2 19:56:58 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:56:58 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F3D5B8.21606.4CDC029@farmer.umn.edu> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, , <47F3D5B8.21606.4CDC029@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <47F41D4A.5000302@psg.com> many community networks are not incorporated. e.g. seattle wireless, maybe one of the oldest free wirless communities is not incorporated. randy From farmer at umn.edu Wed Apr 2 21:52:31 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:52:31 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F41D4A.5000302@psg.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F3D5B8.21606.4CDC029@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F41D4A.5000302@psg.com> Message-ID: <47F3F20F.26510.6A9140@farmer.umn.edu> I know a lot are not incorporated, hence the scenarios I brought up in earlier emails. In Seattle's instance who signes any contracts, like lets say a an ARIN RSA for instance. I was thinking another community based non-profit that is incorporated could and maybe should take that role on behalf of the Community Network. I could maybe see an individual could do it. But, I'm not sure I like the idea fo a for-profit company taking on that role. Do you have other ideas on how to deal with the issue? Or am I being just too midwestern about this kind of thing. On 3 Apr 2008 Randy Bush wrote: > many community networks are not incorporated. e.g. seattle wireless, > maybe one of the oldest free wirless communities is not incorporated. > > randy ================================================= David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 ================================================= From owen at delong.com Thu Apr 3 00:01:34 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:01:34 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F3F20F.26510.6A9140@farmer.umn.edu> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F3D5B8.21606.4CDC029@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F41D4A.5000302@psg.com> <47F3F20F.26510.6A9140@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <4C00D04B-CE4C-4F58-A49A-A85A702F7B2A@delong.com> I don't think incorporation should be required, but, some set of requirements which embody the idea that the organization is structured for the benefit of the community and has non-exclusive membership based control of the organization should be part of the policy in my opinion. Owen On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:52 AM, David Farmer wrote: > I know a lot are not incorporated, hence the scenarios I brought up > in earlier > emails. In Seattle's instance who signes any contracts, like lets > say a an > ARIN RSA for instance. I was thinking another community based non- > profit > that is incorporated could and maybe should take that role on behalf > of the > Community Network. I could maybe see an individual could do it. > But, I'm > not sure I like the idea fo a for-profit company taking on that role. > > Do you have other ideas on how to deal with the issue? Or am I > being just > too midwestern about this kind of thing. > > On 3 Apr 2008 Randy Bush wrote: > >> many community networks are not incorporated. e.g. seattle wireless, >> maybe one of the oldest free wirless communities is not incorporated. >> >> randy > > > > ================================================= > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 > 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 > ================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Apr 3 05:07:21 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:07:21 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> Message-ID: > In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific > enough that it does not provide openings to be exploited by > PACs, random religious, political, or other groups organized > in the interest of furthering an agenda in favor of some > subgroup of society. This goes against the spirit of the ARIN charter, if not the letter. ARIN has no justification to create policies which are prejudicial against some class of organization. IP address policy must remain firmly rooted in the technical requirements of IP addressing. If political lobby groups, religious organizations, or any other group organized to further the agenda of some subgroup of society (say Verizon) wants to get IP addresses from ARIN, they should get them on the same terms as any other group. --Michael Dillon From randy at psg.com Thu Apr 3 08:15:34 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:15:34 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F3F20F.26510.6A9140@farmer.umn.edu> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F3D5B8.21606.4CDC029@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F41D4A.5000302@psg.com> <47F3F20F.26510.6A9140@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <47F4CA66.4050202@psg.com> David Farmer wrote: > I know a lot are not incorporated, hence the scenarios I brought up in earlier > emails. In Seattle's instance who signes any contracts, like lets say a an > ARIN RSA for instance. perhaps get your accountant/lawyer/... to explain to you. i am not one, but believe that informal partnerships can act legally. but this is not our problem, but one for arin staff. randy From jay at impulse.net Thu Apr 3 13:41:19 2008 From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:41:19 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> Message-ID: <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: [somebody else wrote] >> In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific >> enough that it does not provide openings to be exploited by >> PACs, random religious, political, or other groups organized >> in the interest of furthering an agenda in favor of some >> subgroup of society. > > This goes against the spirit of the ARIN charter, if not the letter. > ARIN has no justification to create policies which are prejudicial > against some class of organization. IP address policy must remain > firmly rooted in the technical requirements of IP addressing. > > If political lobby groups, religious organizations, or any other group > organized to further the agenda of some subgroup of society (say > Verizon) > wants to get IP addresses from ARIN, they should get them on the same > terms as any other group. It seems to me that the purpose of the proposed change was to accommodate organizations similar to the old-school "freenets" which aren't commercial ISPs or political/religious/agenda-driven organizations. Something along the lines of a rural wireless community, a homeowners' association, etc. I'm thinking about the old days where a group of people in an off-the-beaten-path dialing area would band together and get a modem bank and a fractional T-1. The purpose of the organization was to provide Internet access to a diverse group in a community as opposed to an existing group with an agenda adding Internet access as an adjunct to the agenda. Such community networks are somewhat of a special case in that they aren't quite LIRs as they have no "customers" other than the members of the cooperative, but they aren't end users in that they exist for the purpose of distributing access to their members (who are customer-like). IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more ISP-like than end-user-like. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From captain at netidea.com Thu Apr 3 14:13:04 2008 From: captain at netidea.com (Kirk Ismay) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:13:04 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F51E30.2060906@netidea.com> > IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR > definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more > ISP-like than end-user-like. I would agree that if it acts like a LIR than it should be treated as such, on a level playing field. -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512 Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com From josh at acornactivemedia.com Thu Apr 3 14:37:41 2008 From: josh at acornactivemedia.com (Josh King) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:37:41 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> Jay Hennigan wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > [somebody else wrote] >>> In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific >>> enough that it does not provide openings to be exploited by >>> PACs, random religious, political, or other groups organized >>> in the interest of furthering an agenda in favor of some >>> subgroup of society. >> This goes against the spirit of the ARIN charter, if not the letter. >> ARIN has no justification to create policies which are prejudicial >> against some class of organization. IP address policy must remain >> firmly rooted in the technical requirements of IP addressing. >> >> If political lobby groups, religious organizations, or any other group >> organized to further the agenda of some subgroup of society (say >> Verizon) >> wants to get IP addresses from ARIN, they should get them on the same >> terms as any other group. > > It seems to me that the purpose of the proposed change was to > accommodate organizations similar to the old-school "freenets" which > aren't commercial ISPs or political/religious/agenda-driven > organizations. Something along the lines of a rural wireless community, > a homeowners' association, etc. > > I'm thinking about the old days where a group of people in an > off-the-beaten-path dialing area would band together and get a modem > bank and a fractional T-1. The purpose of the organization was to > provide Internet access to a diverse group in a community as opposed to > an existing group with an agenda adding Internet access as an adjunct to > the agenda. > > Such community networks are somewhat of a special case in that they > aren't quite LIRs as they have no "customers" other than the members of > the cooperative, but they aren't end users in that they exist for the > purpose of distributing access to their members (who are customer-like). > > IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR > definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more > ISP-like than end-user-like. > I would say that this is a very accurate characterization of what many (most?) of these organizations are like, with some of them (notably the Champaign-Urbana Wireless Network, Seattle Wireless, and Il Sans Fil) having some open-source software development too, purely for the betterment of the network. It's true that the current policies do not fit them, as they are more like an LIR than like an end-user but neither do they have "customers." 2008-3 is just one way to try and get them included in the allocation policy, there are probably other methods (like modifying the LIR policy as you suggested). Tough to say which is the best way. -- Josh King -- josh at acornactivemedia.com -- Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) -- "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From info at arin.net Thu Apr 3 15:27:07 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:27:07 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Poll - Transfer Policy - Results In-Reply-To: <47F10A45.70001@arin.net> References: <47F10A45.70001@arin.net> Message-ID: <47F52F8B.6060105@arin.net> Transfer Policy Poll The total subscriber count for PPML was 1812 when the poll began. The poll ran for three days (12:00 EDT, 31 March thru 12:00 EDT, 3 April 2008). Poll Results: Q1: Do you feel a transfer proposal to change the current transfer policy should exist? Answer Count Yes 96 No 28 Undecided 132 I don't care 18 Q2: Do you feel that you have been informed enough on the pro's and con's of what a change in the current transfer policy would have in our internet community? Answer Count Yes 100 No 172 Q3: Do you feel informed enough in general to make a decision regarding a change to the current transfer policy? Answer Count Yes 103 No 170 Q4: Will you attend the April ARIN meeting in Denver via remote participation? Answer Count Yes 74 No 218 Q5: Will you attend the April ARIN meeting in Denver in person? Answer Count Yes 37 No 298 Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Member Services wrote: > The ARIN Advisory Council is conducting a poll. The poll contains five > questions. You will receive five e-mails, one question per message. > > Every e-mail address subscribed to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) > will be e-mailed individually with instructions on how to participate in > the poll. If an alias is subscribed to the PPML that is then distributed > to several individuals, only the first opinion registered will be > counted. Only those who are already subscribed when the poll starts may > participate. > > The poll ends at noon EDT on Thursday, 3 April 2008. The results will be > sent to PPML. > > Regards, > > Member Services > 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 stephen at sprunk.org Thu Apr 3 15:58:06 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:58:06 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> Message-ID: <016901c895c5$cf805850$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Jay Hennigan" > Such community networks are somewhat of a special case in that they > aren't quite LIRs as they have no "customers" other than the members of > the cooperative, but they aren't end users in that they exist for the > purpose of distributing access to their members (who are customer-like). > > IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR > definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more > ISP-like than end-user-like. This, to me, is more sensible than trying to create a third category of registrants. In all of the discussion to date, I haven't found any technical differentiators between "community networks" and LIRs. Remember, not all LIRs are ISPs. AIUI, the problems "community networks" face are financial and legal, not policy, so the policy process is not the right way to provide them assistance. Therefore, I must oppose this proposal. If some part of the LIR policy needs to be changed to account for all end-users not being "customers" (but, perhaps, "members" or some other term), I would be in favor of that. I would also be in favor of the BoT adopting some sort of alternate fee schedule for not-for-profit or member-based organizations. (I do see potential problems in who signs the RSA, who is responsible for paying fees, etc. in very loose organizations, but I have confidence that staff and counsel will work through those issues best without our interference.) 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 Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Thu Apr 3 16:04:06 2008 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:04:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: I'm against it as written. To keep my rationale short, I'll refer to two messages by Owen Delong, paraphrasing: 1) A community networks should be defined by having a status such as 501c3. 2) The example 501c3 should not have been mentioned. Reading the proposal now, I would consider my local cable operator (Northern Virginia Cox) to qualify as a community network. I don't need or expect answer to this on PPML, but after reading the discussion and proposal - what's an example of a "community network", as in "a real life example?" And "why would they need special dispensation?" How do they differ from an LIR/ISP? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From jay at impulse.net Thu Apr 3 16:42:20 2008 From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:42:20 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> Edward Lewis wrote: > I'm against it as written. > > To keep my rationale short, I'll refer to two messages by Owen > Delong, paraphrasing: > > 1) A community networks should be defined by having a status such as 501c3. > > 2) The example 501c3 should not have been mentioned. > > Reading the proposal now, I would consider my local cable operator > (Northern Virginia Cox) to qualify as a community network. I don't > need or expect answer to this on PPML, but after reading the > discussion and proposal - what's an example of a "community network", > as in "a real life example?" And "why would they need special > dispensation?" How do they differ from an LIR/ISP? As I understand the intent, from a technical/engineering standpoint a community network resembles a local or regional ISP. In my opinion they should be considered an LIR by ARIN, as opposed to attempting to define them as a separate type of entity. From an administrative standpoint, they are more along the lines of a co-operative than an ISP. Think of them as like a food co-op instead of a supermarket. Unlike your cable operator a community network doesn't have customers, it has members. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From steveb at eagle.ca Thu Apr 3 17:06:22 2008 From: steveb at eagle.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:06:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F546CE.1050101@eagle.ca> I disagree that a third designation is necessary at all. What happens if for any reason a non-profit 'community' network operator folds, and a commercially driven ISP buys up their assets? My opinion is that any entity providing any form of Internet service should be classified as an Internet Service Provider. > Unlike your cable operator a community network doesn't > have customers, it has members. Whether the user of the service is classified as a 'member' or a 'customer', both designations could be put under an umbrella called 'subscriber'. Steve From josh at acornactivemedia.com Fri Apr 4 00:43:02 2008 From: josh at acornactivemedia.com (Josh King) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:43:02 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> Jay Hennigan wrote: > Edward Lewis wrote: >> I'm against it as written. >> >> To keep my rationale short, I'll refer to two messages by Owen >> Delong, paraphrasing: >> >> 1) A community networks should be defined by having a status such as 501c3. >> >> 2) The example 501c3 should not have been mentioned. >> >> Reading the proposal now, I would consider my local cable operator >> (Northern Virginia Cox) to qualify as a community network. I don't >> need or expect answer to this on PPML, but after reading the >> discussion and proposal - what's an example of a "community network", >> as in "a real life example?" And "why would they need special >> dispensation?" How do they differ from an LIR/ISP? > > As I understand the intent, from a technical/engineering standpoint a > community network resembles a local or regional ISP. In my opinion they > should be considered an LIR by ARIN, as opposed to attempting to define > them as a separate type of entity. > > From an administrative standpoint, they are more along the lines of a > co-operative than an ISP. Think of them as like a food co-op instead of > a supermarket. Unlike your cable operator a community network doesn't > have customers, it has members. > What do you all think about this, as a possible revision (addition at the end): "A community network is a generic reference to any network that is operated by a group of people living in a particular local area organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network services to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, county, district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however designated. The network must be operated in a not-for-profit fashion, and for the general good of the designated community to which its services are provided, while providing avenues of participation for said community." I'm hesitant to get more specific than that. It seems like some people want tighter restrictions on organizational type, and some want less. I think this provides a clarification without restricting the internal structure of the group or organization that operates the network. I agree with your assessment of the technical vs. administrative structure of community networks, as this is the crux of the problem. A community network applying for address space from ARIN is turned away because they don't fit the policy. They are not just an end-user, because they provide services. But they can't show that they're an LIR, because they have no customers. That's what I'm trying to address, by whatever method. There are probably many ways to shoehorn them into the policy; the method suggested to me by ARIN staff when I started this process was to add a third category, which was what I decided to pursue. I think this has some benefits, as opposed to expanding the LIR policy. Although not all LIRs are ISPs, most are. In a time when municipal networks are under fire from ISPs for being anti-competitive, the last thing that most community networks want is to be regarded as a direct competitor to local ISPs, who in many cases are the ones from whom the community network is receiving their connectivity. Community networks are predominantly providing services where traditional ISPs aren't, or providing alternative services besides just internet access. But if they are classed as LIRs, they may be regarded as ISPs, and will have more difficulties with trying to fit in with commercial ISPs. Or such is my perception. It also serves to prevent diluting the LIR policy, making its rules more lax in what might be perceived as a disservice to those organizations who have already qualified under that policy. On the other hand, changing the LIR policy to allow community networks may be a simpler modification, a consideration that might override any perceived benefits from the other route. Hopefully I can make this version of the policy sufficiently acceptable to everyone, but maybe that'll be something to try next time if this one doesn't get passed ;) -- Josh King -- josh at acornactivemedia.com -- Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) -- "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From josh at acornactivemedia.com Fri Apr 4 00:46:43 2008 From: josh at acornactivemedia.com (Josh King) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:46:43 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F546CE.1050101@eagle.ca> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F546CE.1050101@eagle.ca> Message-ID: <47F5B2B3.6060408@acornactivemedia.com> Steve Bertrand wrote: > I disagree that a third designation is necessary at all. What happens if > for any reason a non-profit 'community' network operator folds, and a > commercially driven ISP buys up their assets? > I think there may be some legal issues with a for-profit organization buying off the assets of a non-profit. What do you think about there being a restriction that an allocation to a community network be "non-transferable to any for-profit entity"? Is this a concern, considering that all IPv6 blocks are, under the NRPM, leased rather than owned? > My opinion is that any entity providing any form of Internet service > should be classified as an Internet Service Provider. > >> Unlike your cable operator a community network doesn't >> have customers, it has members. > > Whether the user of the service is classified as a 'member' or a > 'customer', both designations could be put under an umbrella called > 'subscriber'. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Josh King -- josh at acornactivemedia.com -- Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) -- "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 4 04:22:45 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 01:22:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> Message-ID: <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > [somebody else wrote] >>> In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific >>> enough that it does not provide openings to be exploited by >>> PACs, random religious, political, or other groups organized >>> in the interest of furthering an agenda in favor of some >>> subgroup of society. >> >> This goes against the spirit of the ARIN charter, if not the letter. >> ARIN has no justification to create policies which are prejudicial >> against some class of organization. IP address policy must remain >> firmly rooted in the technical requirements of IP addressing. >> >> If political lobby groups, religious organizations, or any other >> group >> organized to further the agenda of some subgroup of society (say >> Verizon) >> wants to get IP addresses from ARIN, they should get them on the same >> terms as any other group. > > It seems to me that the purpose of the proposed change was to > accommodate organizations similar to the old-school "freenets" which > aren't commercial ISPs or political/religious/agenda-driven > organizations. Something along the lines of a rural wireless > community, > a homeowners' association, etc. > Exactly. > I'm thinking about the old days where a group of people in an > off-the-beaten-path dialing area would band together and get a modem > bank and a fractional T-1. The purpose of the organization was to > provide Internet access to a diverse group in a community as opposed > to > an existing group with an agenda adding Internet access as an > adjunct to > the agenda. > Precisely. > Such community networks are somewhat of a special case in that they > aren't quite LIRs as they have no "customers" other than the members > of > the cooperative, but they aren't end users in that they exist for the > purpose of distributing access to their members (who are customer- > like). > Yep. > IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR > definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more > ISP-like than end-user-like. > The problem with that approach is that most, if not virtually all of these organizations have financial means which fall far short of the ability to pay ARIN subscriber-member fees. I agree that we should develop policy that allows them to operate similar to LIRs, but, I also think that it is reasonable and worth while to encourage the BOT to develop a fee structure that allows them to make good use of that policy. Owen From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Fri Apr 4 05:17:43 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:17:43 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> References: <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: <20080404091743.GA10545@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:43:02PM -0500, Josh King wrote: > > What do you all think about this, as a possible revision (addition at > the end): > > "A community network is a generic reference to any network that is > operated by a group of people living in a particular local area > organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network services > to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional > municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, county, > district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however > designated. The network must be operated in a not-for-profit fashion, > and for the general good of the designated community to which its > services are provided, while providing avenues of participation for said > community." > > Josh King NSFnet regional networks fit that definition... and then were sold to verio.... which did not meet the definition. that said, not all ISP's have customers, customers is just one business/operational model for an ISP. imho of course. --bill From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 4 05:22:21 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:22:21 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <20080404091743.GA10545@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> <20080404091743.GA10545@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <47F5F34D.1010806@psg.com> > NSFnet regional networks fit that definition... and then > were sold to verio.... which did not meet the definition. and your point is? m&a transfers seem already pretty well covered by policy and fees already. randy From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 4 05:45:32 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 02:45:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> Message-ID: <1E9E6B67-B03D-45F1-A9D1-E055BAFF5A3B@delong.com> > "A community network is a generic reference to any network that is > operated by a group of people living in a particular local area > organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network > services > to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional > municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, > county, > district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however > designated. The network must be operated in a not-for-profit fashion, > and for the general good of the designated community to which its > services are provided, while providing avenues of participation for > said > community." > First, under this description, virtually any organization has enough wiggle room to qualify. Second, avenues of participation != level playing field, so, there could be very little ability for the community served to influence the operation of the network under this definition. I don't think that's adequate. > I'm hesitant to get more specific than that. It seems like some people > want tighter restrictions on organizational type, and some want > less. I > think this provides a clarification without restricting the internal > structure of the group or organization that operates the network. > I don't care so much about organization type, but, I don't believe that geography is the best definition and I do believe that it should be a hard requirement to be operated by the community for the community and governed by the community. Further, I believe the community must be non-exclusive. > I agree with your assessment of the technical vs. administrative > structure of community networks, as this is the crux of the problem. A > community network applying for address space from ARIN is turned away > because they don't fit the policy. They are not just an end-user, > because they provide services. But they can't show that they're an > LIR, > because they have no customers. That's what I'm trying to address, by Existing policy makes only exemplar reference to "customer". It does not require customers: 6.2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs are generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs The subsequent policy in section 6.5.1 also references "other organizations" and does not reference "customers". As such, I think this portion of the argument is somewhat moot. > whatever method. There are probably many ways to shoehorn them into > the > policy; the method suggested to me by ARIN staff when I started this > process was to add a third category, which was what I decided to > pursue. > I think this has some benefits, as opposed to expanding the LIR > policy. > Although not all LIRs are ISPs, most are. In a time when municipal > networks are under fire from ISPs for being anti-competitive, the last > thing that most community networks want is to be regarded as a direct > competitor to local ISPs, who in many cases are the ones from whom the Interesting. I'm surprised to hear this was a staff recommendation, but, I'm even more curious as to how you see the differentiation between a community network and an LIR from a policy perspective being meaningful. IOW, how do you define the difference such that they aren't just another organization receiving resources from ARIN and passing them out to their subscribers/members/customers/whatever you want to call them? > > community network is receiving their connectivity. Community networks > are predominantly providing services where traditional ISPs aren't, or > providing alternative services besides just internet access. But if > they > are classed as LIRs, they may be regarded as ISPs, and will have more > difficulties with trying to fit in with commercial ISPs. Or such is my > perception. It also serves to prevent diluting the LIR policy, making > its rules more lax in what might be perceived as a disservice to those > organizations who have already qualified under that policy. > I don't think that making them LIRs will necessarily create the perception that they are ISPs. I think that the term LIR was specifically adopted to address the fact that there are needs for IRs which are NOT ISPs, such as is the case here. > On the other hand, changing the LIR policy to allow community networks > may be a simpler modification, a consideration that might override any > perceived benefits from the other route. Hopefully I can make this > version of the policy sufficiently acceptable to everyone, but maybe > that'll be something to try next time if this one doesn't get > passed ;) > I look at it this way. To do what you are describing, there is benefit to the community at large if the community network is providing accurate information about the redistribution of addresses through the SWIP process. If the community network is given an assignment, then, that is not possible. If they are treated as an LIR, otoh, this is easy. Could you please point out the parts of existing 6.5.1 that you think are incompatible with community networks? Thanks, Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Fri Apr 4 05:56:21 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:56:21 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F5F34D.1010806@psg.com> References: <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> <20080404091743.GA10545@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47F5F34D.1010806@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080404095621.GA11090@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:22:21PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > NSFnet regional networks fit that definition... and then > > were sold to verio.... which did not meet the definition. > > and your point is? > > m&a transfers seem already pretty well covered by policy and fees already. > > randy the first point is that creating/enforcing a special class has a whole raft of problems, esp since there is precident for migration of stewardship between bodies w/ different operational/business models. point the second, the term "Internet Service Provider" should not be presumed to have a specific operational or business model, e.g. customers that buy services. the above points are my opinions of course - YMMV --bill From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 4 06:08:10 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:08:10 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <20080404095621.GA11090@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> <20080404091743.GA10545@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47F5F34D.1010806@psg.com> <20080404095621.GA11090@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <47F5FE0A.2050803@psg.com> > the first point is that creating/enforcing a special class > has a whole raft of problems, esp since there is precident > for migration of stewardship between bodies w/ different > operational/business models. does current policy handle when a size x lir becomes a size y lir? does it handle when an end site becomes an lir? > point the second, the term "Internet Service Provider" > should not be presumed to have a specific operational > or business model, e.g. customers that buy services. ok, ok. but, as soon as the rice finishes cooking, we're having shrimp, not red herrings for dinner over here. randy From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Fri Apr 4 07:09:36 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:09:36 +0000 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F5FE0A.2050803@psg.com> References: <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <47F523F5.3040107@acornactivemedia.com> <47F5412C.9000903@impulse.net> <47F5B1D6.4010508@acornactivemedia.com> <20080404091743.GA10545@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47F5F34D.1010806@psg.com> <20080404095621.GA11090@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47F5FE0A.2050803@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080404110936.GB11827@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:10PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > the first point is that creating/enforcing a special class > > has a whole raft of problems, esp since there is precident > > for migration of stewardship between bodies w/ different > > operational/business models. > > does current policy handle when a size x lir becomes a size y lir? does > it handle when an end site becomes an lir? the proposed text would prohibit certain transfers based on business model. my red flag/herring was to point out that such transfers have occured in the past and that identification/enforcement of such prohibitions could be problematic. there is text in come parts of policy that ambigious, hence the current discussion. > > point the second, the term "Internet Service Provider" > > should not be presumed to have a specific operational > > or business model, e.g. customers that buy services. > > ok, ok. but, as soon as the rice finishes cooking, we're having shrimp, > not red herrings for dinner over here. some folks seem to be confused on the point. shrimp & rice are very nice... here, we are steaming tamales for breakfast. no seafood in sight. > > randy From jay at impulse.net Fri Apr 4 08:14:32 2008 From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:14:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> Message-ID: <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: >> IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR >> definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more >> ISP-like than end-user-like. >> > The problem with that approach is that most, if not virtually all of these > organizations have financial means which fall far short of the ability to > pay ARIN subscriber-member fees. I would think that the ARIN fees would be relatively small in comparison with the hardware and ongoing transit, power, and operational costs involved in maintaining such a network, but perhaps I'm out of touch with the resourcefulness of these groups. (Yes, I'm a long-time ham operator and indeed have cobbled together my share of begged, borrowed and dumpster-dived gear over the years, but we're talking about a community of 100-plus people, right?) > I agree that we should develop policy that allows them to operate > similar to LIRs, but, I also think that it is reasonable and worth while > to encourage the BOT to develop a fee structure that allows them > to make good use of that policy. OK, so the proposal is for a financial as opposed to a technical differentiation between community networks and conventional LIR/ISPs, correct? In that case, would it not make more sense to provide for a hardship or not-for-profit fee structure (to be reviewed periodically) for such organizations, and leave the technical definitions alone? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Apr 4 08:26:46 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:26:46 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com><47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net><4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> Message-ID: > OK, so the proposal is for a financial as opposed to a > technical differentiation between community networks and > conventional LIR/ISPs, correct? > > In that case, would it not make more sense to provide for a > hardship or not-for-profit fee structure (to be reviewed > periodically) for such organizations, and leave the technical > definitions alone? If this really is the case, that they want special financial treatment, then I think they would do better to leave the policy process alone, since we cannot influence fees through policy. Instead, they should organize the various local associations into a larger North American association. Not just national in the USA but international including at a minimum Canada, but preferably some other ARIN region countries as well. Organizing an international association should not really cost them anything since they are already organized internationally to share ideas, software and so on. This international association should then make a formal approach to the ARIN Board of Trustees asking for financial support for their member communities to receive LIR allocations without the punitive fees. My company is happy to pay a trivial $18,000 per year to ARIN. For us this is not punitive. But I do agree that it is punitive to charge $1250 to a non-profit community network. I believe that ARIN's charter does provide the Board of Trustees with the flexibility to support these community networks by reducing or eliminating the fees. I do expect that the BoT will consult with ARIN members on this issue, but that again, is not a matter for the PPML list. --Michael Dillon From steveb at eagle.ca Fri Apr 4 08:31:05 2008 From: steveb at eagle.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:31:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F61F89.60301@eagle.ca> > I would think that the ARIN fees would be relatively small in comparison > with the hardware and ongoing transit, power, and operational costs > involved in maintaining such a network, I was thinking the exact same thing on the way to the office this morning. > OK, so the proposal is for a financial as opposed to a technical > differentiation between community networks and conventional LIR/ISPs, > correct? > > In that case, would it not make more sense to provide for a hardship or > not-for-profit fee structure (to be reviewed periodically) for such > organizations, and leave the technical definitions alone? I still don't see any benefit to new definitions (community network or non-profit) being implemented. What will be gained by adding complexity and additional overhead to administration/management (be it technical or financial)? My opinion is that the definition for LIR/ISP within the NRPM is well defined, black and white. If you are not an IR and/or ISP, then (whether paying or not) you are a consumer (referred to as customer/end-user). Steve From josh at acornactivemedia.com Fri Apr 4 09:40:34 2008 From: josh at acornactivemedia.com (Josh King) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:40:34 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F62FD2.9000705@acornactivemedia.com> Jay Hennigan wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > >>> IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR >>> definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more >>> ISP-like than end-user-like. >>> >> The problem with that approach is that most, if not virtually all of these >> organizations have financial means which fall far short of the ability to >> pay ARIN subscriber-member fees. > > I would think that the ARIN fees would be relatively small in comparison > with the hardware and ongoing transit, power, and operational costs > involved in maintaining such a network, but perhaps I'm out of touch > with the resourcefulness of these groups. (Yes, I'm a long-time ham > operator and indeed have cobbled together my share of begged, borrowed > and dumpster-dived gear over the years, but we're talking about a > community of 100-plus people, right?) The most commonly supported wireless device for community networks worldwide is the Linksys WRT54G, which costs less than $50. A community network local to me gets its bandwidth from a nearby Independent Media Center, who (barely) covers the $160/month cost of a business-class cable modem and shares the bandwidth with the network. Costs can be low indeed ;) > >> I agree that we should develop policy that allows them to operate >> similar to LIRs, but, I also think that it is reasonable and worth while >> to encourage the BOT to develop a fee structure that allows them >> to make good use of that policy. > > OK, so the proposal is for a financial as opposed to a technical > differentiation between community networks and conventional LIR/ISPs, > correct? > > In that case, would it not make more sense to provide for a hardship or > not-for-profit fee structure (to be reviewed periodically) for such > organizations, and leave the technical definitions alone? > -- Josh King -- josh at acornactivemedia.com -- Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net) -- "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jay at impulse.net Fri Apr 4 11:29:58 2008 From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:29:58 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <24F37980-B558-4233-BED7-E6FEA0A32DBC@delong.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> <24F37980-B558-4233-BED7-E6FEA0A32DBC@delong.com> Message-ID: <47F64976.1020500@impulse.net> Owen DeLong wrote: > I know of community networks held together by a collection of WRT-54s > and donated 72xx hardware. The minimum LIR fee to ARIN is $1,250 > per year, which, vastly exceeds the hardware budget of most community > networks I know. For 100 users that's just about $1 per month each. I'm not trying to be Scrooge here, but this really doesn't seem out of line compared to what one would pay an ISP or telco/cableco. > As to transit, many of the community networks I know get transit donated > from various organizations or pay very little for it through various > discount > arrangements. Even if that is not the case, however, adding $1,250 or > more per year to the annual costs usually exceeds the excess revenue > of any of the ones I am familiar with. Might it be possible (and better for the Internet community as a whole) for the smaller community networks with substantially fewer than 100 users to also get address space SWIPped from those transit providers? If there is a bona-fide need for a hardship or not-for-profit fee structure for freenet-style LIRs, I'm all for it. I also fear the slippery-slope addressed by others in this discussion regarding agenda-driven organizations taking advantage. I'm personally not convinced that such is needed unless I'm missing something really out of whack between the number of users represented in the definition of an LIR and the number actually splitting the bill. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From owen at delong.com Fri Apr 4 13:41:55 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:41:55 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F64976.1020500@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <4CBDC59A-E55A-4BBD-BC42-CBD3210D2DD6@delong.com> <47F61BA8.5070101@impulse.net> <24F37980-B558-4233-BED7-E6FEA0A32DBC@delong.com> <47F64976.1020500@impulse.net> Message-ID: <7BE166B7-ABE5-4093-BA4D-421EE9A315F5@delong.com> On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I know of community networks held together by a collection of WRT-54s >> and donated 72xx hardware. The minimum LIR fee to ARIN is $1,250 >> per year, which, vastly exceeds the hardware budget of most community >> networks I know. > > For 100 users that's just about $1 per month each. I'm not trying > to be > Scrooge here, but this really doesn't seem out of line compared to > what > one would pay an ISP or telco/cableco. > You're assuming facts not in evidence. First, you're assuming that there is a defined user community for the network which is paying something in the first place. In many cases, this simply isn't true. In many cases, they are operated by a handful of people who donate time/resources and serve an unknown user population on a free basis. It's one thing for me to donate an insignificant part of my connectivity and some inexpensive one-time cost hardware to a community network and let 100s of unknown people use it for free. It's entirely another to ask me to pay $1/month per user I don't know. >> As to transit, many of the community networks I know get transit >> donated >> from various organizations or pay very little for it through various >> discount >> arrangements. Even if that is not the case, however, adding $1,250 >> or >> more per year to the annual costs usually exceeds the excess revenue >> of any of the ones I am familiar with. > > Might it be possible (and better for the Internet community as a > whole) > for the smaller community networks with substantially fewer than 100 > users to also get address space SWIPped from those transit providers? > They aren't necessarily operating with fewer than 100 users and they aren't necessarily so small. > If there is a bona-fide need for a hardship or not-for-profit fee > structure for freenet-style LIRs, I'm all for it. I also fear the > slippery-slope addressed by others in this discussion regarding > agenda-driven organizations taking advantage. I'm personally not > convinced that such is needed unless I'm missing something really > out of > whack between the number of users represented in the definition of an > LIR and the number actually splitting the bill. > You are, indeed, missing something along those lines. The people paying for freenets are often _NOT_ a significant portion of the user population. Owen From sascha at aya.yale.edu Fri Apr 4 17:44:51 2008 From: sascha at aya.yale.edu (Sascha Meinrath) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:44:51 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F6A153.4010604@aya.yale.edu> Hi everyone, > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:46:43 -0500 > From: Josh King > Subject: Re: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 > To: Steve Bertrand > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Steve Bertrand wrote: >> I disagree that a third designation is necessary at all. What happens if >> for any reason a non-profit 'community' network operator folds, and a >> commercially driven ISP buys up their assets? >> > I think there may be some legal issues with a for-profit organization > buying off the assets of a non-profit. What do you think about there > being a restriction that an allocation to a community network be > "non-transferable to any for-profit entity"? Is this a concern, > considering that all IPv6 blocks are, under the NRPM, leased rather than > owned? Assets from a non-profit are required by law to go to another non-profit entity. Government assets, on the other hand, can be privatized. >> My opinion is that any entity providing any form of Internet service >> should be classified as an Internet Service Provider. >> >>> Unlike your cable operator a community network doesn't >>> have customers, it has members. >> Whether the user of the service is classified as a 'member' or a >> 'customer', both designations could be put under an umbrella called >> 'subscriber'. One of the elements of many community networks is that they often integrate ad-hoc devices/networks. One of the rationales for needed IPv6 space is to facilitate a lot of the innovation that the open source R&D community is doing to create seamless networking among numerous different devices and the local (often wireless) networks in these local communities. Because of the ad hoc nature of much of this networking, the notion of "members" is often too formalized. Community networks have users -- some of whom are members in some of these organization, but most of whom are just local community members wishing to access the broadband resources on the network. We need to change our perspectives about how IP assignments happen to understand community networks. LIRs assign address space, but in a growing number of community networks, IPs are identified by the end-user devices without central control. This allocation request provides the IP space necessary for this type to network architecture to continue to flourish. This thinking represents a shift in assumptions about how network architectures are created that's different from top-down notions in traditional networks and LIRs. Additionally (and perhaps because of the bottom-up nature of many of these networks), as Owen and others have observed over the years, the LIR subscriber-membership fees (and ARIN fees as well) are an enormous barrier to entry for many community wireless networks. Community networks are very different beasts from LIRs and are quite different from most other networks infrastructures because of their integration of device-as-infrastructure architectures (e.g., turning iphones into meshing routers), decentralization of control, and (often) open architectures. --Sascha Meinrath Research Director Wireless Future Program New America Foundation Coordinator Open Source Wireless Coalition From farmer at umn.edu Fri Apr 4 18:05:01 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:05:01 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F6A153.4010604@aya.yale.edu> References: , <47F6A153.4010604@aya.yale.edu> Message-ID: <47F65FBD.8198.470CA11@farmer.umn.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Fri Apr 4 18:43:12 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:43:12 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <47F64976.1020500@impulse.net> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <24F37980-B558-4233-BED7-E6FEA0A32DBC@delong.com>, <47F64976.1020500@impulse.net> Message-ID: <47F668B0.14388.493C96A@farmer.umn.edu> On 4 Apr 2008 Jay Hennigan wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: > > > I know of community networks held together by a collection of WRT-54s > > and donated 72xx hardware. The minimum LIR fee to ARIN is $1,250 > > per year, which, vastly exceeds the hardware budget of most community > > networks I know. > > For 100 users that's just about $1 per month each. I'm not trying to be > Scrooge here, but this really doesn't seem out of line compared to what > one would pay an ISP or telco/cableco. At one level I agree with this, it is not that much money, but for a shoestring operation collecting that much money into one place could be hard. And it is usually a dedicated few people that are actually making things happen by donating old hardware, donating services, donating office space (if they even have office space), etc... Much of the resource for such organization are in-kind donations. Hard currency is very difficult to come by some times for such organizations, even if it isn't that much money in the scheme of things. Really which is easier for you network operators on this list to donate, bits or dollars? > > As to transit, many of the community networks I know get transit donated > > from various organizations or pay very little for it through various > > discount > > arrangements. Even if that is not the case, however, adding $1,250 or > > more per year to the annual costs usually exceeds the excess revenue > > of any of the ones I am familiar with. > > Might it be possible (and better for the Internet community as a whole) > for the smaller community networks with substantially fewer than 100 > users to also get address space SWIPped from those transit providers? > > If there is a bona-fide need for a hardship or not-for-profit fee > structure for freenet-style LIRs, I'm all for it. I also fear the > slippery-slope addressed by others in this discussion regarding > agenda-driven organizations taking advantage. I'm personally not > convinced that such is needed unless I'm missing something really out of > whack between the number of users represented in the definition of an > LIR and the number actually splitting the bill. I had an idea this morning on the way into the office, what if ARIN left its rates much as they are, and found some person or an organization to provide sponsorships or scholarship like program for Community Networks. That sponsorship program could then judge who is worthy and not, relieving ARIN of the oversight and it can ignore most of these issue. Any ideas who could do this? the Internet Society? Who? If it were a charitable organization, maybe even ARIN as a non-profit organization could donate some of the excess funds it is collecting, if there are any. Just a thought. That said I'm becoming convinced that this isn't really a policy problem, Community Networks should be considered LIRs. If there is really a problem with the literal definition of "customer", then maybe a minor policy tweak to "customer, member, or other type of user of a network service" or something like that would fix it. The real issue is a financial one, ARIN could fix it through its fee structure, or the Internet community as a whole could fix it outside of ARIN through a sponsorship/scholarship program I mentioned. > -- > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net > Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ > Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ================================================= David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 ================================================= From oberman at es.net Wed Apr 2 14:19:59 2008 From: oberman at es.net (Kevin Oberman) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:19:59 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21 Message-ID: <20080402181959.21E764500F@ptavv.es.net> I have not seen much discussion of this proposal, the first one to be discussed in Denver. I am unclear on one issue. The proposal states "each of which must be covered by a current ARIN RSA". Is this the standard RSA, the LRSA, or either of the above. As I read the proposal, it's either of the above. Is there any concern with whether this might impact IPv6 uptake, especially of the LRSA is not acceptable. Our customers almost all have significant legacy space and two have run the LRSA past their lawyers and been told that the LRSA is not acceptable. Since they are multihomed, they will need a direct IPv6 assignment and they tell us that they will not do any work on non-experimental IPv6 use unless they have a direct assignment. I don't know how common this might turn out to be or whether it is really significant in the grand scheme. I am confident that, if the network moves significantly in the IPv6 direction, our customers (and their lawyers) will come to look at the situation differently and the LRSA or even the RSA will start to look more reasonable. :-) But if there are a large number of potential early adopters who take this position, it might not be a good thing. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman at es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Apr 5 19:15:49 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:15:49 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21 References: <20080402181959.21E764500F@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: <014601c89775$8dbe83e0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake "Kevin Oberman" > I have not seen much discussion of this proposal, the first one to be > discussed in Denver. I am unclear on one issue. > > The proposal states "each of which must be covered by a current > ARIN RSA". Is this the standard RSA, the LRSA, or either of the > above. As I read the proposal, it's either of the above. That's how I read it as well. If the intent (or staff's interpretation) is to exclude the LRSA, that definitely needs to be stated. > Is there any concern with whether this might impact IPv6 uptake, > especially of the LRSA is not acceptable. > > Our customers almost all have significant legacy space and two have > run the LRSA past their lawyers and been told that the LRSA is not > acceptable. Since they are multihomed, they will need a direct IPv6 > assignment and they tell us that they will not do any work on > non-experimental IPv6 use unless they have a direct assignment. 6.5.8.1 currently reads: "To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: a. not be an IPv6 LIR; and b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect." This proposal would add an "or" to the latter criterion, making it: "To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by a current ARIN RSA." So, basically, the requirement that all existing IPv4 assignments and allocations must be efficiently utilized and subject to an RSA (or LRSA?) only applies if the organization does _not_ qualify for a new IPv4 assignment or allocation. However, it is ridiculously simple today for any non-trivial organization (i.e. one that has a need for PI space to multihome) to qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation. Basically, the only folks that this change helps are those who currently have an efficiently-used legacy class C network but couldn't justify a /22 from ARIN today; I expect that to be an extremely small group of orgs. My experience is that the majority orgs small enough not to be able to qualify for a /22 (<256 hosts today) also do not efficiently use their class C either (<128 hosts, since more than one year has elapsed). While I feel this proposal is not warranted or helpful, I also do not feel it will have any significant downside either for the same reason, so I neither support nor object to this proposal. 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 sleibrand at internap.com Sat Apr 5 22:12:29 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:12:29 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21 In-Reply-To: <20080402181959.21E764500F@ptavv.es.net> References: <20080402181959.21E764500F@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: <47F8318D.5060201@internap.com> Kevin, Yes, they can sign either the RSA or LRSA. If your customers consider both of those unacceptable, they are free to remain without an RSA for their legacy IPv4 space, and acquire IPv6 space under existing policy, with a new RSA covering just the IPv6 space. This policy is intended to remove the disincentive for small legacy holders to move to IPv6, by allowing them to get provider independent IPv6 space to go along with their PI IPv4 space. Anyone who already qualifies for IPv6 space, however, would not be affected by this policy proposal. -Scott Kevin Oberman wrote: > I have not seen much discussion of this proposal, the first one to be > discussed in Denver. I am unclear on one issue. > > The proposal states "each of which must be covered by a current ARIN > RSA". Is this the standard RSA, the LRSA, or either of the above. As I > read the proposal, it's either of the above. > > Is there any concern with whether this might impact IPv6 uptake, > especially of the LRSA is not acceptable. > > Our customers almost all have significant legacy space and two have run > the LRSA past their lawyers and been told that the LRSA is not > acceptable. Since they are multihomed, they will need a direct IPv6 > assignment and they tell us that they will not do any work on > non-experimental IPv6 use unless they have a direct assignment. > > I don't know how common this might turn out to be or whether it is > really significant in the grand scheme. I am confident that, if the > network moves significantly in the IPv6 direction, our customers (and > their lawyers) will come to look at the situation differently and the > LRSA or even the RSA will start to look more reasonable. :-) > > But if there are a large number of potential early adopters who take > this position, it might not be a good thing. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 owen at delong.com Sun Apr 6 01:31:49 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:31:49 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21 In-Reply-To: <014601c89775$8dbe83e0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <20080402181959.21E764500F@ptavv.es.net> <014601c89775$8dbe83e0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <7BC8B23B-CD30-4729-AB39-DC71FAC11D4B@delong.com> On Apr 5, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Kevin Oberman" >> I have not seen much discussion of this proposal, the first one to be >> discussed in Denver. I am unclear on one issue. >> >> The proposal states "each of which must be covered by a current >> ARIN RSA". Is this the standard RSA, the LRSA, or either of the >> above. As I read the proposal, it's either of the above. > > That's how I read it as well. If the intent (or staff's > interpretation) is > to exclude the LRSA, that definitely needs to be stated. > I'm pretty sure from the discussions amongst the AC and with the author that I have participated in that the intent is to accept ANY ARIN RSA, including the legacy RSA. I am speaking only for myself in this context, but, I'm pretty sure that if the intent were to exclude the LRSA, it would have been clearly stated. The term current is used to refer to the fact that it must be an RSA ARIN currently accepts rather than an outdated or expired RSA from some years back. Hope that helps the discussion. Owen From info at arin.net Mon Apr 7 11:03:43 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:03:43 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XXI Now Underway Message-ID: <47FA37CF.1000304@arin.net> The ARIN XXI Public Policy and Members Meeting is now underway in Denver, Colorado. For those in the community who were unable to make it to Denver, ARIN is offering a webcast of the Public Policy and Members Meetings. The times of the broadcast are as follows: Public Policy Meeting (Policy and technical discussions) Monday, 7 April 9AM - 5PM Tuesday, 8 April 9AM - 5PM Members Meeting (ARIN reports and Board of Trustees and Advisory Council reports) Wednesday, 9 April 9AM - 12PM All times are Mountain Daylight Time(MDT), (UTC/GMT -6 hours) Registered remote participants may send in questions or comments during the times listed above. The full agenda is available at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXI/agenda.html. For details about how to connect to the webcast, or to refer to the Remote Participation Acceptable Use Policy, please see: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXI/webcast.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From jb at jbacher.com Mon Apr 7 12:05:15 2008 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:05:15 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <016901c895c5$cf805850$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <016901c895c5$cf805850$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <47FA463B.3030702@jbacher.com> Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR >> definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more >> ISP-like than end-user-like. > > This, to me, is more sensible than trying to create a third category of > registrants. In all of the discussion to date, I haven't found any > technical differentiators between "community networks" and LIRs. Remember, > not all LIRs are ISPs. I also oppose this proposal. From info at arin.net Mon Apr 7 14:07:06 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:07:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Discussion of Transfer Policy Today 3:30 PM MDT Message-ID: <47FA62CA.1090303@arin.net> Please note a change in the ARIN XXI meeting agenda for today's Public Policy Meeting. Policy Proposal 2007-27, Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool, will be discussed today at 3:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). For details about how to connect to the webcast, or to refer to the Remote Participation Acceptable Use Policy, please see: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXI/webcast.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Mon Apr 7 14:14:13 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:14:13 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XXI Agenda Update: Transfer Policy Proposal Presentation Message-ID: <47FA6475.7050704@arin.net> Agenda Updates: Please note a change in the ARIN XXI meeting agenda for today's Public Policy Meeting. Policy Proposal 2008-2, IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal, will be discussed today at 3:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). Policy Proposal 2007-27, Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool, will be discussed today at 1:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). For details about how to connect to the webcast, or to refer to the Remote Participation Acceptable Use Policy, please see: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXI/webcast.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From captain at netidea.com Mon Apr 7 16:28:45 2008 From: captain at netidea.com (Kirk Ismay) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:28:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3 In-Reply-To: <016901c895c5$cf805850$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <47F15E50.9020005@acornactivemedia.com>, <47F2027E.6510.2F7064D@farmer.umn.edu>, <47F290F2.11177.522F68D@farmer.umn.edu><47F32B08.70604@acornactivemedia.com> <9C04E570-D399-4D37-98FB-F2AC49AF5B88@delong.com> <47F516BF.6050008@impulse.net> <016901c895c5$cf805850$583816ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <47FA83FD.8070205@netidea.com> Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Jay Hennigan" > > Such community networks are somewhat of a special case in that they > > aren't quite LIRs as they have no "customers" other than the > > members of the cooperative, but they aren't end users in that they > > exist for the purpose of distributing access to their members (who > > are customer-like). > > > > IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR > > definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more > > ISP-like than end-user-like. > > This, to me, is more sensible than trying to create a third category > of registrants. In all of the discussion to date, I haven't found > any technical differentiators between "community networks" and LIRs. > Remember, not all LIRs are ISPs. I oppose this proposal as written. The NPRM definition of an LIR is such that a community network does in fact qualify as an LIR: "A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs are generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs." http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two4 On the subject of fees, I think ARIN should charge fair fees to all, without favoring any particular group. I don't think hand outs to either the "Extra Large" LIRs at the top end or non-profit community networks are in the best interest of the community as a whole. I'd like to see the fee schedule set to a flat rate per IPv4 /24 or IPv6 /48, such that ARIN's total registration fees stay the same. This should have the benefit of making fees more affordable for the smaller players (commercial and non-profit alike), and encourage those that use the most IPv4 resources to conserve. -- Sincerely, Kirk Ismay System Administrator -- Net Idea 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6 P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512 Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com From tvest at pch.net Mon Apr 7 19:02:05 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:02:05 -0600 Subject: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents Message-ID: "Address Ownership Considered Fatal" Yakhov Rekter March 31, 1995 ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps From gih at apnic.net Mon Apr 7 21:08:29 2008 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:08:29 +1000 Subject: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> Tom Vest wrote: > "Address Ownership Considered Fatal" > Yakhov Rekter > March 31, 1995 > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps Both this reference and RFC1744 are illustrative of the observation that study of this topic and the issues relating to the "role" of addresses in the context of the Internet is not a recent occupation, and that folk have been thinking about this for some years. So in response to KC's comment in the policy session at the ARIN meeting today, one can point to such studies (and related studies associated with thge PIARA activity in the IETF in 1996) and say that there is some level of longer term work in this area. Also, as far as I can see both RFC1744 and the Rekhter document both are supportive of a lease concept (Corollary 3, page 12 of the Rekhter presentation, RFC1744, section 3, para 4). thanks, Geoff From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon Apr 7 23:07:23 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 03:07:23 +0000 Subject: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> Message-ID: <20080408030723.GA11423@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:29AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: > Tom Vest wrote: > > "Address Ownership Considered Fatal" > > Yakhov Rekter > > March 31, 1995 > > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps > > ... as far as I can see both RFC1744 and the Rekhter document both are supportive of a lease concept (Corollary 3, page 12 of the Rekhter presentation, RFC1744, section 3, para 4). > > thanks, > > Geoff that would be two points of view - neither of which seemed to make it into RFC 2050. UNLESS you consider the concept of a lease as a narrowly focused, specific business plan implementation of a larger, more broadly scoped concept of bounded stewardship. --bill From info at arin.net Tue Apr 8 10:19:06 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:19:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XXI Agenda Updates Message-ID: <47FB7EDA.2050409@arin.net> Agenda Updates: Please note the following changes in the ARIN XXI meeting agenda for today's Public Policy Meeting. Discussion of Policy Proposal 2008-2, IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal, will be continued this morning starting at 9:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). Policy Proposal 2007-23, End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs, and Policy Proposal 2007-14, Resource Review Process will be discussed today at 10:45 AM Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). Please refer to the meeting agenda posted at: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXI/agenda.html for additional details about today?s agenda. For details about how to connect to the webcast, or to refer to the Remote Participation Acceptable Use Policy, please see: http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XXI/webcast.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From raul at lacnic.net Tue Apr 8 19:10:25 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:10:25 -0300 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: <7.0.1.0.1.20080408195926.061ef7a0@lacnic.net> For those that are following the ARIN XXI meeting, this is the email that I mentioned in the mike. The frist goal of a working group like this would be to explore the feasibility and/or convience of this kind of policies. If somebody from ARIN community want to become involved in an initiative like this, please contact me. Ra?l At 10:17 a.m. 09/10/2007, 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 sleibrand at internap.com Tue Apr 8 19:18:45 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:18:45 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Proposal for the creation of a working group. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080408195926.061ef7a0@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20071009101612.0456d698@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20080408195926.061ef7a0@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <47FBFD55.4000707@internap.com> Raul, I think this kind of thing would best be addressed through an informal working group of some type, which could submit proposals to each RIR's PDP just like any other author/originator can do. As a member of the AC, I would welcome any proposals such a group could draft and submit, and would like to work with such a group, independent authors, etc. to make sure that we have appropriate global input to the development of any global or globally coordinated policies. -Scott Raul Echeberria wrote: > > For those that are following the ARIN XXI > meeting, this is the email that I mentioned in the mike. > The frist goal of a working group like this would > be to explore the feasibility and/or convience of this kind of policies. > > If somebody from ARIN community want to become > involved in an initiative like this, please contact me. > > Ra?l > > > At 10:17 a.m. 09/10/2007, 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 15:57:03 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:57:03 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Changes to Mailing List Names Message-ID: <4803B70F.1060409@arin.net> As a result of a suggestion made through ARIN's Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP), ARIN will be standardizing two mailing list names. ARIN's Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), ppml at arin.net, will be renamed arin-ppml at arin.net. Similarly, ARIN's Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) Mailing List, consult at arin.net, will be renamed arin-consult at arin.net. Both of these changes will be implemented between 6am EDT and 8am EDT April 23, 2008. During this brief outage, subscriptions will be migrated to the new mailing list names and mailing list archives will be converted to their new names. Organizations may need to adjust mail filters and anti-spam software accordingly. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:28:36 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:28:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-14: To Be Revised Message-ID: <4803BE74.4010705@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-14 Resource Review Process On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that this proposal should be revised. The AC will work with the author of the proposal to revise the text and return the proposal to the PPML for further discussion. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_14.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-14 Resource Review Process Author: Owen DeLong, Stephen Sprunk Proposal Version: 2.1 Date: 24 March 2008 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 believed to be necessary by ARIN to perform this review. 2. ARIN may conduct such reviews: a. when any new resource is requested, b. whenever ARIN has reason to believe that the resources were originally obtained fraudulently, or c. at any other time without having to establish cause unless a prior review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. 3. ARIN shall communicate the results of the review to the organization. 4. Organizations found by ARIN to be substantially out of compliance with current ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return resources as needed to bring them into (or reasonably close to) compliance. 4a. The extent to which an organization may remain out of compliance shall be based on the reasonable judgment of the ARIN staff and shall balance all facts known, including the organizations utilization rate, available address pool, and other factors as appropriate so as to avoid forcing returns which will result in near-term additional requests or unnecessary route de-aggregation. 4b. To the extent possible, entire blocks should 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 requested, 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, or intentional violations of policy, 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. ARIN shall continue to maintain the resource(s) while their return or revocation is pending, except no any maintenance fees assessed during that period shall be calculated as if the return or revocation was complete. 8. Legacy resources in active use, regardless of utilization, are not subject to revocation by ARIN. pursuant to this subsection. However, the utilization of legacy resources shall be considered during a review to assess overall compliance. 9. In considering compliance with policies which allow a timeframe (such as a requirement to assign some number of prefixes within 5 years) failure to comply cannot be measured until after the timeframe specified in the applicable policy has elapsed. Blocks subject to such a policy shall be assumed in compliance with that policy until such time as the specified time since issuance has elapsed. 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: The authors have been told that current policy does not clearly give ARIN 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 intent of paragraph 2c is to prevent ARIN from doing more than one without-cause review in a 24 month period. 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 Mon Apr 14 16:30:26 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:30:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-17: To Be Revised Message-ID: <4803BEE2.4090606@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-17 Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that this proposal should be revised. The AC will work with the author of the proposal to revise the text and return the proposal to the PPML for further discussion. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_17.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-17 Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation Author: Owen DeLong Date: 28 March 2008 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Replace section 4.6 as follows: 4.6 Amnesty and Aggregation requests 4.6.1 Intent of this policy This policy is intended to allow the community and ARIN staff to work together with holders of address resources in the best interests of the community by facilitating the return of unused address space and the aggregation of existing space in a manner which is in the best interests of both parties. All transactions under this policy must either create greater aggregation (a reduction in the number of prefixes) or the return of address space. ARIN should reject any transaction which staff judges is not in the interests of the community. 4.6.2 No penalty for returning or aggregating ARIN shall seek to make the return of address space as convenient and risk-free to the returning organization as possible. An organization with several non-contiguous blocks seeking to aggregate and return space at the same time should be accommodated if possible. If it is possible to expand one block, for example, to facilitate the return of other blocks, ARIN should do that where possible. 4.6.3 Return should not force renumbering An organization shall be allowed to return a partial block of any size to ARIN. For any return greater than a /24, ARIN shall not require that the non-returned portion of the block be renumbered unless the returning organization wishes to do so. 4.6.4 Incentives The Board of Trustees should consider creating incentives for organizations to return addresses under this policy. 4.6.5 Timeframe for return Any organization which is returning addresses under this policy shall negotiate with ARIN an appropriate timeframe in which to return the addresses after any new resources are received under this policy. In the case of a simple return, the timeframe shall be immediate. In the case where renumbering into new addresses out of existing addresses to be returned is required, the returning organization shall sign a contract with ARIN which stipulates a final return date not less than 6 months nor more than 18 months after the receipt of new addresses. If an organization misses this return date, but, ARIN believes the organization is working in good faith to complete the renumbering, ARIN may grant a single extension of 6-12 months as staff deems appropriate to the situation. Such an extension must be requested in writing (email to hostmaster at arin.net) by the organization at least 15 days prior to the original expiration date. 4.6.6 RSA Required if new addresses received Any organization which receives any additional addresses under this policy shall be required to sign an ARIN RSA which will apply to all new addresses issued and to any retained blocks which are expanded under this policy. 4.6.7 Annual contact required Any organization which participates in this policy shall be required to sign an agreement stipulating that ARIN will attempt contact at least once per year via the contact mechanisms registered for the organization in whois. Should ARIN fail to make contact, after reasonable effort the organization shall be flagged as "unreachable" in whois. After six months in "unreachable" status, the organization agrees that ARIN may consider all resources held by the organization to be abandoned and reclaim such resources. Should the organization make contact with ARIN prior to the end of the aforementioned six month period and update their contact information appropriately, ARIN shall remove the "unreachable" status and the annual contact cycle shall continue as normal. If the organization pays annual fees to ARIN, the payment of annual fees shall be considered sufficient contact. Rationale: Existing policy supports aggregation (4.7) and provides some amnesty (existing 4.6) for returning blocks. However, a number of resource holders have expressed discomfort with the current section 4.6 believing that they will be forced to return their entire address space and renumber rather than being able to make partial returns and retain some of their existing space. This policy seeks to eliminate those concerns and make the return of unused address space more desirable to the resource holders. A very high percentage of underutilized space is in the hands of legacy holders who currently have no benefit to joining the ARIN process and no way to return any portion of their address space without incurring significant disadvantage as a result. A suggestion to the board would be to adopt benefits along the following lines for people returning space. These benefits would provide additional incentive for resource holders to make appropriate returns and for legacy holders to join the ARIN process: 1. If the organization does not currently pay ARIN fees, they shall remain fee exempt. 2. If the organization currently pays ARIN fees, their fees shall be waived for two years for each /20 returned, with any fractional /20 resulting in a one-time single year waiver. 3. Any organization returning address space under this policy shall continue under their existing RSA or they may choose to sign the current RSA. For organizations which currently do not have an RSA, they may sign the current RSA, or, they may choose to remain without an RSA. 4. All organizations returning space under this policy shall, if they meet other eligibility requirements and so request, obtain an appropriate IPv6 end-user assignment or ISP allocation as applicable, with no fees for the first 5 years. Organizations electing to receive IPv6 allocation/assignment under this provision must sign a current RSA and must agree that their IPv4 resources are henceforth subject to the RSA. The overriding intent of this policy proposal is to make it as easy as possible for both ARIN and resource holders to "do the right thing" with regard to excess resources or dis-aggregated (fragmented) address blocks. It is the desire of the author that staff make any judgment calls necessary under this policy with that ideal clearly in mind. While the author has made a concerted effort to make the policy as clear as possible and as concrete as can be, the reality is that these types of transactions must rely heavily on the judgment and expertise of the ARIN staff in determining what is in the best interests of the community. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:30:53 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:30:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: To Be Revised Message-ID: <4803BEFD.2010602@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2008-2 IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that this proposal should be revised. The AC will work with the author of the proposal to revise the text and return the proposal to the PPML for further discussion. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_2.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2008-2 IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal Author: ARIN Advisory Council Proposal Version: 1.1 Date: 7 March 2008 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Replace the current NRPM section 8 with the following -- 8. Transfers [8.1. Transfers ? retain as is: Number resources are non-transferable and are not assignable to any other organization unless ARIN has expressly and in writing approved a request for transfer. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions on whether to approve the transfer of number resources. It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under ARIN administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization for its exclusive use for the purpose stated in the request, provided the terms of the Registration Services Agreement continue to be met and the stated purpose for the number resources remains the same. Number resources are administered and assigned according to ARIN's published policies. Number resources are issued, based on justified need, to organizations, not to individuals representing those organizations. Thus, if a company goes out of business, regardless of the reason, the point of contact (POC) listed for the number resource does not have the authority to sell, transfer, assign, or give the number resource to any other person or organization. The POC must notify ARIN if a business fails so the assigned number resources can be returned to the available pool of number resources if a transfer is not requested and justified.] [8.2 ? remove the word ?only?, and retitle to ?Transfers as an Artifact of Change in Resource Holder Ownership?: 8.2. Transfers as an Artifact of Change in Resource Holder Ownership ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired the assets which had, as of the date of the acquisition or proposed reorganization, justified the current entity's use of the number resource. Examples of assets that justify use of the number resource include, but are not limited to: ? Existing customer base ? Qualified hardware inventory ? Specific software requirements.] [Renumber existing 8.3 to 8.2.1 and retitle to ?Documentation Requirements for Transfers as an Artifact of Change in Resource Holder Ownership?: 8.2.1. Documentation Requirements for Transfers as an Artifact of Change in Resource Holder Ownership In evaluating a request for transfer, ARIN may require the requesting organization to provide any of the following documents, as applicable, plus any other documents deemed appropriate: ? An authenticated copy of the instrument(s) effecting the transfer of assets, e.g., bill of sale, certificate of merger, contract, deed, or court decree ? A detailed inventory of all assets utilized by the requesting party in maintaining and using the number resource ? A list of the requesting party's customers using the number resource. If further justification is required, the requesting party may be asked to provide any of the following, or other supporting documentation, as applicable: ? A general listing of the assets or components acquired ? A specific description of acquisitions, including: o Type and quantity of equipment o Customer base ? A description of how number resources are being utilized ? Network engineering plans, including: o Host counts o Subnet masking o Network diagrams o Reassignments to customers] 8.3. Simple Transfer of IPv4 Addresses After the exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 free pool (when IANA allocates its last unallocated unicast IPv4 address block), ARIN will also process IPv4 address transfer requests subject to the following conditions. These conditions apply only to Simple IPv4 transfers, not to transfers performed according to section 8.2. 8.3.1 Conditions on the transferor (the organization providing addresses for transfer): ? The transferor resides in the ARIN service area. ? The transferor has signed an RSA and/or a legacy RSA covering the IPv4 addresses transferred. ? The transferor has no outstanding balances with ARIN. ? The transferor has not received any IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN (through ordinary allocations or assignments, or through this Simple Transfer policy) within the preceding 24 months. ? The transferor may not request any IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN (through ordinary allocations or assignments, or through this Simple Transfer policy) within the subsequent 24 months. 8.3.2 Conditions on the transferee (the organization receiving the transferred addresses): ? The transferee resides in the ARIN service area and intends to use the transferred IPv4 addresses within the ARIN service area. ? The transferee has no outstanding balances with ARIN. ? The transferee?s need is confirmed by ARIN, according to current ARIN policies, including but not limited to confirmation of utilization rate of any prior IPv4 allocations, assignments, or previously transferred IPv4 addresses held by the transferee. ? The transferee signs (or has previously signed) an RSA covering the IPv4 addresses transferred. ? The transferee has not provided any IPv4 addresses for transfer through this Simple Transfer process within the preceding 24 months. ? The transferee may not provide any IPv4 addresses for transfer through this Simple Transfer process within the subsequent 24 months, except in the case of business failure. ? The transferee may request and receive a contiguous CIDR block large enough to provide a 12 month supply of IPv4 addresses. ? The transferee may only receive one IPv4 address transfer through this Simple Transfer process every 6 months. 8.3.3 Conditions on the IPv4 address block to be transferred: ? The IPv4 block must comply with applicable ARIN requirements, including minimum allocation size (i.e. NRPM 4.2.2., 4.2.4., 4.3.2., 4.3.6.). However, an IPv4 allocation or assignment of /24 or larger, but smaller than the current minimum allocation size, may be transferred as a whole resource, but may not be subdivided. ? The IPv4 block must currently be registered for use within the ARIN service area, either as part of an address block assigned by IANA to ARIN, or as part of a legacy address block allocated within the ARIN service area. ? There must exist no dispute as to the status of the IPv4 block or regarding the allocation or assignment of such block to the transferor. ? The transferor may retain one contiguous address range out of their original allocation or assignment for their own use, and transfer the other contiguous address range. If the address range to be transferred consists of multiple non-aggregatable CIDR blocks, each may be transferred to a different transferee. The retained address range may not be further subdivided or transferred for a period of 12 months. Notwithstanding the preceding, the block may be subdivided as provided in section 8.3.6. 8.3.4 Fees ? Completion of a transfer requires payment of a transfer fee according to ARIN?s schedule of fees. ? The transferee will be subject to all future ARIN membership and service fees according to the transferee?s total address holdings. 8.3.5 Pre-qualification ? An interested transferee must seek pre-qualification from ARIN to confirm its eligibility to receive a transfer (including satisfaction of need according to current ARIN policies) before making any solicitation for transfer. Upon pre-qualification, ARIN will provide the transferee with documentation of the pre-qualification, including the size (CIDR prefix length) of the largest IPv4 address block the transferee is eligible to receive, and the expiration date of the pre-qualification. ? An interested transferor must seek pre-qualification from ARIN to confirm its eligibility to offer a transfer (including lack of outstanding balances and having signed an RSA) before offering IPv4 address resources for transfer. Upon pre-qualification, ARIN will provide the transferor with documentation of the pre-qualification, including the network block and the expiration date of the pre-qualification. 8.3.6 Deaggregation when Permitted by ARIN If ARIN determines that there is an inadequate supply of small blocks, ARIN may allow transferors to subdivide network blocks beyond the limited subdivision permitted under 8.3.3. ARIN will attempt to ensure an adequate supply of small blocks while minimizing deaggregation. 8.3.7. Safe Harbor for IPv4 Transfers through this Simple Transfer Process When an IPv4 address resource is made available for transfer, it shall be deemed exempt from ARIN utilization audit until 90 days after its transfer pre-qualification or until the transfer is completed, whichever comes first. In the event that a transfer is not consummated within the prequalification time period, the block may be immediately re-prequalified for transfer. Notwithstanding the current offered state of the address resource, however, the audit exemption period shall expire untolled 90 days after the expiration of the first pre-qualification period. After the expiration of any utilization audit exemption period, ARIN shall have 90 days in which to initiate a utilization audit. In no event shall non-exempt time be construed to extend the end of the next exemption period. 8.3.8. Simple IPv4 Transfers to or from Organizations Under Common Ownership or Control If an IPv4 transferor or transferee is under common ownership or control with any other organization that holds one or more IPv4 blocks, the IPv4 transfer request must report all such organizations under common ownership or control. When evaluating compliance with IPv4 Simple Transfer conditions, ARIN may consider a transferor?s transfer request in light of requests from other organizations under common ownership or control with the transferor. Similarly, ARIN may consider a transferee?s request in light of requests from other organizations under common ownership or control with the transferee. In evaluating requests from other organizations under common ownership or control, ARIN staff will consider the relationship between the organizations, the degree of coordination between the organizations, and the bona fide use of the addresses at issue to determine whether all appropriate conditions are met. 8.3.9. Record-keeping and Publication of Simple Transfers of IPv4 Addresses ARIN will develop and operate a listing service to assist interested transferors and transferees by providing them a centralized location to post information about IPv4 blocks available from prequalified transferors and IPv4 blocks needed by prequalified transferees. Participation in the listing service is voluntary. After completion of the transfer, ARIN will update the registration records pertaining to the IPv4 block at issue. ARIN will adjust its records as to the holdings of the transferor and transferee. After the transfer, ARIN will publish WHOIS data that reflects the current allocation or assignment of the transferred block. ARIN will also make available information about any prior recipient(s) of such block. ARIN will also publish a log of all transfers, including block, transferor, transferee, and date. Rationale: The ARIN Board of Trustees asked the Advisory Council to consider a set of questions around the depletion of the free pool of IPv4 addresses, the transition to IPv6 for Internet address needs in the future, and ARIN's possible role in easing the transition. Over the past few years the AC has spent a great deal of time reflecting on these issues ? as a group, as individuals, and in consultation with the community. One outcome of this process is this policy proposal, which the AC is submitting for consideration at the next meeting. We are proposing some changes to existing ARIN policy regarding the transfer of IP address block registrations between subscribers, which will allow for the emergence of trade in IPv4 address space, with ARIN to provide a listing service for address blocks available for transfer under the liberalized policy. We are aware that this proposal, if adopted, will mark a major change in ARIN's role in the community and the Internet. This policy proposal would create a transfer mechanism for IPv4 number resources between those who have excess resources and those who have a need, thereby allowing ARIN to continue to serve its mission after IANA free pool exhaustion. This proposal would also set conditions on such transfers intended to preserve as much as possible the existing policy related to efficient, needs-based resource issuance, and would leverage ARIN's extensive control systems, audit trails, and recognized position as a trusted agent to avoid speculation and hoarding and diminish the likelihood and extent of an uncontrolled 'black market' where the risk and potential for fraud is immeasurably higher. Many of the transfer conditions are self-explanatory, but some worth highlighting are that: ? To discourage speculation, a waiting period (proposed at 24 months) is required before a transferee (or ordinary resource recipient) can become a transferor, or vice versa. ? Transferees must qualify for IPv4 space (just as they do today when getting it from ARIN) before they can receive address space by transfer, or solicit space on a listing service. ? To discourage unnecessarily rapid growth of routing tables, an allocation or assignment may not be arbitrarily deaggregated. To allow a transferor to downsize within their existing space, they may split off a contiguous address range, once every 12 months, and transfer the resulting netblock(s), which are subject to ARIN?s minimum allocation size, to one or more transferee(s). ? A transferee may receive one transfer every 6 months, so they?ll be incented to transfer a block appropriately sized for their needs, which will further discourage deaggregation and keep smaller blocks available for smaller organizations. The proposal would also have ARIN develop and operate a listing service to facilitate transfers and provide an authoritative central source of information on space available and requested for transfer. It would not prohibit private party transactions, but would require that potential transferors and transferees be pre-qualified first, so that neither party will encounter any unexpected surprises when they ask ARIN to process the transfer. Timetable for implementation: Immediately, with most aspects of policy taking effect upon IANA exhaustion, per the policy text. From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:31:12 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:31:12 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-3: To Be Revised Message-ID: <4803BF10.7010707@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2008-3 Community Networks IPv6 Allocation On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that this proposal should be revised. The AC will work with the author of the proposal to revise the text and return the proposal to the PPML for further discussion. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_3.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2008-3 Community Networks IPv6 Allocation Author: Joshua King Date: 1 April 2008 Proposal type: new Policy term: permanent Policy statement: [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.] 2.8 Community Network A community network is a generic reference to any network that is operated by a group of people living in a particular local area organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network services to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township, county, district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however designated. [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.] b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect or be a Community Network as defined in Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in section 6.5.9. [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.] 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations 6.5.9.1. Initial assignment size Organizations defined as Community Networks under section 2.8 are eligible to receive a direct assignment. The minimum size of the assignment is /48. Organizations requesting a larger assignment must provide documentation of the characteristics of the Community Network's size and architecture that require the use of additional subnets. An HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet utilization within the network must be met for all assignments larger than a /48. These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix and shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44. This reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at ARIN's discretion. 6.5.9.2. Subsequent assignment size Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional subnets is justified. Justification will be determined based on a detailed plan of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio metric. When possible, assignments will be made from an adjacent address block. 6.5.9.3. Number of customers Community Networks seeking an allocation must demonstrate that they provide for a user base of at least 100 through connectivity to homes and businesses, public facilities, public access points, or mobile users. Community Networks with user bases of under 200 must also submit a plan for doubling their service base over the next year. Rationale: There are currently a number of projects globally that aim to develop community network infrastructure and related technologies. These are usually coordinated by volunteer-run, grassroots organizations which lack many of the resources of traditional internet service providers and other network operators. They have diverse goals, including public policy, software development, and implementation of community services and resources. Many of them provide services free of charge, and thus lack any paying user base. However, in order to create and maintain community networks that are often composed of hundreds if not thousands of inexpensive, commodity hosts and devices, a significant amount of address space will be required. Current-generation workarounds to this problem, such as NAT, not only make it difficult to develop next-generation decentralized network technology by segmenting the community's architecture from the Internet as a whole, but will cease to be as viable a stopgap as the Internet moves towards IPv6 integration. Even now, common community networking software solutions such as CUWiNware (http://www.cuwin.net) and Freifunk (http://www.freifunk.at) have nascent IPv6 addressing support, but participating organizations lack the address space for widespread testing or adoption. As such, it is necessary to implement an procedure as soon as possible for these segregated networks to acquire address space. These organizations do not meet the criteria traditionally defined for LIR's, and thus cannot acquire address allocations through existing templates. By establishing a procedure by which these organizations can seek to acquire the resources they require for further development, ARIN can reach out to this active community and establish a small but definite space for them in the future of Internet. Timetable for implementation: Immediate. From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:31:26 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:31:26 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call Message-ID: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-21 PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that the community supports this proposal and moves it to last call. Note that the AC amended the text. The AC changed "...must be covered by a current ARIN RSA." to "...must be covered by any current ARIN RSA." Feedback is encouraged during this last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will expire at 23:59 EDT, 29 April 2008. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_21.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-21 PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use Author: Scott Leibrand Date: 14 April 2008 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Modify NRPM section 6.5.8.1 (Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user organizations: Criteria), to read: To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA. Rationale: Current policy allows direct IPv6 allocations and assignments to nearly all organizations with IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN. As a result, such organizations can get IPv6 space just as easily as they can get IPv4 space, making it easy for them to transition to IPv6 as soon as they're ready to do so. However, there are some organizations who received IPv4 /23's and /24's prior to the formation of ARIN, and use that space in a multihomed, provider-independent fashion. Under current policy, such organizations cannot get IPv6 PI space without artificially inflating host counts, and are therefore discouraged from adopting IPv6. This policy proposal aims to remove this disincentive, and allow such organizations to easily adopt IPv6. In addition, pre-ARIN assignments were issued through an informal process, and many legacy resource holders have not yet entered into a formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of many such IP numbering resources. This policy proposal would require that such assignments be brought under a current ARIN Registration Services Agreement, thereby formalizing the relationship. Some pre-ARIN assignments may not be used efficiently. As unallocated IPv4 numbering resources are approaching exhaustion, it is important to ensure efficient utilization of IPv4 assignments, and to arrange for reclamation of unused space. Therefore, this policy would require that the organization wishing to receive IPv6 PI space demonstrate efficient utilization of their IPv4 assignment. (Efficient utilization is already defined elsewhere in policy, and the exact mechanism for achieving and determining efficient use is a matter of procedure, not of policy, so detailed procedures are not included in the policy statement above. The intent is that any organization with an assignment of /23 or larger which is less than 50% utilized would renumber and return whole unused CIDR blocks as necessary to bring the remaining CIDR block to 50% utilization or higher. A /24 should be considered efficiently utilized as long as it is in use for multihoming, as /25's and smaller are not routable for that purpose.) It has been suggested that this policy would be useful only until the growth of IPv6 exceeds the growth of IPv4. I would agree with this, and would further posit that the existing "qualify ... under the IPv4 policy currently in effect" language should also be modified at that time. I have therefore proposed this policy with a policy term of "permanent", with the expectation that this section of policy (6.5.8.1) will be rewritten at the appropriate time to entirely remove all IPv4 dependencies. Timetable for implementation: immediate From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:31:40 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:31:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-23: Last Call Message-ID: <4803BF2C.30608@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-23 (Global) End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that the community supports this proposal and moves it to last call. Feedback is encouraged during this last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will expire at 23:59 EDT, 29 April 2008. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_23.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-23 (Global) End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs Proposal Version: Version 2 Date: 8 February 2008 Author: Roque Gagliano, ANTEL; Francisco Obispo, CENIT; Haitham EL Nakhal, MCIT; Didier Allain Kla, ISOC Cote d'Ivoire; JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team: - Akinori Maemura - Akira Nakagawa - Izumi Okutani - Kosuke Ito - Kuniaki Kondo - Shuji Nakamura - Susumu Sato - Takashi Arano - Tomohiro Fujisaki - Tomoya Yoshida - Toshiyuki Hosaka Proposal type: new Policy term: temporary Policy statement: This is a revised version of ; prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, at the time it is adopted, one /8 will be reserved by IANA for each RIR. The reserved allocation units will no longer be part of the available space at the IANA pool. IANA will also reserve one /8 to any new RIR at the time it is recognized. The process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is divided in two consecutive phases: 4.1. Existing Policy Phase: During this phase IANA will continue allocating IPv4 addresses to he RIRs using the existing allocation policy. This phase will continue until a request for IPv4 address space from any RIR to IANA either cannot be fulfilled with the remaining IPv4 space available at the IANA pool or can be fulfilled but leaving the IANA remaining IPv4 pool empty. This will be the last IPv4 address space request that IANA will accept from any RIR. At this point the next phase of the process will be initiated. 4.2. Exhaustion Phase: IANA will automatically allocate the reserved IPv4 allocation units to each RIR (one /8 to each one) and respond to the last request with the remaining available allocation units at the IANA pool (M units). 4.2.1. Size of the final IPv4 allocations: During this phase IANA will automatically allocate one /8 to each RIR from the reserved space defined in this policy. IANA will also allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 addresses. 4.2.2. Allocation of the remaining IPv4 Address space: After the completion of the evaluation of the final request for IPv4 addresses, IANA MUST: A) Immediately notify the NRO about the activation of the second phase of this policy. B) Proceed to allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 address space. C) Proceed to allocate one /8 to each RIR from the reserved space. Rationale: The exhaustion of IPv4 address space is projected to take place within the next few years. This proposal seeks to focus on measures that should be taken globally in the address management area in order to prepare for the situation in all RIR regions. To continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of the last piece(s) of each RIR's unallocated address block does not match the reality of the situation in each RIR region. Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period vary by region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may not adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work for the others. For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even small blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a policy that defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4 address space to be late comers would be appropriate in such region. This would allow availablilty of IPv4 address space for such requirements for more years. Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate. For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as well as for new businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some regions may have strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for translators. A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not solving issues in any of the regions. Timetable for implementation: after approval by ICANN board From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:32:06 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-1: Last Call Message-ID: <4803BF46.8040306@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2008-1 SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that the community supports this proposal and moves it to last call. Feedback is encouraged during this last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will expire at 23:59 EDT, 29 April 2008. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_1.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2008-1 SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignments Author: Joe Maimon Proposal Version: 1 Date: 26 February 2008 Proposal type: modify Policy term: permanent Policy statement: 4.2.2.1.2.) " ISPs must provide reassignment information on the entire previously allocated block(s) via SWIP or RWHOIS server for /29 or larger blocks. For blocks smaller than /29 and for internal space, ISPs should provide utilization data using the table format described in Section 4.2.3.7.5. " Replace with " ISPs must provide reassignment information on the entire previously allocated block(s) via SWIP or RWHOIS server for /29 or larger blocks. For blocks smaller than /29 and for internal space, ISPs should provide utilization data either via SWIP or RWHOIS server or by using the table format described in Section 4.2.3.7.5. " 4.2.2.2.1.) " Utilization for blocks smaller than /29 can be documented using the format described in Section 4.2.3.7.5. " Replace with " Utilization for blocks smaller than /29 can be documented via SWIP or RWHOIS server or by using the format described in Section 4.2.3.7.5. " 4.2.3.7.2.) " For blocks smaller than /29 and for internal space, ISPs should provide utilization data using the format described in Section 4.2.3.7.5. " Replace with " For blocks smaller than /29 and for internal space, ISPs should provide utilization data via SWIP or RWHOIS server or by using the format described in Section 4.2.3.7.5. " 4.2.3.7.5.) Accounting for additional utilization " The following format should be used to provide the required information for utilization of blocks smaller than /29 and for describing internal networks: " Replace with " The following format should be used to provide the required information for utilization of blocks smaller than /29 and for describing internal networks when either SWIP or RWHOIS server is not used: " Rationale: With increasing frequency of smaller than /29 assignements to customers, the ability for ISP's to utilize SWIP or RWHOIS as a single comprehensive source of their utilization data should be supported. To implement this policy change, ARIN SWIP would need to no longer reject SWIP templates smaller then /29. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From info at arin.net Mon Apr 14 16:32:38 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:32:38 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-27: Abandoned Message-ID: <4803BF66.5050605@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2007-27 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, determined that this proposal did not have the support of the community and decided to abandon it. At this time the author of the proposal may elect to use the petition process to attempt to advance the proposal. The deadline for the author to initiate a petition is 23:59 EDT, 21 April 2008. If the author chooses not to petition or the petition is unsuccessful, then the determination of the AC stands and the proposal is abandoned. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_27.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2007-27 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Author: Tony Hain Date: 20 November 2007 Proposal type: new Policy term: permanent Policy summary: This policy will establish a process for RIR-to-RIR redistribution of the tail-end of the IPv4 pool, taking effect after the IANA Reserve is exhausted. Each redistribution Allocation will be triggered by the recipient RIR depleting its reserve to a 30 day supply, and will result in up to a 3 month supply being transferred from the RIR with the longest remaining time before it exhausts its own pool. Policy statement: At the point when any given RIR is within 30 days of depleting its remaining IPv4 pool, a survey will be taken of the other 4 to determine the remaining time before each of them exhausts their pool (including both member use and recent redistribution allocations to other RIRs). The one with the longest window before exhausting its pool will be designated as the source RIR. The recipient RIR will follow procedures for an LIR in the source RIR region to request a block that is expected to be sufficient for up to 3 months, but is no larger than 1/8th of the source RIR's remaining pool. At the point where no RIR can supply a block that is less than 1/8th of their remaining pool that will sustain the recipient RIR for 30 days, the recipient RIR will collect its requests each week, and forward those individual requests to the source RIR designated that week. Rationale: This policy will establish a mechanism for the Allocation of IPv4 address blocks between RIR's, but will not go into effect until the IANA pool has been depleted. It is really bizarre to watch the maneuvering as the global RIR community grapples with 'fairness' of distributing the last few IANA Reserve /8 blocks. On one level this just appears to be petty sibling rivalry, as people are bickering over who gets the last cookie and whimpering about 'fairness'. At the same time, each RIR is chartered to look after the interests of its membership so it is to be expected that they will each want to get as much as possible to meet the needs of their respective membership. Existing practice requires RIR's to acquire blocks from IANA, which leads to the current round of nonsense about optimal distribution of the remaining pool based on elaborate mathematical models. This globally submitted policy proposal attempts to resolve the issue by shifting to an RIR-to-RIR Allocation model after the IANA pool is depleted. This policy would effectively result in each RIR becoming a virtual LIR member of all of the other RIR's for the sole purpose of managing the tail-end of the IPv4 pool. Timetable for implementation: Before 1/1/2009 From dwcarder at wisc.edu Mon Apr 14 17:58:23 2008 From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:58:23 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> Message-ID: <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> Comments (mostly questions, because I think I must be missing something) inline, On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Member Services wrote: > > Policy Proposal 2007-21 > PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use > > Modify NRPM section 6.5.8.1 (Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user > organizations: Criteria), to read: > > To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must: > > 1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and > > 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the > IPv4 > policy currently in effect, > or demonstrate efficient utilization of all > direct IPv4 assignments and allocations, each of which must be covered > by any current ARIN RSA. That last phrase is the new part that proposal 2007-21 adds. > Rationale: > > Current policy allows direct IPv6 allocations and assignments to > nearly > all organizations with IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN. As a > result, such organizations can get IPv6 space just as easily as > they can > get IPv4 space, making it easy for them to transition to IPv6 as > soon as > they're ready to do so. However, there are some organizations who > received IPv4 /23's and /24's prior to the formation of ARIN, and use > that space in a multihomed, provider-independent fashion. Under > current > policy, such organizations cannot get IPv6 PI space without > artificially > inflating host counts, and are therefore discouraged from adopting > IPv6. Can you point to where in the current policy one would likely have to inflate host counts to be eligible for IPv6 PI space? > This policy proposal aims to remove this disincentive, and allow such > organizations to easily adopt IPv6. And by "easily", you mean renumbering current IPv4 resources in order to be eligible for IPv6 resources? > In addition, pre-ARIN assignments were issued through an informal > process, and many legacy resource holders have not yet entered into a > formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of many such IP numbering > resources. This policy proposal would require that such assignments be > brought under a current ARIN Registration Services Agreement, thereby > formalizing the relationship. > > Some pre-ARIN assignments may not be used efficiently. As unallocated > IPv4 numbering resources are approaching exhaustion, it is > important to > ensure efficient utilization of IPv4 assignments, and to arrange for > reclamation of unused space. Therefore, this policy would require that > the organization wishing to receive IPv6 PI space demonstrate > efficient > utilization of their IPv4 assignment. Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6? > The > intent is that any organization with an assignment of /23 or larger > which is less than 50% utilized would renumber and return whole unused > CIDR blocks as necessary to bring the remaining CIDR block to 50% > utilization or higher. So you want people to renumber their historical IPv4 assignments before being allowed to get IPv6 assignments? Will this really help v6 get deployed? Dale From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 14 18:09:18 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:09:18 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> > Speaking only as myself and not on behalf of the AC... >> Rationale: >> >> Current policy allows direct IPv6 allocations and assignments to >> nearly >> all organizations with IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN. >> As a >> result, such organizations can get IPv6 space just as easily as >> they can >> get IPv4 space, making it easy for them to transition to IPv6 as >> soon as >> they're ready to do so. However, there are some organizations who >> received IPv4 /23's and /24's prior to the formation of ARIN, and use >> that space in a multihomed, provider-independent fashion. Under >> current >> policy, such organizations cannot get IPv6 PI space without >> artificially >> inflating host counts, and are therefore discouraged from adopting >> IPv6. > > Can you point to where in the current policy one would likely > have to inflate host counts to be eligible for IPv6 PI space? > If you have, for example, a legitimate legacy /24 and do not have ~510 hosts, you do not technically qualify for an IPv4 /22 new issue, and, therefore would not meet the current policy test to obtain IPv6 for your site. >> This policy proposal aims to remove this disincentive, and allow such >> organizations to easily adopt IPv6. > > And by "easily", you mean renumbering current IPv4 > resources in order to be eligible for IPv6 resources? > Nope... Simply easily obtaining an IPv6 assignment to overlay in dual-stack fashion on your IPv4 network to continue business as usual and effect the transition accordingly. >> > > Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6? > People who have them and have the ability to independently multihome with their IPv4 assignments, but, cannot get IPv6 assignments on the same terms are unlikely to be willing to implement IPv6 on their networks as a result. This is a not insignificant portion of networks in North America. >> The >> intent is that any organization with an assignment of /23 or larger >> which is less than 50% utilized would renumber and return whole >> unused >> CIDR blocks as necessary to bring the remaining CIDR block to 50% >> utilization or higher. > > So you want people to renumber their historical IPv4 assignments > before being allowed to get IPv6 assignments? Will this really > help v6 get deployed? > We want them to return large chunks of unused space, yes, but, the reality is that most of the beneficiaries of this proposal would not have to do that, and, would simply get the IPv6 space they need. In the few cases where people have sparsely populated IPv4 space, the intent is to let them select the contiguous portion of that space which they wish to occupy and return the other contiguous portion(s) to ARIN to bring them in line with current utilization density requirements. For example, a site with 150 hosts in 16 class C network ranges would be expected to pick one class C to keep, renumber the hosts they had to into that range, and, return the others in order to be able to demonstrate "efficient utilization". I hope that clarifies the situation. Owen From dwcarder at wisc.edu Mon Apr 14 23:20:16 2008 From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:20:16 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> Message-ID: <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6? >> > People who have them and have the ability to independently multihome > with their IPv4 assignments, but, cannot get IPv6 assignments on the > same terms are unlikely to be willing to implement IPv6 on their > networks as a result. This is a not insignificant portion of networks > in North America. Agreed, but if you want "the same terms", shouldn't we take out the requirement for a legacy RSA to be in place? > For example, a site with > 150 hosts in 16 class C network ranges would be expected > to pick one class C to keep, renumber the hosts they had to > into that range, and, return the others in order to be able to > demonstrate "efficient utilization". I would think that it is a waste of time for anyone involved to do any sort of minor IPv4 reclamation and further inhibit the world's v6 rollout because of it. Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of "Have an AS? Here's your /48". Dale From sleibrand at internap.com Mon Apr 14 23:39:03 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:39:03 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <48042357.1040402@internap.com> Dale W. Carder wrote: > On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6? >>> >> People who have them and have the ability to independently multihome >> with their IPv4 assignments, but, cannot get IPv6 assignments on the >> same terms are unlikely to be willing to implement IPv6 on their >> networks as a result. This is a not insignificant portion of networks >> in North America. > > Agreed, but if you want "the same terms", shouldn't > we take out the requirement for a legacy RSA to be in > place? Of course, no one will be getting IPv6 terms under the same terms they got IPv4 space for pre-ARIN. The main consideration for the legacy RSA was that if someone wants to use IPv4 resources as a justification for getting IPv6 space, the IPv4 space needs to be covered by some sort of legal agreement. The legacy RSA accomplishes that, while preserving nearly all of the legacy holder's rights to the IPv4 space. >> For example, a site with >> 150 hosts in 16 class C network ranges would be expected >> to pick one class C to keep, renumber the hosts they had to >> into that range, and, return the others in order to be able to >> demonstrate "efficient utilization". > > I would think that it is a waste of time for anyone > involved to do any sort of minor IPv4 reclamation and > further inhibit the world's v6 rollout because of it. Perhaps, but it's really more of a fairness thing. If you have legacy space that's not fully utilized, and you'd like special treatment in receiving IPv6 space, then ARIN can ask you to trade in your unused IPv4 space in exchange. > Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of "Have an > AS? Here's your /48". That's another valid approach. You could bring it up at the Open Policy Hour, or discuss it here on PPML, and see if there's support for a policy proposal to do so. -Scott From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 15 00:25:25 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:25:25 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <1BBE2EF3-1684-4DAD-9DAA-188D3E27BD38@delong.com> On Apr 14, 2008, at 8:20 PM, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6? >>> >> People who have them and have the ability to independently multihome >> with their IPv4 assignments, but, cannot get IPv6 assignments on the >> same terms are unlikely to be willing to implement IPv6 on their >> networks as a result. This is a not insignificant portion of networks >> in North America. > > Agreed, but if you want "the same terms", shouldn't > we take out the requirement for a legacy RSA to be in > place? > There are limits to the extent to which the community is willing to continue the legacy free-for-all. Not having an RSA is outside of those limits. The IPv6 will have to be covered by an RSA anyway, so, covering the legacy space with a legacy RSA doesn't seem a particularly high barrier. >> For example, a site with >> 150 hosts in 16 class C network ranges would be expected >> to pick one class C to keep, renumber the hosts they had to >> into that range, and, return the others in order to be able to >> demonstrate "efficient utilization". > > I would think that it is a waste of time for anyone > involved to do any sort of minor IPv4 reclamation and > further inhibit the world's v6 rollout because of it. > There are two ways to approach this. One is to think (possibly erroneously) that reclamation somehow delays IPv6 deployment. The other is to recognize that it won't actually, but, reclaimed space may be useful in easing the transition, and, eliminating waste of space in IPv4 in favor of justified need based allocation is probably a good thing regardless. Obviously, I have my bias as to which is the correct answer of the two. > Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of "Have an > AS? Here's your /48". > Yep. Not actually a good idea. Owen From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Apr 15 10:09:42 2008 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:09:42 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> Message-ID: <20080415140942.GA63817@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:20:16PM -0500, Dale W. Carder wrote: > I would think that it is a waste of time for anyone > involved to do any sort of minor IPv4 reclamation and > further inhibit the world's v6 rollout because of it. > > Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of "Have an > AS? Here's your /48". In an attempt to bring this full circle... This policy is currently in "Last Call", which is the last opportunity for the community to raise objections to the policy or the process followed to get it here. Do you believe there's any reason this policy should not be implemented, or that the process was not followed? What I'm hearing is that you would like to explore other policies (e.g. "Have an AS? Here's your /48.", but that you have no specific problems with this policy. If that's incorrect, please let us know; that's why we have this comment period! -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dwcarder at wisc.edu Tue Apr 15 16:08:34 2008 From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:08:34 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <20080415140942.GA63817@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net> <72D255BA-C8B7-48F0-BED4-95525E6A4CFB@wisc.edu> <2FED4856-30A5-4BC3-A4AE-F86D508F9F4D@delong.com> <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu> <20080415140942.GA63817@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > This policy is currently in "Last Call", which is the last opportunity > for the community to raise objections to the policy or the process > followed to get it here. > > Do you believe there's any reason this policy should not be > implemented, or that the process was not followed? Do we have any estimate as to how many sites it would use the proposal 2007-21 text because they didn't qualify under the current policy? I would think it to be very small. Dale From farmer at umn.edu Tue Apr 15 16:28:58 2008 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:28:58 -0500 Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call In-Reply-To: <20080415140942.GA63817@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4803BF1E.7060904@arin.net>, <2C0CD56E-85E0-484C-9CB9-88059140A4E8@wisc.edu>, <20080415140942.GA63817@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <4804C9BA.26958.4636318@farmer.umn.edu> On 15 Apr 2008 Leo Bicknell wrote: > This policy is currently in "Last Call", which is the last opportunity > for the community to raise objections to the policy or the process > followed to get it here. > > Do you believe there's any reason this policy should not be > implemented, or that the process was not followed? > > What I'm hearing is that you would like to explore other policies > (e.g. "Have an AS? Here's your /48.", but that you have no specific > problems with this policy. If that's incorrect, please let us know; > that's why we have this comment period! I think you are correct, this policy should proceed and a policy to provide anyone assigned an AS# a /48 is a separate different proposal, good or bad as your opinion of it may be, and should not impede the progress of this proposal. While I personally do not totally agree with some of the restrictions, I believe they are the communities consensus. And even with the restrictions it will eliminate potential impediments for a few groups to move to IPv6. ================================================= David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815 2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818 ================================================= From kc at caida.org Wed Apr 16 19:05:32 2008 From: kc at caida.org (k claffy) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:05:32 -0700 Subject: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> Message-ID: <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:29AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: Tom Vest wrote: > "Address Ownership Considered Fatal" > Yakhov Rekter > March 31, 1995 > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps Both this reference and RFC1744 are illustrative of the observation that study of this topic and the issues relating to the "role" of addresses in the context of the Internet is not a recent occupation, and that folk have been thinking about this for some years. So in response to KC's comment in the policy session at the ARIN meeting today, one can point to such studies (and related studies associated with thge PIARA activity in the IETF in 1996) and say that there is some level of longer term work in this area. Also, as far as I can see both RFC1744 and the Rekhter document both are supportive of a lease concept (Corollary 3, page 12 of the Rekhter presentation, RFC1744, section 3, para 4). geoff, we're proposing to turn the economic architecture of the Internet addressing (and as we know, that includes routing) system upside down, and as backup material we're using two essays (ok one essay and 15 slides) reflecting observations of two individuals, written last century when circumstances were substantially different, with no formal peer review, nor references to any related work in economics or market/regulatory transitions? 1744 is a nice essay and would make nice phd thesis proposal, but someone (or several) ought to go off and do the research and write a few theses. i believe ben edelman is doing good thinking and his writeups will be useful, but if we think that's sufficient, we're in a heap of denial. the kneejerk "but there is no truly related work; this is a whole new world!" position i keep hearing from some of the smartest people i know has me wondering how many days till men in suits come in and take over. i've only spent a few hours thinking about this, but i see at least 5 specific research questions that the registries should [get icann to use some of their $57M/yr budget to, or do themselves if icann won't] sponsor and guide an interdisciplinary working group to rigorously study and get peer reviewed publications for the community to learn from before even launching any proposals: (1) comparison of ip address allocation and spectrum allocation, including different models used in different countries, and metrics for evaluation of efficiency and consumer surplus generated (2) comparison to other industries privated in this country: electricity, natural gas, trucking, airlines, telecom (3) comparison to other industries privated in other countries, esp G7 (4) comparison to other industries privated in our own field: ip transit, dns (5) comparison to other market reforms in last 200 years: russia, china, india, latin america. for each comparison, the similarities and differences to address markets should be compared, metrics of success proposed/described, data gathered/analyzed, models built. otherwise this exercise looks like promoting blatant cyberlandgrab, which i don't believe is what any of the registries intend. (good intentions are not sufficient here, we also need good research.) k From gih at apnic.net Wed Apr 16 19:36:36 2008 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:36:36 +1000 Subject: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> Message-ID: <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> k claffy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:29AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: > Tom Vest wrote: > > "Address Ownership Considered Fatal" > > Yakhov Rekter > > March 31, 1995 > > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps > > Both this reference and RFC1744 are illustrative of the observation > that study of this topic and the issues relating to the "role" of > addresses in the context of the Internet is not a recent occupation, > and that folk have been thinking about this for some years. So in > response to KC's comment in the policy session at the ARIN meeting > today, one can point to such studies (and related studies associated > with thge PIARA activity in the IETF in 1996) and say that there is > some level of longer term work in this area. Also, as far as I can see > both RFC1744 and the Rekhter document both are supportive of a lease > concept (Corollary 3, page 12 of the Rekhter presentation, RFC1744, > section 3, para 4). > > geoff, > > we're proposing to turn the economic architecture of the Internet > addressing (and as we know, that includes routing) system upside > down, and as backup material we're using two essays (ok one essay > and 15 slides) reflecting observations of two individuals, written > last century when circumstances were substantially different, with > no formal peer review, nor references to any related work in > economics or market/regulatory transitions? I'm not sure that its a case of providing direction as you infer, or following behind the actions of industry players. The transfer proposal, at least in the APNIC region, is a proposal to recognise in the registry the outcomes of actions between address holders that result in the movement of address resources. I agree that the proposition of IPv4 exhaustion is one with many unknowns, and it seems that many folk are looking at what others are going to do before they react, and the resultant situation looks a lot like an uncomfortable paralysis, at least today. That's not altogether heartening to see. > > 1744 is a nice essay and would make nice phd thesis proposal, > but someone (or several) ought to go off and do the research > and write a few theses. i believe ben edelman is doing good > thinking and his writeups will be useful, but if we think > that's sufficient, we're in a heap of denial. the kneejerk > "but there is no truly related work; this is a whole new world!" > position i keep hearing from some of the smartest people i know > has me wondering how many days till men in suits come in and take over. > > i've only spent a few hours thinking about this, but i see at > least 5 specific research questions that the registries should > [get icann to use some of their $57M/yr budget to, or do themselves > if icann won't] sponsor and guide an interdisciplinary working group > to rigorously study and get peer reviewed publications for the > community to learn from before even launching any proposals: > > (1) comparison of ip address allocation and spectrum > allocation, including different models used in different > countries, and metrics for evaluation of efficiency > and consumer surplus generated > > (2) comparison to other industries privated in this country: > electricity, natural gas, trucking, airlines, telecom > > (3) comparison to other industries privated in other > countries, esp G7 > > (4) comparison to other industries privated in our own > field: ip transit, dns > > (5) comparison to other market reforms in last 200 years: > russia, china, india, latin america. > > for each comparison, the similarities and differences to address > markets should be compared, metrics of success proposed/described, > data gathered/analyzed, models built. > > otherwise this exercise looks like promoting blatant cyberlandgrab, > which i don't believe is what any of the registries intend. > (good intentions are not sufficient here, we also need good research.) Yes, this is a significant problem, and it involves a broader cast of folk that just the addressing community. As I said at the APNIC meeting last September I believe that this does involve many interests, of which the address community is but one grouping. There are legitimate public sector interests, private sector interests, investment intersts, and so on, and I suspect that part of this issue involves some very fundamental questions about the nature of deregulation and the ability to phrase longer term common beneficial interests in terms of shorter term competitive factors in today's market for internet goods and services. So I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that this topic would benefit from further study and, in particular, comparative studies as you suggest here. But, as you are aware, the processes that will lead to IPv4 unallocated address pool exhaustion are inexorably grinding away, and we have very little time left if we believe that there is a benefit in taking actions before the event. I suspect that the post mortem analyses of this event will be many and varied, but the question before us at the moment is a more pragmatic question of what can we do as address registries in the interests of a cohesive single Internet that would be of common benefit here that would not endanger the internet at the same time, and be achievalbe within the time available to us? regards, Geoff From nigel.cassimire at ctu.int Thu Apr 17 09:59:46 2008 From: nigel.cassimire at ctu.int (Nigel Cassimire) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:59:46 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> Message-ID: <20080417141602.70C0CA68A7@smtp2.arin.net> One could also add comparison of IP address allocation to telephone number allocation among the proposed areas of study. Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist (Consultant) Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:37 PM To: k claffy Cc: arin ppml Subject: Re: [ppml] RFC 1744 and its discontents k claffy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:29AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote: > Tom Vest wrote: > > "Address Ownership Considered Fatal" > > Yakhov Rekter > > March 31, 1995 > > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cid rd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps > > Both this reference and RFC1744 are illustrative of the observation > that study of this topic and the issues relating to the "role" of > addresses in the context of the Internet is not a recent occupation, > and that folk have been thinking about this for some years. So in > response to KC's comment in the policy session at the ARIN meeting > today, one can point to such studies (and related studies associated > with thge PIARA activity in the IETF in 1996) and say that there is > some level of longer term work in this area. Also, as far as I can see > both RFC1744 and the Rekhter document both are supportive of a lease > concept (Corollary 3, page 12 of the Rekhter presentation, RFC1744, > section 3, para 4). > > geoff, > > we're proposing to turn the economic architecture of the Internet > addressing (and as we know, that includes routing) system upside > down, and as backup material we're using two essays (ok one essay > and 15 slides) reflecting observations of two individuals, written > last century when circumstances were substantially different, with > no formal peer review, nor references to any related work in > economics or market/regulatory transitions? I'm not sure that its a case of providing direction as you infer, or following behind the actions of industry players. The transfer proposal, at least in the APNIC region, is a proposal to recognise in the registry the outcomes of actions between address holders that result in the movement of address resources. I agree that the proposition of IPv4 exhaustion is one with many unknowns, and it seems that many folk are looking at what others are going to do before they react, and the resultant situation looks a lot like an uncomfortable paralysis, at least today. That's not altogether heartening to see. > > 1744 is a nice essay and would make nice phd thesis proposal, > but someone (or several) ought to go off and do the research > and write a few theses. i believe ben edelman is doing good > thinking and his writeups will be useful, but if we think > that's sufficient, we're in a heap of denial. the kneejerk > "but there is no truly related work; this is a whole new world!" > position i keep hearing from some of the smartest people i know > has me wondering how many days till men in suits come in and take over. > > i've only spent a few hours thinking about this, but i see at > least 5 specific research questions that the registries should > [get icann to use some of their $57M/yr budget to, or do themselves > if icann won't] sponsor and guide an interdisciplinary working group > to rigorously study and get peer reviewed publications for the > community to learn from before even launching any proposals: > > (1) comparison of ip address allocation and spectrum > allocation, including different models used in different > countries, and metrics for evaluation of efficiency > and consumer surplus generated > > (2) comparison to other industries privated in this country: > electricity, natural gas, trucking, airlines, telecom > > (3) comparison to other industries privated in other > countries, esp G7 > > (4) comparison to other industries privated in our own > field: ip transit, dns > > (5) comparison to other market reforms in last 200 years: > russia, china, india, latin america. > > for each comparison, the similarities and differences to address > markets should be compared, metrics of success proposed/described, > data gathered/analyzed, models built. > > otherwise this exercise looks like promoting blatant cyberlandgrab, > which i don't believe is what any of the registries intend. > (good intentions are not sufficient here, we also need good research.) Yes, this is a significant problem, and it involves a broader cast of folk that just the addressing community. As I said at the APNIC meeting last September I believe that this does involve many interests, of which the address community is but one grouping. There are legitimate public sector interests, private sector interests, investment intersts, and so on, and I suspect that part of this issue involves some very fundamental questions about the nature of deregulation and the ability to phrase longer term common beneficial interests in terms of shorter term competitive factors in today's market for internet goods and services. So I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that this topic would benefit from further study and, in particular, comparative studies as you suggest here. But, as you are aware, the processes that will lead to IPv4 unallocated address pool exhaustion are inexorably grinding away, and we have very little time left if we believe that there is a benefit in taking actions before the event. I suspect that the post mortem analyses of this event will be many and varied, but the question before us at the moment is a more pragmatic question of what can we do as address registries in the interests of a cohesive single Internet that would be of common benefit here that would not endanger the internet at the same time, and be achievalbe within the time available to us? regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ 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 sleibrand at internap.com Thu Apr 17 20:35:00 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:35:00 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> Message-ID: <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> Geoff Huston wrote: > I'm not sure that its a case of providing direction as you infer, or > following behind the actions of industry players. The transfer proposal, > at least in the APNIC region, is a proposal to recognise in the registry > the outcomes of actions between address holders that result in the movement > of address resources. In the ARIN region, the situation seems to be somewhat different, in that ARIN is in a stronger position (largely operating within a single legal system, for example). However, we still can't impose on the industry a solution that doesn't work for them, so we're trying to recognize the likely outcomes of IPv4 exhaustion, and put policies in place that legitimate the beneficial aspects while doing what's within our power to help alleviate some of the more detrimental aspects. k claffy wrote: >> 1744 is a nice essay and would make nice phd thesis proposal, >> but someone (or several) ought to go off and do the research >> and write a few theses. i believe ben edelman is doing good >> thinking and his writeups will be useful, but if we think >> that's sufficient, we're in a heap of denial. the kneejerk >> "but there is no truly related work; this is a whole new world!" >> position i keep hearing from some of the smartest people i know >> has me wondering how many days till men in suits come in and take over. >> otherwise this exercise looks like promoting blatant cyberlandgrab, >> which i don't believe is what any of the registries intend. >> (good intentions are not sufficient here, we also need good research.) One big overarching meta-assumption I think we might differ on is distinguishing what is ideal (what the men in suits could do with the power of government behind them) and what is possible (what those of us in jeans can do within our policy development framework). For example, if the government gets involved they can dictate how IP addresses get privatized. But as long as we think a non-regulated system is better for the industry, we have to work within what's already been done (for example, we can't force legacy holders to give back space, or charge high per-address fees to encourage conservation). If there was a land grab, it has occurred gradually over my lifetime. >> i've only spent a few hours thinking about this, but i see at >> least 5 specific research questions that the registries should >> [get icann to use some of their $57M/yr budget to, or do themselves >> if icann won't] sponsor and guide an interdisciplinary working group >> to rigorously study and get peer reviewed publications for the >> community to learn from before even launching any proposals: >> >> (1) comparison of ip address allocation and spectrum >> allocation, including different models used in different >> countries, and metrics for evaluation of efficiency >> and consumer surplus generated >> >> (2) comparison to other industries privated in this country: >> electricity, natural gas, trucking, airlines, telecom >> >> (3) comparison to other industries privated in other >> countries, esp G7 >> >> (4) comparison to other industries privated in our own >> field: ip transit, dns >> >> (5) comparison to other market reforms in last 200 years: >> russia, china, india, latin america. >> >> for each comparison, the similarities and differences to address >> markets should be compared, metrics of success proposed/described, >> data gathered/analyzed, models built. In my mind, these are good and useful comparisons, but to my mind they presuppose that the entity making the policy has authority to change allocations and/or privatize resources. Perhaps another angle would be to look at the dynamics of real-world transfer markets. I think the closest analogy would be to real estate. For starters, our situation is much like that of a number of developing countries where residents didn't have title to their land. In some cases, when they were given title, and a working system, and were able to do all the good things you'd expect (buy & sell land, use it as collateral for loans, etc.). In other cases, the system didn't work well, transactions were not recorded properly in the central registry, no one knew exactly who had what, etc. I'm not sure what exactly the differences were between the systems that worked and those that didn't, but I'm pretty sure a researcher could tease out the distinctions and come up with some lessons for how to structure a transfer system for IP addresses. > So I agree > wholeheartedly with the proposition that this topic would benefit from > further study and, in particular, comparative studies as you suggest here. Likewise. > But, as you are aware, the processes that will lead to IPv4 unallocated address pool > exhaustion are inexorably grinding away, and we have very little time left if > we believe that there is a benefit in taking actions before the event. > > I suspect that the post mortem analyses of this event will be many and varied, but > the question before us at the moment is a more pragmatic question of what can we do > as address registries in the interests of a cohesive single Internet that > would be of common benefit here that would not endanger the internet at the same > time, and be achievable within the time available to us? Well put. I don't claim to know how to do (or direct) research, but I do know that we need to focus our attention on the things that are relevant to what is possible under the RIRs policy development processes (for now), and particularly on research whose outcomes include recommendations for how we can improve our policies to help steer a middle course between potential negative outcomes on both sides. Thanks again, kc, for all your work in this area, and particularly for what you're doing to involve a larger set of folks in the issue. -Scott From tvest at pch.net Fri Apr 18 00:56:08 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:56:08 +0800 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Geoff Huston wrote: > >> I'm not sure that its a case of providing direction as you infer, or >> following behind the actions of industry players. The transfer >> proposal, >> at least in the APNIC region, is a proposal to recognise in the >> registry >> the outcomes of actions between address holders that result in the >> movement >> of address resources. > > In the ARIN region, the situation seems to be somewhat different, in > that ARIN is in a stronger position (largely operating within a single > legal system, for example). However, we still can't impose on the > industry a solution that doesn't work for them, so we're trying to > recognize the likely outcomes of IPv4 exhaustion, and put policies in > place that legitimate the beneficial aspects while doing what's within > our power to help alleviate some of the more detrimental aspects. > > k claffy wrote: > >>> 1744 is a nice essay and would make nice phd thesis proposal, >>> but someone (or several) ought to go off and do the research >>> and write a few theses. i believe ben edelman is doing good >>> thinking and his writeups will be useful, but if we think >>> that's sufficient, we're in a heap of denial. the kneejerk >>> "but there is no truly related work; this is a whole new world!" >>> position i keep hearing from some of the smartest people i know >>> has me wondering how many days till men in suits come in and take >>> over. > > > >>> otherwise this exercise looks like promoting blatant cyberlandgrab, >>> which i don't believe is what any of the registries intend. >>> (good intentions are not sufficient here, we also need good >>> research.) > > One big overarching meta-assumption I think we might differ on is > distinguishing what is ideal (what the men in suits could do with the > power of government behind them) and what is possible (what those of > us > in jeans can do within our policy development framework). For > example, > if the government gets involved they can dictate how IP addresses get > privatized. But as long as we think a non-regulated system is better > for the industry, we have to work within what's already been done (for > example, we can't force legacy holders to give back space, or charge > high per-address fees to encourage conservation). Hi Scott, I think we all think of ourselves as realists/pragmatists, but that doesn't require us to be so fatalistic. There's a vast middle ground between men with suits and guns and Hobbe's nasty, brutish (and short) competition of all against all. It's called "collective action" -- i.e., members of the community voluntarily, collectively deciding to undertake some action(s), or to forebear from taking some action(s), with the goal of achieving some outcome that is preferable to external occupation or complete anarchy. Wasn't that what happened when the community established the RIRs, and agreed to abide by the policies that community members themselves created? > If there was a land grab, it has occurred gradually over my lifetime. Can you tell us what "land grab" means precisely, and point us all to statistical evidence that that has already happened -- and already happened to such a degree that everyone should dismiss the wholesale privatization of IP address resources as "nothing new"? >>> i've only spent a few hours thinking about this, but i see at >>> least 5 specific research questions that the registries should >>> [get icann to use some of their $57M/yr budget to, or do themselves >>> if icann won't] sponsor and guide an interdisciplinary working group >>> to rigorously study and get peer reviewed publications for the >>> community to learn from before even launching any proposals: >>> >>> (1) comparison of ip address allocation and spectrum >>> allocation, including different models used in different >>> countries, and metrics for evaluation of efficiency >>> and consumer surplus generated >>> >>> (2) comparison to other industries privated in this country: >>> electricity, natural gas, trucking, airlines, telecom >>> >>> (3) comparison to other industries privated in other >>> countries, esp G7 >>> >>> (4) comparison to other industries privated in our own >>> field: ip transit, dns >>> >>> (5) comparison to other market reforms in last 200 years: >>> russia, china, india, latin america. >>> >>> for each comparison, the similarities and differences to address >>> markets should be compared, metrics of success proposed/described, >>> data gathered/analyzed, models built. > > In my mind, these are good and useful comparisons, but to my mind they > presuppose that the entity making the policy has authority to change > allocations and/or privatize resources. I'm curious -- are you suggesting that in the other cases, the policy entity had such "authority" but in this case the address resource community does not? To me, that seems like a strange (or maybe deeply depressing) position for an elected representative of the community to take... In any case I disagree with your claim. Different sectors and/or national economies can be looked at as "natural experiments." You can look at the outcomes of individual cases -- where they perceived to be "successful" and by whom, who were the winners and losers, how did things look (x) years on, etc. -- all without getting stuck on how the initiatives got started. If you find that the results varied under different circumstances, then you can consider whether those results can be explained (i.e., dismissed) based on the the particulars of who initiated and drove the changes. > Perhaps another angle would be to look at the dynamics of real-world > transfer markets. I think the closest analogy would be to real > estate. > For starters, our situation is much like that of a number of > developing countries where residents didn't have title to their land. > In some cases, when they were given title, and a working system, and > were able to do all the good things you'd expect (buy & sell land, use > it as collateral for loans, etc.). In other cases, the system didn't > work well, transactions were not recorded properly in the central > registry, no one knew exactly who had what, etc. I'm not sure what > exactly the differences were between the systems that worked and those > that didn't, but I'm pretty sure a researcher could tease out the > distinctions and come up with some lessons for how to structure a > transfer system for IP addresses. Land is a great comparison -- but not in modern times, when ownership and pricing is transparent, and there are lots of jobs other than being a farmer, and political and economic self-determination are not inextricably linked to land ownership. The right comparison is land, and the role of land and land markets in the 19th century and earlier. That's when land was "non-substitutable", just as IPv4 is today. >> So I agree >> wholeheartedly with the proposition that this topic would benefit >> from >> further study and, in particular, comparative studies as you >> suggest here. > > Likewise. > >> But, as you are aware, the processes that will lead to IPv4 >> unallocated address pool >> exhaustion are inexorably grinding away, and we have very little >> time left if >> we believe that there is a benefit in taking actions before the >> event. >> >> I suspect that the post mortem analyses of this event will be many >> and varied, but >> the question before us at the moment is a more pragmatic question >> of what can we do >> as address registries in the interests of a cohesive single >> Internet that >> would be of common benefit here that would not endanger the >> internet at the same >> time, and be achievable within the time available to us? > > Well put. I don't claim to know how to do (or direct) research, but I > do know that we need to focus our attention on the things that are > relevant to what is possible under the RIRs policy development > processes > (for now), This is potentially very useful advice. However, to operatioanlize it, please clarify: 1. what is possible under the RIR policy development process? 2. what is impossible under the RIR policy development process? Or to be more pointed: 3. Is collective action still possible under the RIR policy development process? Once that is clarified, figuring out what is/is not relevant should be easy enough... > and particularly on research whose outcomes include > recommendations for how we can improve our policies to help steer a > middle course between potential negative outcomes on both sides. That's definitely a goal that we share. Regards, TV From sleibrand at internap.com Fri Apr 18 11:26:40 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:26:40 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> Message-ID: <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> Tom Vest wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> >> One big overarching meta-assumption I think we might differ on is >> distinguishing what is ideal (what the men in suits could do with the >> power of government behind them) and what is possible (what those of us >> in jeans can do within our policy development framework). For example, >> if the government gets involved they can dictate how IP addresses get >> privatized. But as long as we think a non-regulated system is better >> for the industry, we have to work within what's already been done (for >> example, we can't force legacy holders to give back space, or charge >> high per-address fees to encourage conservation). > > Hi Scott, > > I think we all think of ourselves as realists/pragmatists, but that > doesn't require us to be so fatalistic. > There's a vast middle ground between men with suits and guns and Hobbe's > nasty, brutish (and short) competition of all against all. It's called > "collective action" -- i.e., members of the community voluntarily, > collectively deciding to undertake some action(s), or to forebear from > taking some action(s), with the goal of achieving some outcome that is > preferable to external occupation or complete anarchy. Wasn't that what > happened when the community established the RIRs, and agreed to abide by > the policies that community members themselves created? I agree that there is a middle way, which is why I'm so involved in the transfer policy proposal. I also agree that we can accomplish a lot with collective action, and that we needn't involve the men with suits. I'm only pointing out that there are limits to what we can accomplish with collective action, and that many parallels to prior privatizations are of somewhat limited utility precisely because this transition is occurring by collective action (without as much government authority to force reluctant players to participate). > >> If there was a land grab, it has occurred gradually over my lifetime. > > > Can you tell us what "land grab" means precisely, and point us all to > statistical evidence that that has already happened I don't think there has been a land grab: hence my use of "if". I think that IP addresses have, for the most part, been assigned fairly and equitably based on the conditions and understanding at the time they were given out. > and already > happened to such a degree that everyone should dismiss the wholesale > privatization of IP address resources as "nothing new"? You can call it a privatization if you want, but I think it's more accurately just a distribution of IP addresses. What we're facing with IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement for redistribution, which we can either meet with inaction (and possibly end up with a Hobbesian free-for-all or men-in-suits regulation), or we can collectively establish some standards for the redistribution and continue the current cooperative self-governance that has benefited the Internet so much for so long. >> In my mind, these are good and useful comparisons, but to my mind they >> presuppose that the entity making the policy has authority to change >> allocations and/or privatize resources. > > > I'm curious -- are you suggesting that in the other cases, the policy > entity had such "authority" but in this case the address resource > community does not? To me, that seems like a strange (or maybe deeply > depressing) position for an elected representative of the community to > take... We have a collective action problem. We have authority, but only so far as the industry is collectively willing to cede it. If we were to assert authority to reclaim legacy space, or use fees as governments use taxes, we would be exceeding our authority IMO. If, instead, we establish a transfer policy with reasonable restrictions on behaviors that negatively affect the community, we are certainly well within our authority. > In any case I disagree with your claim. Different sectors and/or > national economies can be looked at as "natural experiments." > You can look at the outcomes of individual cases -- where they perceived > to be "successful" and by whom, who were the winners and losers, how did > things look (x) years on, etc. -- all without getting stuck on how the > initiatives got started. If you find that the results varied under > different circumstances, then you can consider whether those results can > be explained (i.e., dismissed) based on the the particulars of who > initiated and drove the changes. I agree, so I guess I wasn't claiming what you thought I was. :) >> Perhaps another angle would be to look at the dynamics of real-world >> transfer markets. I think the closest analogy would be to real estate. >> For starters, our situation is much like that of a number of >> developing countries where residents didn't have title to their land. >> In some cases, when they were given title, and a working system, and >> were able to do all the good things you'd expect (buy & sell land, use >> it as collateral for loans, etc.). In other cases, the system didn't >> work well, transactions were not recorded properly in the central >> registry, no one knew exactly who had what, etc. I'm not sure what >> exactly the differences were between the systems that worked and those >> that didn't, but I'm pretty sure a researcher could tease out the >> distinctions and come up with some lessons for how to structure a >> transfer system for IP addresses. > > > Land is a great comparison -- but not in modern times, when ownership > and pricing is transparent, and there are lots of jobs other than being > a farmer, and political and economic self-determination are not > inextricably linked to land ownership. The right comparison is land, and > the role of land and land markets in the 19th century and earlier. > That's when land was "non-substitutable", just as IPv4 is today. And I would certainly love to see the results of some analysis of the redistribution of land from feudal lords to private landholders. However, I don't think that the modern situation is any less relevant. You mentioned transparent ownership and pricing: I think both of those are achievable for IPv4 addresses. As far as substitutability, I think we do have a viable substitute: IPv6. It's not perfect, of course, but substitutes rarely are. >> I don't claim to know how to do (or direct) research, but I >> do know that we need to focus our attention on the things that are >> relevant to what is possible under the RIRs policy development processes >> (for now), > > This is potentially very useful advice. However, to operatioanlize it, > please clarify: I can't fully specify the possible or the impossible, but I can give some illustrative examples. > 1. what is possible under the RIR policy development process? - Any of the spectrum of transfer policies, including APNIC's wide-open one, RIPE's LIR-only one, or ARIN's more restrictive version. - Doing nothing, at least for awhile. - Some attempt at "soft landing", including policy forcing recipients to start transitioning to IPv6 to get more IPv4 space after a certain point. - etc... > 2. what is impossible under the RIR policy development process? Or, more particularly, what policies would be impossible for ARIN to enforce? - Forcibly reclaiming addresses from legacy holders, or imposing substantial fees on them. - Imposing substantial fees on large IPv4 address holders (or substantial per-address fees across the board) in an attempt to encourage conservation. - Repurchasing addresses from current address holders to replenish the IPv4 free pool. (Perhaps not completely impossible, but extremely problematic.) - etc... > Or to be more pointed: > > 3. Is collective action still possible under the RIR policy development > process? Yes, with limitations on what can be achieved by collective action, as described above. > Once that is clarified, figuring out what is/is not relevant should be > easy enough... > >> and particularly on research whose outcomes include >> recommendations for how we can improve our policies to help steer a >> middle course between potential negative outcomes on both sides. > > That's definitely a goal that we share. Yeah, it's nice that at least we all seem to be working for many of the same goals. -Scott From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Apr 18 11:47:09 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:47:09 +0100 Subject: [ppml] No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> Message-ID: > What we're facing with > IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement for redistribution,... This is where I disagree that there is any such problem which needs solving. I have seen no evidence that organizations will start getting rid of any of their IPv4 allocations when they can no longer get fresh new ones. In fact, I believe that the opposite will happen. When ARIN runs out of addresses to allocate, those organizations who have addresses will hold on to them TIGHTLY until it is abundantly clear to their management that the organization's transition to IPv6 is far enough along that there will be no damage caused by releasing the IPv4 addresses. This means that there will be no real need for any special transfer policies until the IPv4 Internet begins to shrink. What we are facing with IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement to leverage the existing supply with creative network design and a requirement to move activities onto an IPv6 network. Today it is easier for an organization to go to ARIN for new addresses than it is to audit their existing supply and fiqure out how to repurpose the free bits, and claw back overly large assignments from customers. IPv4 exhaustion will put the emphasis on such internal auditing and clawback, but will not, in and of itself, free up addresses to transfer. Only transition to IPv6 has the potential to truly free up IPv4 address blocks to the point that an organization would sell, or give them away, to another organization. --Michael Dillon From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 14:44:38 2008 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:44:38 -0600 Subject: [ppml] No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> Message-ID: <443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM, wrote: > > What we're facing with > > IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement for redistribution,... > > This is where I disagree that there is any such problem which > needs solving. I have seen no evidence that organizations will > start getting rid of any of their IPv4 allocations when they > can no longer get fresh new ones. > > In fact, I believe that the opposite will happen. When ARIN runs > out of addresses to allocate, those organizations who have > addresses will hold on to them TIGHTLY until it is abundantly > clear to their management that the organization's transition > to IPv6 is far enough along that there will be no damage > caused by releasing the IPv4 addresses. This means that there > will be no real need for any special transfer policies until > the IPv4 Internet begins to shrink. > > What we are facing with IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement to > leverage the existing supply with creative network design and > a requirement to move activities onto an IPv6 network. Today it > is easier for an organization to go to ARIN for new addresses > than it is to audit their existing supply and fiqure out how to > repurpose the free bits, and claw back overly large assignments > from customers. IPv4 exhaustion will put the emphasis on such > internal auditing and clawback, but will not, in and of itself, > free up addresses to transfer. I would add that just as the availability of addresses from ARIN has allowed businesses an easier route (than full internal audit, etc), a transfer policy does the same thing for them after IANA exhaustion. It gives businesses a way to get more addresses that is (potentially) easier than doing the right thing, efficient use and it gives other businesses motivation to hold out and "sell" there space to the highest bidder instead of doing the right thing and returning that space to ARIN. > > Only transition to IPv6 has the potential to truly free up IPv4 > address blocks to the point that an organization would sell, or > give them away, to another organization. I again agree and would take it a bit further by saying that in my view, the goal of any "soft-landing" strategy should be to promote the prorogation and adoption of IPv6 rather than adding to the value of IPv4 space. My biggest question to anyone who will answer at this point is; "why do we need a transfer policy?" I have heard one argument for the policy, that a black market will emerge if ARIN does not allow transfers. The IPv4 black market that many are worried about forming after free pool depletion is actually already here. I have seen it, I know that it is happening. I can not know to what extent but I have personally witnessed deals being struck for the use of IPv4 space as have others. The fact that it exists today when v4 IP space is free and available, illustrates that a transfer policy will not stop it in the future. People who are willing to break the rules do not care what rules you put in place. A LIR/EU transfer policy actually has a greater chance of making this black market larger and stronger than it does of curbing it. This is because the public trade will help establish value and cause confusion. If IP transfers are strictly prohibited, it is harder to mask a transfer and harder to set a value. Furthermore, any black market that does exist will mostly solve itself as IPv6 adoption occurs; the more of the Internet that becomes IPv6, the less v4 space will be worth. Therefor, the most effective way to stop the black market is to speed IPv6 proliferation, not allow transfers. The paragraph above is actually taken from a piece I wrote summarizing my thoughts after the most recent policy meeting. I have considered and refrained from posting the whole article to this list because of its length but for anyone who is interested, I invite you to read it and let me know where I am wrong and why - or where you agree. http://www.chrisgrundemann.com/weblog/?p=11 I apologize for linking to my site - I think it would be more rude to paste the whole thing here... ~Chris > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > 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 info at arin.net Fri Apr 18 16:11:15 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:11:15 -0400 Subject: [ppml] ARIN XXI Meeting Report Now Available Message-ID: <48090063.5000605@arin.net> From 6-9 April, the ARIN community took part in the ARIN XXI Public Policy and Members Meeting, held in Denver. The report of that meeting, which includes presentations, summary notes, and transcripts of the entire meeting, is now available on the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ The URL referenced above also provides links to presentations from the ARIN XXI IPv6 Pre-Game Show and IPv6 Main Event. Please check back next week when an archive of the meeting's webcast will be available. We?d like to congratulate Matt Pounsett, winner of the Meeting Survey Raffle and David Williamson, winner of the General Meeting Raffle ! Matt?s name was randomly selected from those entries submitted by completing the ARIN XXI survey. David?s name was selected from the remaining unselected entries to all of the surveys conducted as part of ARIN XXI. Matt will receive an Optimus Mini Three Keyboard, and David will receive the Apple TV, generously donated by EGATE Networks. We thank everyone in the community who participated in person or remotely and those who responded to the surveys. We look forward to seeing you 15-17 October 2008 for ARIN XXII in Los Angeles,California . Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Sun Apr 20 07:06:32 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:06:32 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Chris Grundemann Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 1:44 PM To: michael.dillon at bt.com; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] No transfer policies are needed On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM, wrote: > > What we're facing with > > IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement for redistribution,... > > This is where I disagree that there is any such problem which > needs solving. I have seen no evidence that organizations will > start getting rid of any of their IPv4 allocations when they > can no longer get fresh new ones. My biggest question to anyone who will answer at this point is; "why do we need a transfer policy?" ~Chris --------- I have wondered this myself. I started out totally against a transfer market, but two things made me swing more towards acceptance. 1. IPv6 incomplete in all details. If IPv6 were adoptable by anyone everywhere today and gave the same assurance of reliability, reachability, interoperability and performance that IPv4 systems deliver...that is, across ALL products and software that is in play...then I would not support any transfer policy beyond what we have. 2. If hardship occurs because space is not readily available through ARIN for its service area, and ARIN has done nothing..extraordinary toward relieving that hardship, then it will be seem by those who wish its demise to have abdicated its stewardship responsibilities and will become fodder for propaganda against the current Internet governance model. I am still against the transfer policy at a fundamental level because: 1. It appears to monetize IP address resources which goes against our tradition and past policy... this in itself can be used against the ARIN from a stewardship point of view it seems. And, this appears to..and may in fact... be bad for emerging areas of the Internet, as address resources are transferred from poorer areas to those with cash. 2. It appears to reward large legacy holders who squatted on resources that others in the industry need. ARIN's actions in supporting a transfer policy that recognizes if not actively accounts for the 'selling' of address resources seems to sanction this activity. 3. ARIN's support for the type of activity that a monetized transfer policy enables appears outside ARIN's expressed mission and past policy and will use up 'member' resources to reward the legacy holders who are largely outside of ARIN's membership and have had a free ride on basic services all along. It seems that those resources would be better spent and be in better alignment with the mission of ARIN if they were directed towards informing the industry about IPv6 and transition and bootstrapping the removal of impediments to protocol migration. So, I guess I come down this way (at least that's where the pendulum is now)... 1. ARIN should document the titular transfer of IPv4 address resources from the haves to have-nots on a permanent basis, but should reiterate that these resources are not property and thus have no intrinsic value. As such, ARIN will declare its disdain for fees for transfer, encouraging instead, the return of address resources to ARIN for reallocation/assignment within the ARIN region or to other RIRs having need...as the ARIN constituents may direct. As such, ARIN will neither recognize/capture nor analyze financial information that may be reported with such transfers. 2. The transfer services should be conducted for a limited period of time, with the sunset established upon expected adoption rates of IPv6. 3. ARIN should begin a program of awareness and education aim at impediment identification and mitigation. This program designed to touch all constituencies of the Internet industry and helping to facilitate the smooth and riskless transition to IPv6. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tvest at pch.net Sun Apr 20 17:33:02 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:33:02 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> Message-ID: <1119465E-CC39-4C22-88C8-FAF882636E50@pch.net> On Apr 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Tom Vest wrote: >> On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > >>> >>> One big overarching meta-assumption I think we might differ on is >>> distinguishing what is ideal (what the men in suits could do with >>> the >>> power of government behind them) and what is possible (what those >>> of us >>> in jeans can do within our policy development framework). For >>> example, >>> if the government gets involved they can dictate how IP addresses >>> get >>> privatized. But as long as we think a non-regulated system is >>> better >>> for the industry, we have to work within what's already been done >>> (for >>> example, we can't force legacy holders to give back space, or charge >>> high per-address fees to encourage conservation). >> Hi Scott, >> I think we all think of ourselves as realists/pragmatists, but that >> doesn't require us to be so fatalistic. >> There's a vast middle ground between men with suits and guns and >> Hobbe's nasty, brutish (and short) competition of all against all. >> It's called "collective action" -- i.e., members of the community >> voluntarily, collectively deciding to undertake some action(s), or >> to forebear from taking some action(s), with the goal of achieving >> some outcome that is preferable to external occupation or complete >> anarchy. Wasn't that what happened when the community established >> the RIRs, and agreed to abide by the policies that community >> members themselves created? > > I agree that there is a middle way, which is why I'm so involved in > the transfer policy proposal. I also agree that we can accomplish a > lot with collective action, and that we needn't involve the men with > suits. I'm only pointing out that there are limits to what we can > accomplish with collective action, and that many parallels to prior > privatizations are of somewhat limited utility precisely because > this transition is occurring by collective action (without as much > government authority to force reluctant players to participate). Hi Scott, You may be right about the limitations of self-regulation/collective action in this case. However, those limitations do not alter in any way the "success conditions" that must be achieved, i.e., to avoid both the fire and the firemen. To expand on a comment from Yakov's March 1995 slides, we can choose to ignore the fundamental technical (and institutional, and economic) issues that will be affected by how we handle this, but that doesn't change the fundamental properties of those issues. >>> If there was a land grab, it has occurred gradually over my >>> lifetime. >> Can you tell us what "land grab" means precisely, and point us all >> to statistical evidence that that has already happened > > I don't think there has been a land grab: hence my use of "if". I > think that IP addresses have, for the most part, been assigned > fairly and equitably based on the conditions and understanding at > the time they were given out. I agree entirely. However, I also believe that resource transfer proposals as currently defined would represent a fundamental and irreversible break from this policy/practice/outcome. >> and already happened to such a degree that everyone should dismiss >> the wholesale privatization of IP address resources as "nothing new"? > > You can call it a privatization if you want, but I think it's more > accurately just a distribution of IP addresses. A "distribution" of resources that were previously defined and/or treated as common pool resources, which makes those resources alienable, and grants the initial recipients the right to choose the identity, timing, and terms of transfer to subsequent recipients is privatization, plain and simple. There are cases where communities have willingly opted into similar arrangements, but I don't know of any where the contrast between the resource base (here, the entire final global supply of some critical, non-substitutable economic input) and the recipient community (a few thousand companies in business today, but not their stockholders, or their customers, or their customer's customers, or anyone else) is even remotely similar. > What we're facing with IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement for > redistribution, which we can either meet with inaction (and possibly > end up with a Hobbesian free-for-all or men-in-suits regulation), or > we can collectively establish some standards for the redistribution > and continue the current cooperative self-governance that has > benefited the Internet so much for so long. There are kernels of truth (or at least agreement) here, but many unanswered questions. Whose demands for redistribution rise to the level of "requirements" -- aspiring sellers or would-be buyers? Incumbent buyers or new entrant buyers -- i.e., the current and future "customers" that don't participate in ARIN deliberations (yet)? Answering "all of the above" isn't really an answer, because the way the redistribution mechanism(s) are structured will largely determine how the interests and bargaining power of the parties will be defined and balanced, or not. Perhaps many people feel that questions of bargaining power shouldn't or can't be addressed by a collectively-defined transfer/ recirculation mechanism(s) -- i.e., that the market should be self- defining and self-managing. That's perfectly natural -- after all, incumbents always feel that way. But the Internet only emerged and grew in places where those wishes were not honored. Everywhere else, people had to settle for whatever Internet they could import (which benefited the other, market power-balancing economies tremendously). How is any new entrant ever going to be able to bypass the need to reach the universe of IPv4-addressed resources? And if incentives for incumbent IPv4 resource holders are realigned so that the worse they ever face is big bucks for small IPv4 sales, plus the collective ability to manage/limit future competition, what incentive will they ever face to migrate to IPv6 themselves? Perhaps future new ISPs will take comfort from the old "donut hole" peering theories -- i.e., they won't really be totally marginalized forever -- but the fact is those theories only hold water in situations when/where (a) the supply critical resource (in this case, "private line" bandwidth inputs) is so vast and/or growing so fast that price discipline cannot hold, and/ or (b) incumbent resource holders are subject to gov-mandated resale requirements and price cap restrictions. In the end I agree with you that a viable IPv4 recirculation mechanism would be a good idea. However, privatization without some novel, muscular enforcement mechanisms -- because the passive ones that have worked so well to date won't be enough -- is not going to work. It won't deliver the liquidity required (c.f., Michael Dillon's concerns), and if it does it'll either be because (a) prices will be high enough and beneficiaries skewed enough to draw an economic intervention or because (b) weak rules/enforcement will drive many transfers "off the books", thereby steadily eroding the central registry (cue the national security intervention). >>> In my mind, these are good and useful comparisons, but to my mind >>> they >>> presuppose that the entity making the policy has authority to change >>> allocations and/or privatize resources. >> I'm curious -- are you suggesting that in the other cases, the >> policy entity had such "authority" but in this case the address >> resource community does not? To me, that seems like a strange (or >> maybe deeply depressing) position for an elected representative of >> the community to take... > > We have a collective action problem. We have authority, but only so > far as the industry is collectively willing to cede it. If we were > to assert authority to reclaim legacy space, or use fees as > governments use taxes, we would be exceeding our authority IMO. If, > instead, we establish a transfer policy with reasonable restrictions > on behaviors that negatively affect the community, we are certainly > well within our authority. I think that, within the limits of (external) law, the authority of the AC and other ARIN institutions is absolutely bounded by the interests and wishes of the community. However, those interests and wishes can and do change over time. I don't believe that the privatization of IPv4 would serve the long-term interests of the direct stakeholder community, or the much larger community of customers, future customers and address "needers", and Internet stakeholders at large. In the end I have to think that this won't be a minority position. >> In any case I disagree with your claim. Different sectors and/or >> national economies can be looked at as "natural experiments." >> You can look at the outcomes of individual cases -- where they >> perceived to be "successful" and by whom, who were the winners and >> losers, how did things look (x) years on, etc. -- all without >> getting stuck on how the initiatives got started. If you find that >> the results varied under different circumstances, then you can >> consider whether those results can be explained (i.e., dismissed) >> based on the the particulars of who initiated and drove the changes. > > I agree, so I guess I wasn't claiming what you thought I was. :) In that case my apologies ;-) I will work up some cases studies of past big/important initiatives that are are quite comparable, e.g., ones involving simultaneous initiatives to alter the status/treatment of former common pool resources, plus the transformation of mechanisms and terms of exchange involved in the distribution of those resources. Will share the results here as soon as possible... >>> Perhaps another angle would be to look at the dynamics of real-world >>> transfer markets. I think the closest analogy would be to real >>> estate. >>> For starters, our situation is much like that of a number of >>> developing countries where residents didn't have title to their >>> land. >>> In some cases, when they were given title, and a working system, and >>> were able to do all the good things you'd expect (buy & sell land, >>> use >>> it as collateral for loans, etc.). In other cases, the system >>> didn't >>> work well, transactions were not recorded properly in the central >>> registry, no one knew exactly who had what, etc. I'm not sure what >>> exactly the differences were between the systems that worked and >>> those >>> that didn't, but I'm pretty sure a researcher could tease out the >>> distinctions and come up with some lessons for how to structure a >>> transfer system for IP addresses. >> Land is a great comparison -- but not in modern times, when >> ownership and pricing is transparent, and there are lots of jobs >> other than being a farmer, and political and economic self- >> determination are not inextricably linked to land ownership. The >> right comparison is land, and the role of land and land markets in >> the 19th century and earlier. That's when land was "non- >> substitutable", just as IPv4 is today. > > And I would certainly love to see the results of some analysis of > the redistribution of land from feudal lords to private landholders. Basic story: It only happened after land ceased being a non- substitutable bottleneck input for economic and political life (e.g., as semi-independent towns and non-agricultural sources of capital formation emerged). It took a very long time in places where it didn't happen through violent/revolutionary redistribution. In a lot of places where land and agriculture continued to be the primary economic sector even after the feudal era, de jure land rights don't matter much, as a small number of incumbent land holders were able to leverage new market mechanisms to (re)consolidate their positions -- maybe not forever, just for all modern history to date. > However, I don't think that the modern situation is any less > relevant. You mentioned transparent ownership and pricing: I think > both of those are achievable for IPv4 addresses. Today, transparent ownership is (more or less) revealed by whois, which continues to be (more or less) complete and accurate for those LIRs that send annual membership keep-alives, which they send because they expect to need subsequent allocations, which makes them expect to be beholden to future RIR policies, which keeps them (more or less) engaged in the RIR policy development process; repeat as necesaary. Much of this is not true for legacy, RSA non-signatories, and I believe that accuracy/completeness of whois for them is substantially lower than the for RSA signatories (ARIN staff can confirm/deny this if there is any doubt). The point is, none this will continue to be be true for anyone if IPv4 is privatized. Today, transparent pricing is achieved by making everyone subject to the same categorical eligibility and pricing rules, and by prohibiting third-party resource transfers. How will pricing transparency be achieved in a decentralized IPv4 market -- esp. in an industry where prices for every other kind of input and transaction are closely guarded by NDA? Many people have indicated that a de facto black market exists today -- but no one has provided much of an indication of prices available in that market, much less comparative/average prices.* Sure, this is due in part to the illicit nature of the transfers today -- but no one I talk to in the ops community ever puts much stock in price surveys for open market inputs (bandwidth, colo) -- even the ones that some people pay thousands of dollars for. Is that the kind of (nudge nudge wink wink) transparency that can be expected? *The numbers I've heard make me believe that black market prices now are much higher than RIR fees, reflecting the value of "non- encumbered" IPv4 that is not subject to RIR/community policies and requirements -- even though such resources have no official provenance. If that's correct, it doesn't bode well for matters in a post-privatized world. > As far as substitutability, I think we do have a viable substitute: > IPv6. It's not perfect, of course, but substitutes rarely are. It's substitutable enough for incumbent IPv4 holders. It's not substitutable for anyone else. It never will be. We believe that this won't be a fatal condition because we assume that enough IPv4 will remain accessible on reasonable terms so that new IPv6 native operators will be able to control their own v6/v4 translation gateways. Those gateways will be an eternal requirement for all future operators unless/until the universe of IPv4-numbered users, content, etc. is renumbered into IPv6 -- or they become completely irrelevant (c.f., the donut theory). Now, why would incumbent IPv4 dealers (and/or aspiring speculators) ever want either of these things to happen? >>> I don't claim to know how to do (or direct) research, but I >>> do know that we need to focus our attention on the things that are >>> relevant to what is possible under the RIRs policy development >>> processes >>> (for now), >> This is potentially very useful advice. However, to operatioanlize >> it, please clarify: > > I can't fully specify the possible or the impossible, but I can give > some illustrative examples. > >> 1. what is possible under the RIR policy development process? > > - Any of the spectrum of transfer policies, including APNIC's wide- > open one, RIPE's LIR-only one, or ARIN's more restrictive version. > - Doing nothing, at least for awhile. > - Some attempt at "soft landing", including policy forcing > recipients to start transitioning to IPv6 to get more IPv4 space > after a certain point. > - etc... I wonder: if the community ultimately concludes that none of these things will be sufficient to prevent the oft-mentioned unhappy outcomes, will policy development alternatives still be restricted to these narrow options? >> 2. what is impossible under the RIR policy development process? > Or, more particularly, what policies would be impossible for ARIN to > enforce? > > - Forcibly reclaiming addresses from legacy holders, or imposing > substantial fees on them. > - Imposing substantial fees on large IPv4 address holders (or > substantial per-address fees across the board) in an attempt to > encourage conservation. > - Repurchasing addresses from current address holders to replenish > the IPv4 free pool. (Perhaps not completely impossible, but > extremely problematic.) > - etc... I wonder: if the community ultimately concludes that some of these or other similarly challenging commitments, may be necessary to forestall TEOTWAWKI, what prevents them from exploring policy development alternatives like these? >> Or to be more pointed: >> 3. Is collective action still possible under the RIR policy >> development process? > > Yes, with limitations on what can be achieved by collective action, > as described above. I think it's time for every member of this community to start calculating the enterprise-level net present value of preserving industry self-governance, as well as the long-run cost of losing it -- and then publicly indicating what kinds of policy initiatives they think are "worth" considering. >> Once that is clarified, figuring out what is/is not relevant should >> be easy enough... >>> and particularly on research whose outcomes include >>> recommendations for how we can improve our policies to help steer a >>> middle course between potential negative outcomes on both sides. >> That's definitely a goal that we share. > > Yeah, it's nice that at least we all seem to be working for many of > the same goals. > > -Scott From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Apr 21 03:45:00 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:45:00 +0100 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net><4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >> My biggest question to anyone who will answer at this point >> is; "why do we need a transfer policy?" > 2. If hardship occurs because space is not readily available > through ARIN for its service area, and ARIN has done > nothing..extraordinary toward relieving that hardship, then > it will be seem by those who wish its demise to have > abdicated its stewardship responsibilities and will become > fodder for propaganda against the current Internet governance model. When the IPv4 free address pool is exhausted, i.e. fully allocated to organizations who NEED those addresses to USE them in the network, it seems highly unlikely that there will be any significant number of UNUSED IPv4 addresses anywhere. The fundamental reason that the free pool is exhausted is that the network has grown so large that all those addresses are needed for operations. People like to point to some of the early /8 allocations as wasteful, but there is no evidence to support this. Many organizations who were not using their original /8 or /16 allocations, have returned them to the free pool. Chances are that most of the remaining allocations actually are in use and that those organizations have designed a network which does not use Port-NAT because they built their networks before Port-NAT existed. All the people who have actually crunched some numbers over recovery of /8s and /16s, come up with just a few months of extra time until IPv4 exhaustion. This is the pool of addresses that would theoretically be transferred under some form of transfer policy. It seems rather silly to put so much effort into something with such small addressing impact. > And, this appears to..and may in fact... be bad for > emerging areas of the Internet, as address resources are > transferred from poorer areas to those with cash. Paradoxically, in addition to harming the people who are unable to buy addresses, the transfer policy HARMS the organizations who succeed in buying addresses because they lose large sums of money which reduces their ability to move to IPv6. > 2. It appears to reward large legacy holders who squatted on > resources that others in the industry need. ARIN's actions > in supporting a transfer policy that recognizes if not > actively accounts for the 'selling' of address resources > seems to sanction this activity. To date, I believe only one AC or BoT member has disclosed their financial interests in organizations holding legacy allocations. This places suspicion on everything that ARIN does. Every single AC and BoT member should make this disclosure and it should be placed on the ARIN website where we can easily see who, if anyone, stands to benefit personally from a transfer policy. > 3. ARIN should begin a program of awareness and education > aim at impediment identification and mitigation. This > program designed to touch all constituencies of the Internet > industry and helping to facilitate the smooth and riskless > transition to IPv6. Yes, yes, yes. http://www.getipv6.info is only a start. For one thing, a lot of people are parroting the opinion that IPv6 is not yet ready and therefore they are not going to implement it. However, this begs the question, specifically what is not ready? We need to encourage people to file bug reports on IPv6 so that things can be fixed. Perhaps ARIN could solicit specific bug reports and operate some kind of issue tracking system for these. --Michael Dillon From woody at pch.net Mon Apr 21 09:33:44 2008 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net><4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > To date, I believe only one BoT member has disclosed their > financial interests in organizations holding legacy allocations. Michael, this is simply untrue. John Curran answered this the last time you asserted it, on March 5. Bill Manning and I are the only two board members with ownership in corporations with legacy assignments, and we've both disclosed that publicly, and explained that that's why we recused ourselves from discussion of this issue on the board and, moreover, agreed sight-unseen to be bound by the legacy RSA, whatever it might turn out to be, before it had even been drafted. The reason no other board member has disclosed any legacy holdings is because they don't have any, and have nothing to disclose. -Bill From dwcarder at wisc.edu Mon Apr 21 10:18:47 2008 From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:18:47 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <600245B1-D16A-4C7F-98CC-062F49EDD0C5@wisc.edu> On Apr 21, 2008, at 2:45 AM, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > http://www.getipv6.info is only a start. > For one thing, a lot of people are parroting the opinion that IPv6 > is not yet ready and therefore they are not going to implement it. > However, this begs the question, specifically what is not ready? There's the beginning of such an issue list here: http://www.civil-tongue.net/6and4/wiki/HistoricalData > We need to encourage people to file bug reports on IPv6 so that > things can be fixed. Perhaps ARIN could solicit specific bug reports > and operate some kind of issue tracking system for these. Ditto. Dale From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Apr 21 12:30:29 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:30:29 +0100 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net><4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, my bad. I meant to say "BoT or AC member" not just Board. And I was mainly thinking of the AC which is why I only remembered Scott Leibrand's statements. Not sure where you and Bill recused, probably in board minutes. In any case I am not accusing anyone of anything. I just want to get this out in the open so that it is public knowledge, who is who. -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Bill Woodcock Sent: Mon 21/04/2008 14:33 To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > To date, I believe only one BoT member has disclosed their > financial interests in organizations holding legacy allocations. Michael, this is simply untrue. John Curran answered this the last time you asserted it, on March 5. Bill Manning and I are the only two board members with ownership in corporations with legacy assignments, and we've both disclosed that publicly, and explained that that's why we recused ourselves from discussion of this issue on the board and, moreover, agreed sight-unseen to be bound by the legacy RSA, whatever it might turn out to be, before it had even been drafted. The reason no other board member has disclosed any legacy holdings is because they don't have any, and have nothing to disclose. -Bill _______________________________________________ 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 marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Mon Apr 21 12:37:20 2008 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:37:20 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net><4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F1047C16A5BE3@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> Michael- Neither my company or I have Legacy space. Marla Azinger Frontier Communications ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:30 AM To: woody at pch.net; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed Sorry, my bad. I meant to say "BoT or AC member" not just Board. And I was mainly thinking of the AC which is why I only remembered Scott Leibrand's statements. Not sure where you and Bill recused, probably in board minutes. In any case I am not accusing anyone of anything. I just want to get this out in the open so that it is public knowledge, who is who. -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Bill Woodcock Sent: Mon 21/04/2008 14:33 To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > To date, I believe only one BoT member has disclosed their > financial interests in organizations holding legacy allocations. Michael, this is simply untrue. John Curran answered this the last time you asserted it, on March 5. Bill Manning and I are the only two board members with ownership in corporations with legacy assignments, and we've both disclosed that publicly, and explained that that's why we recused ourselves from discussion of this issue on the board and, moreover, agreed sight-unseen to be bound by the legacy RSA, whatever it might turn out to be, before it had even been drafted. The reason no other board member has disclosed any legacy holdings is because they don't have any, and have nothing to disclose. -Bill _______________________________________________ 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 owen at delong.com Mon Apr 21 12:39:08 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:39:08 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Legacy Status Message-ID: <100A6343-FDF2-4B51-B1F6-C8C270E63782@delong.com> While some of my current resources were issued as legacy, all are under current (not legacy) ARIN RSA and have been for years. Neither my company, nor, to the best of my knowledge, any of my consulting clients have any legacy space. Owen From packetgrrl at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 12:39:12 2008 From: packetgrrl at gmail.com (cja@daydream.com) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:39:12 -0600 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael I also believe that if you look at the AC meeting minutes the AC members who have legacy space have disclosed that (quite some time ago) to the AC and abstain appropriately when different items are up for vote. I have no legacy space nor do I work for anyone who has legacy space. ---Cathy On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > Sorry, my bad. > > I meant to say "BoT or AC member" not just Board. > And I was mainly thinking of the AC which is why I only remembered Scott > Leibrand's statements. Not sure where you and Bill recused, probably in > board minutes. > > In any case I am not accusing anyone of anything. I just want to get this > out in the open so that it is public knowledge, who is who. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Bill Woodcock > Sent: Mon 21/04/2008 14:33 > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > To date, I believe only one BoT member has disclosed their > > financial interests in organizations holding legacy allocations. > > Michael, this is simply untrue. John Curran answered this the last time > you asserted it, on March 5. Bill Manning and I are the only two board > members with ownership in corporations with legacy assignments, and we've > both disclosed that publicly, and explained that that's why we recused > ourselves from discussion of this issue on the board and, moreover, agreed > sight-unseen to be bound by the legacy RSA, whatever it might turn > out to be, before it had even been drafted. > > The reason no other board member has disclosed any legacy holdings is > because they don't have any, and have nothing to disclose. > > -Bill > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Apr 21 12:51:14 2008 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:51:14 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 6:06 -0500 4/20/08, Bill Darte wrote: >So, I guess I come down this way (at least that's where the pendulum is now) >... > As such, ARIN will declare its disdain for fees for transfer, encouraging > instead, the return of address resources to ARIN for reallocation/assignment > within the ARIN region or to other RIRs having need...as the ARIN >constituents > may direct. As such, ARIN will neither recognize/capture nor analyze > financial information that may be reported with such transfers. I don't think that the above will work. Voluntarily doing anything runs afoul of any profit motivated enterprise. I don't mean "volunteering" as in sponsoring "green events", I mean assigning a task to someone to do what might be a no-cost/no-revenue effort. One issue is the difference between "community" and "industry." Community has a lot of good things going for it - like cooperation, innovation, participation, etc. - but usually this means energy pouring into the enterprise. Because most of the invisible work is the work going in (the benefits are usually obvious) attention is paid to being a good neighbor. Industry looks at generating more output and all the attention goes there, how the output is generated only matters when it comes to trying to maximize the profit (increase in value). Putting currency units on numbering resources is something I fear. Sure IPv4 is limited, but it sets the stage for IPv6 trading later, perhaps, or 2-byte AS numbers. Being that I work for the North American Numbering Plan Administrator I am curious what happens to telephone numbers. (I need to ask.) I doubt that there would ever be a "monetization" of them because of the heavy regulation already in place. I don't think ARIN could ever stick to a line of "tell folks to be more efficient, they'll return what they don't need." Especially if what they have is unencumbered (=legacy?) space. What's lacking is: 1) ARIN seems to rarely force someone to give up space. I don't recall knowing if anyone has ever been evicted (or evicted for causes of not using what they have). I.e., ARIN doesn't seem like a "heavy." (Bouncer, enforcer, etc.) 2) ARIN isn't commissioned by a governmental authority, isn't backed by the threat of jail time for those violating regulations. 3) People with address space may not be "holding it" for anticipated monetary gain, they might just have it but are reluctant to learn about giving it up. I've worked a long time in "industry" and not so much in "community." What I've learned is that for any idea to get traction it has to have a price tag attached to it. When I worked for a gov't agency in about 'x4 I decided we should have asset tags on out 10BaseT hubs. The property was already installed and humming and in use but somehow slipped under the procurement dept. radar. My boss asked "why bother?" - to me, well, it was something to do (I had the time and the patience for bureaucracy). But it wasn't until I put a dollar amount on the untagged equipment (over a half million US dollars) that he let me spend the few hours to put in the paperwork. The reason for his reluctance wasn't just my time. It kicked in a whole support team behind the tagging and inventory process. For a few items, it wasn't important that "assets" were unaccounted for. But for a half million bucks, it plugged up a gap in his reporting. Money motivation is important. That's because the community of ARIN is at least partly-to-mostly made of industry players. Industry players are mostly not engineers. They are managers and bookkeepers (& etc.). Those folks come to work for the salary, not for the fun of "plugging things into walls or plugging things into things that plug into walls." (Latter quote is from a wife describing her gadget-loving-engineer spouse's hobby.) What I want to see happen is setting up a mechanism (market/trading floor) which assigns no value to the goods being moved but puts a value on the movement of the goods. We want to wake up those sleeping on /16's and tell them it's good to lose a few of them. The money is needed to motivate the transfer. I don't know if what I want is possible or distinguishable from placing a value on a 32-bit number. But that's what I think is needed. ARIN isn't going to hit folks with a switch (not a router thingy, a reedy whip in this case) and make them free up what's not being efficiently used. And ARIN isn't going to layout a "IPs for dollars" program. All I can imagine is allowing seekers of address space to go after holders with wads of loonies and greenbacks... > 2. The transfer services should be conducted for a limited period of time, > with the sunset established upon expected adoption rates of IPv6. I've never seen a sunset time work. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From nigel.cassimire at ctu.int Mon Apr 21 14:19:32 2008 From: nigel.cassimire at ctu.int (Nigel Cassimire) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:19:32 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> Edward Lewis wrote: > Putting currency units on numbering resources is something I fear. Sure IPv4 is limited, but it sets the stage for IPv6 trading later, perhaps, or 2-byte AS numbers. Being that I work for the North American Numbering Plan Administrator I am curious what happens to telephone numbers. (I need to ask.) I doubt that there would ever be a "monetization" of them because of the heavy regulation already in place. > My Comment: My experience is that when a telephone numbering range becomes exhausted, additional digits are added to the addressing scheme and the dialling pattern is changed universally. Many times, there is a so-called permissive dialling period during which either the old (exhausted) or new (expanded) dialling pattern may be used successfully but this is only a temporary transition mechanism. Of course in the Internet world we are looking at keeping both addressing schemes in service indefinitely. The analogy to the telephone service would be to incorporate the whole of IPv4 into an appropriate v6 range. I also favour avoiding "...putting currency units on numbering resources..." Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist (Consultant) Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Edward Lewis Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:51 PM To: Bill Darte Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: [Spam] Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Mon Apr 21 14:50:59 2008 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:50:59 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> (Nigel Cassimire's message of "Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:19:32 -0400") References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> "Nigel Cassimire" writes: > I also favour avoiding "...putting currency units on numbering resources..." Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply against the one that has been proposed? You would not be alone if you advocated doing nothing at all and simply allowing the address space to run out... ---rob From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Mon Apr 21 15:09:22 2008 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:09:22 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: At 14:50 -0400 4/21/08, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >"Nigel Cassimire" writes: > >> I also favour avoiding "...putting currency units on numbering resources..." > >Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply >against the one that has been proposed? You would not be alone if you >advocated doing nothing at all and simply allowing the address space >to run out... My answer - all I am voicing is an opinion on what I think should be done. I don't know how to do it. I think it is good to have something that promotes more efficient use of address space. I think it is bad to declare a market. I'm not clued enough to know if this is a futile effort. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From nigel.cassimire at ctu.int Mon Apr 21 15:57:05 2008 From: nigel.cassimire at ctu.int (Nigel Cassimire) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:57:05 -0400 Subject: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <20080421201327.BF845A68A7@smtp2.arin.net> Robert Seastrom wrote: > Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply against the one that has been proposed? You would not be alone if you advocated doing nothing at all and simply allowing the address space to run out... I don't have a strong advocacy since I am just beginning to understand arguments on both sides of this issue. However I confess that my background is in the telephone business where it is routine for numbers to be recycled and for digits to be added to the addressing scheme when necessary. So from that frame of reference, I want to understand why it might be advantageous to spend money trading in v4 addresses as opposed to spending for v6 transition or adding v6 capability. I am not well informed but maybe the costs are not comparable? Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist (Consultant) Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) -----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com] On Behalf Of Robert E. Seastrom Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:51 PM To: Nigel Cassimire Cc: 'Edward Lewis'; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed "Nigel Cassimire" writes: > I also favour avoiding "...putting currency units on numbering resources..." Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply against the one that has been proposed? You would not be alone if you advocated doing nothing at all and simply allowing the address space to run out... ---rob From stephen at sprunk.org Mon Apr 21 16:40:08 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:40:08 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net><4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Thus spake > When the IPv4 free address pool is exhausted, i.e. fully allocated to > organizations who NEED those addresses to USE them in the network, > it seems highly unlikely that there will be any significant number > of UNUSED IPv4 addresses anywhere. The fundamental reason that the > free pool is exhausted is that the network has grown so large that > all those addresses are needed for operations. People like to point > to some of the early /8 allocations as wasteful, but there is no > evidence to support this. Many organizations who were not using their > original /8 or /16 allocations, have returned them to the free pool. > Chances are that most of the remaining allocations actually are in > use and that those organizations have designed a network which does > not use Port-NAT because they built their networks before Port-NAT > existed. I know of a large number of enterprises that have one or more legacy Class B networks that are not advertised at all; they're used on the private side of a NAT or proxy setup. Such orgs could easily switch most of their hosts to 10/8 within a few days; the biggest obstacle is inertia and change control processes, not technical limitations, and could be easily overcome by a directive from a CFO looking at potential revenue. > All the people who have actually crunched some numbers over recovery > of /8s and /16s, come up with just a few months of extra time until > IPv4 exhaustion. This is the pool of addresses that would theoretically > be transferred under some form of transfer policy. It seems rather silly > to put so much effort into something with such small addressing impact. I don't believe anyone has run the scenarios you claim because the necessary data simply isn't available. There _have_ been studies on how much time we'd get by reclaiming legacy space that is _currently unused_, and that usually comes out to a few months, perhaps a year. However, AFAIK, none of those studies considers fractions of blocks _currently used_ that would be freed up if there were a financial incentive to do so. Nobody has that data. For instance, my company has a legacy Class B network that is "in use". However, it's entirely possible that the finance folks would decide that, for a sufficient amount of money, we'd renumber to 10/8 and sell the Class B, or perhaps renumber into a /24 subnet (for our public servers) and sell the rest. I'm not aware of anyone having offered us money, so I have no idea what our CFO's reaction would be. > Paradoxically, in addition to harming the people who are > unable to buy addresses, They are no more harmed than they would be if exhaustion hit and there were no market. This is a red herring. > the transfer policy HARMS the organizations who succeed in > buying addresses because they lose large sums of money which > reduces their ability to move to IPv6. It is not up to you to tell other organizations how to best allocate their funds. If some folks decide that paying for IPv4 space is better _for them_ than migrating to IPv6 (if that's even possible), so be it. I'll also point out that for every party "harmed" in your view this way, there is another organization _receiving_ money to help fund their migration. >> 2. It appears to reward large legacy holders who squatted on >> resources that others in the industry need. ARIN's actions >> in supporting a transfer policy that recognizes if not >> actively accounts for the 'selling' of address resources >> seems to sanction this activity. > > To date, I believe only one AC or BoT member has disclosed their > financial interests in organizations holding legacy allocations. > This places suspicion on everything that ARIN does. Every single > AC and BoT member should make this disclosure and it should be > placed on the ARIN website where we can easily see who, if anyone, > stands to benefit personally from a transfer policy. Disclosures are only required when someone has a conflict of interest; lack of disclosures does not imply people are hiding things. Unless you're accusing AC/BoT members of ethics violations, one should assume that those who haven't made a disclosure have nothing to disclose. Furthermore, neither the AC nor BoT actually makes a decision on policy -- the community does. The BoT rubber-stamps the AC's decisions unless there is evidence that the IRPEP was not followed (which is rare). The AC gauges community consensus, regardless of the members' individual views. As others have pointed out, members of both bodies have recused themselves (as shown in the minutes of their meetings) to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. 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 aaron at wholesaleinternet.com Mon Apr 21 16:43:04 2008 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.com (Aaron Wendel) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:43:04 -0500 Subject: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <20080421201327.BF845A68A7@smtp2.arin.net> References: <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421201327.BF845A68A7@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <177c01c8a3f0$4c0d55c0$e4280140$@com> I have to admit that I haven't been following the thread to closely so take my comments for what they're worth. And since this is my second e-mail to the list take that in to account also. It seems to me that creating a secondary market for IP4 addresses would increase the cost of those addresses. Like any other commodity, the more demand you have the more expensive they'll be. Eventually companies needing additional IP resources will have to weigh the cost of acquiring additional IP4 addresses against the cost of migrating to IP6 or, once the market matures, be forced to IP6 just because of the scarcity of IP4 addresses. In the long term this proposal may have the same net effect that a lot of the soft landing proposals do and create a sort of economic soft landing of sorts. Everything in this world is finite. I've heard estimates we have enough oil to last us 20 years. Are we scrambling to find something else? Not really. IPs are the same way. People will continue to consume them until the last one is spent and then they'll look for people that have them to buy, barter, steal from. No one wants to change. I think this proposal, or what I know of it, creates an transition period that people will be able to understand and deal with. Aaron From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Apr 21 16:46:15 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:46:15 -0700 Subject: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <20080421201327.BF845A68A7@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <001901c8a3f0$be195970$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Nigel Cassimire > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:57 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] [Spam] Re: FW: No transfer policies are needed > > > Robert Seastrom wrote: > > > Have you an alternative scheme to put forward, or are you simply > against the one that has been proposed? You would not be > alone if you advocated doing nothing at all and simply > allowing the address space to run out... > > I don't have a strong advocacy since I am just beginning to > understand arguments on both sides of this issue. However I > confess that my background is in the telephone business where > it is routine for numbers to be recycled and for digits to be > added to the addressing scheme when necessary. So from that > frame of reference, I want to understand why it might be > advantageous to spend money trading in v4 addresses as > opposed to spending for v6 transition The truth is that for SOME people it will be advantageous to prolong IPv4 life as long as possible, even if that means allowing a "market" Your always going to find people with perfectly legitimate and logical arguments for prolonging IPv4. However, Internet policies should be geared to what is the best for the entire Internet, not what is best for just some of the networks in the Internet. The fact of the matter is that there's been plenty of notice of the upcoming IPv4 exhaustion. At this time ALL major desktop operating systems (ie: Windows XP and Vista, FreeBSD, Linux, and last but not least MacOS X) support IPv6. ALL major router vendors support IPv6 in their corporate and enterprise product. The time it will take to switch the Internet over to IPv6 from IPv4 increases every day that new IPv4 is handed out. That reason alone is good enough to stop handing IPv4 out right now. The ONLY possible argument against switching over right now is that the millions of DSL and Cable modems out there do not have firmware that supports IPv6. But, that is merely an issue for the DSL and Cable providers that supplied those devices. All of those devices are firmware-upgradable and it is perfectly possible to write IPv6 compliant firmware, or reconfigure those devices into bridged mode and put an IPv6-compliant, inexpensive ethernet-to-ethernet router behind them. This situation is very much like the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River between the State of Oregon and the State of Washington in the United States of America. This is the ONLY REMAINING operating DRAWBRIDGE on the ENTIRE US Interstate highway system. It is PARALLELED by the I-205 bridge 2 miles away that has 3 times the number of lanes and is a concrete bridge over the Columbia that is less than 10 years old. It quite obviously is rediculous to have a I-5 highway traffic running over a drawbridge that interferes with shipping traffic, in a metropolitian area that has heavy vehicle traffic, and there are plans to replace it. Yet, every time they get ready to fire up the bulldozers, there's people who come out of the woodwork with perfectly legitimate and logical arguments FOR THEMSELVES to prolong the life of the existing bridge. In the meantime, industrial property alongside the interstate, and the river, languishes, and concrete and steel prices continue to rise. By the time the old bridge collapses of it's own weight and age, cost to construct a replacement will have easily quadrupled. Basically, what will have occurred is that the minority who found it financially advantageous to delay switchover to the new bridge, will have pulled down the pants of the rest of the majority who will end up paying far more for this than the amounts saved by the minority who delayed it. Similarly to this, the people advocating for an "IPv4 market" or any other of the delaying schemes that would further IPv4 beyond the natural runout, are in essence pulling the pants down on the future users of the Internet, who will bear far higher IPv4->IPv6 switchover costs since there will be far more IPv4 deployed, than the money saved by the advocates of delaying IPv4 termination. Ted From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Apr 21 17:12:53 2008 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:12:53 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <20080421211253.GB14194@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 03:40:08PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > There _have_ been studies on how much time we'd get by reclaiming legacy > space that is _currently unused_, and that usually comes out to a few > months, perhaps a year. However, AFAIK, none of those studies considers > fractions of blocks _currently used_ that would be freed up if there were a > financial incentive to do so. Nobody has that data. No, but it's easy to make some guesses. ARIN has produced some numbers in the past, the easiest to find is the current years totals: http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html (Second graph) More historical data is in past presentations, and they could come up with more data if asked. Why is this breakdown important? My personal believe is very few, if any ISP's will give up IPv4 space until it is a dead product. ISP's are generally relatively efficiently utilizing space, and even if they aren't having it for future turn ups is more important than a short term cash influx in most cases. Looking at that second graph you can see the trend now is somewhere between 1 and 15% per month. I recall a number from a previous meeting (but this is only from memory) that approximately 85% of all space went to ISP's. Per slide 3 at http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/PDF/monday/Jointstats_Nobile.pdf ARIN has allocated from 29 /8's in total. 15% of that would be 4.35 /8's allocated to "end users". Let's assume those end users give up 100% of the space. ARIN allocated 3 /8's per year for the last 3 years, so you're talking about nearly 1.5 years of the current demand that could be supported. That's the best case. You can back off from 100% to whatever you feel is reasonable. 50%? 25%? I don't know. However, it sure seems to me like we're talking about a time period of under a year. So, while on the one hand I wish there was better data; in my personal opinion the most optimistic predictions that fall solidly in crazy land still don't get us a useful extension of IPv4. However a transfer policy is likely to bring a lot of money to the table, and by extension lawyers, opportunists, crooks, and suits to the table. None of which I want making technical decisions. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgrundemann at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 17:49:19 2008 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:49:19 -0600 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: <443de7ad0804211449i10cec17n4f97a7ae7e45ac5a@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake > > Paradoxically, in addition to harming the people who are > > unable to buy addresses, > > They are no more harmed than they would be if exhaustion hit and there were > no market. This is a red herring. > I disagree for two reasons; one is based on who is being harmed, under 'standard' exhaustion organizations are harmed based on their IPv6 adoption, in a market exhaustion scenario, those with less money are harmed at the expense of those with more resources available. The second is that those that are harmed in a market scenario are likely harmed worse because the companies with more resources are prolonging their IPv4 usage which inherently delays ubiquitous IPv6, which in turn puts an organization w/o IPv4 in a foul position. > > > the transfer policy HARMS the organizations who succeed in > > buying addresses because they lose large sums of money which > > reduces their ability to move to IPv6. > > It is not up to you to tell other organizations how to best allocate their > funds. If some folks decide that paying for IPv4 space is better _for them_ > than migrating to IPv6 (if that's even possible), so be it. I'll also point > out that for every party "harmed" in your view this way, there is another > organization _receiving_ money to help fund their migration. > I disagree based on the premise that in the vein of stewardship, it /is/ up to ARIN to tell organizations what is best for the community, even if that is at odds with what the organization had previously planned to do. No matter what is done, the truth is that everyone will eventually have to adopt IPv6 in some form. Once the majority of organizations begin v6 adoption a catalyzing effect will help to ease everyones progress and delaying IPv6 propagation will increase the pain for everyone IMHO. So if it is better for the community as a whole for everyone to move to IPv6 sooner (I believe that it is), than it is the responsibility of ARIN to 'coax' them to do so. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Apr 21 18:21:52 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:21:52 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <443de7ad0804211449i10cec17n4f97a7ae7e45ac5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003301c8a3fe$19cbb3a0$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chris Grundemann > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:49 PM > To: Stephen Sprunk > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Sprunk > wrote: > > Thus spake > > > > Paradoxically, in addition to harming the people who are > > > unable to buy addresses, > > > > They are no more harmed than they would be if exhaustion hit and > > there were no market. This is a red herring. > > > I disagree for two reasons; one is based on who is being > harmed, under 'standard' exhaustion organizations are harmed > based on their IPv6 adoption, in a market exhaustion > scenario, those with less money are harmed at the expense of > those with more resources available. > The second is that > those that are harmed in a market scenario are likely harmed > worse because the companies with more resources are > prolonging their IPv4 usage which inherently delays > ubiquitous IPv6, which in turn puts an organization w/o IPv4 > in a foul position. I sometimes wonder if an ulterior motive of many of the proponents of indefinitely staying the execution of IPv4, and keeping it viable for a great many years after it should have been laid to rest, is to create a situation where the organizations w/o IPv4 are forced to contract with an organization that HAS IPv4 and get a delegation from it. Perhaps they are dreaming of one day extracting a living like a lamprey does - by bleeding cash away from those ISP's by renting them IPv4 for an indefinite period at very high rates of money? Perhaps if the proponents of an "IPv4 market" would care to state what they think the expected price of an IPv4 block would go for, say, 3 years after IPv4 runout, might this be illuminating? Ted From rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com Mon Apr 21 18:52:43 2008 From: rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com (Brett Frankenberger) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:52:43 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 03:09:22PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: > > My answer - all I am voicing is an opinion on what I think should be > done. I don't know how to do it. I think it is good to have > something that promotes more efficient use of address space. I think > it is bad to declare a market. > > I'm not clued enough to know if this is a futile effort. My view: There's a 100% chance that there will be an open IPv4 market. There's an IPv4 black market now. ARIN keeps the black market very small by undercutting the price of the would-be black market sellers. The only reason there's a black market at all is for the population that wants addresses and is willing to pay a lot for them but can't justify them. Again: The transfer policies do nothing to prevent a black market. ARIN keeps the black market small by undercutting the prices. When ARIN has no more addresses, they won't be able to undercut the market price for IPv4 addresses. And there will be a free and open market; addresses will be sold to anyone who can pay market price. (Who's going to want to go through the trouble of justifying address space if it costs the same without a justification? And what seller is going to reduce the price he gets by selling only to buyers approved by ARIN?) Policy won't be enough to stop that; it will be ignored. Refusing to record such transfers in ARIN's database won't be enough to stop that; new databases will be developed. (And providers will honor the information at first becasue it gives them a compettitive advantage over providers that won't, and then later because not doing so will put them at a compatitive disadvantage to the providers that are honoring transfers.) I'm not saying an open IPv4 market would be a good thing or a bad thing. I'm saying it's an inevitable thing. -- Brett From steveb at eagle.ca Mon Apr 21 19:45:42 2008 From: steveb at eagle.ca (Steve Bertrand) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <003301c8a3fe$19cbb3a0$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> References: <443de7ad0804211449i10cec17n4f97a7ae7e45ac5a@mail.gmail.com> <003301c8a3fe$19cbb3a0$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <1659.206.108.139.2.1208821542.squirrel@webmail.ibctech.ca> Like someone else earlier had said that they were not qualified or educated enough to give an opinion, I think any opinion is better than none at all. I don't know the ramifications totally either way; but nobody else does either (IMHO). >>> They are no more harmed than they would be if exhaustion hit and >>> there were no market. This is a red herring. I agree. >> I disagree for two reasons; > I sometimes wonder if an ulterior motive of many of the proponents > of indefinitely staying the execution of IPv4, and keeping it viable > for a great many years after it should have been laid to rest, is to > create a situation where the organizations w/o IPv4 are forced to > contract with an organization that HAS IPv4 and get a delegation from > it. Perhaps they are dreaming of one day extracting a living like a > lamprey does - by bleeding cash away from those ISP's by renting them > IPv4 for an indefinite period at very high rates > of money? > > Perhaps if the proponents of an "IPv4 market" would care to state > what they think the expected price of an IPv4 block would go for, say, > 3 > years after IPv4 runout, might this be illuminating? I get the impression that Ted is raising some very legitimate points and intelligent questions (that can't be answered with fact) while leaving the thinking up to everyone else. Personally, I think a transfer policy is a complete back-step and should be avoided. From my little knowledge of the ramifications, it smells to me that it is an attempt to *try* to manage a market that will exist whether we like it or not. Like many have argued, there is no real raw data to prove the 'what ifs' no matter what side of the fence one is on. Either way...its still delaying the inevitable no matter the stance. If someone wants to try to artificially benefit from holding onto a resource indefinitely in hopes of profiting in the future, let them do it. This entire transfer policy to me sounds very much like an attempt to regulate a contraband market...a war on *insert_something_here*. Furthering that, in order to work, I would think that extreme co-operation needs to be had across all RIR's, not just ARIN. If the efforts that everyone is putting into trying to regulate the 'bikeshed' aspects of the IPv4 gray market was put into IPv6, then those who gambled on IPv4 holdings have lost already. Again, I am not overly educated in this regard, and I am not a good political person, but I think no matter what is said, everyone should at least speak how they feel about the issue. Steve From vixie at isc.org Mon Apr 21 20:05:19 2008 From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie) Date: 22 Apr 2008 00:05:19 +0000 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> Message-ID: rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes: > My view: > ... > There's an IPv4 black market now. can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, what average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they manage whois, is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it first begin operations, is volume growing or shrinking, how many participants? things like that. > ARIN keeps the black market very small by undercutting the price of the > would-be black market sellers. The only reason there's a black market > at all is for the population that wants addresses and is willing to pay > a lot for them but can't justify them. can you describe the reasons someone who wants addresses mightn't qualify? > Again: The transfer policies do nothing to prevent a black market. > ARIN keeps the black market small by undercutting the prices. can you say whether subdivision is occurring following transactions? that is, does the black market contribute to global routing table growth? > When ARIN has no more addresses, they won't be able to undercut the > market price for IPv4 addresses. And there will be a free and open > market; addresses will be sold to anyone who can pay market price. do you believe that current participation in ARIN by many of its members is one of benign tolerance, and that when the pool is depleted, most of those folks will welcome "freedom and openness" even if looked like the wild west in terms of competing claims, bullying, safety coming only from strength, or in our case, in immediate explosive deaggregation and a lack of ability to figure out what route is supposed to be coming from whom? (worse than it is now, that is?) > (Who's going to want to go through the trouble of justifying address > space if it costs the same without a justification? And what seller is > going to reduce the price he gets by selling only to buyers approved by > ARIN?) > > Policy won't be enough to stop that; it will be ignored. you paint a very grim picture. what's your proposed better alternative? > Refusing to record such transfers in ARIN's database won't be enough to > stop that; new databases will be developed. (And providers will honor > the information at first becasue it gives them a compettitive advantage > over providers that won't, and then later because not doing so will put > them at a compatitive disadvantage to the providers that are honoring > transfers.) this is the most puzzling to me of all the things you said. ARIN's policies are controlled by the community. are you saying that the community who could choose whether ARIN's database did or didn't record such transfers, is not the true community who would simply set up a database "more open to transfer"? if so, can you explain why this true community doesn't help govern ARIN? i'm sensing in you a suspicion that the things folks are willing to say or do in public today are meaningless niceties, and the real game won't play out until later. if that's so, then i want to go on record as not sharing that suspicion -- i think that ARIN will be told by its community of interest to operate the prefix/route/owners/whois/rpki/mumble database that will be needed, if one is needed, and if ARIN isn't told to do it, then that's proof that one isn't needed and/or wouldn't be used. > I'm not saying an open IPv4 market would be a good thing or a bad > thing. I'm saying it's an inevitable thing. > > -- Brett any advice? -- Paul Vixie From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 20:18:25 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:18:25 +0900 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> Message-ID: <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> >> There's an IPv4 black market now. > can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, what > average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they manage whois, > is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it first begin operations, > is volume growing or shrinking, how many participants? things like that. paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there that you seem not to understand? randy From paul at vix.com Mon Apr 21 20:30:31 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:30:31 +0000 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:18:25 +0900." <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> Message-ID: <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> > >> There's an IPv4 black market now. > > > can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, what > > average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they manage whois, > > is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it first begin operations, > > is volume growing or shrinking, how many participants? things like that. > > paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there that you seem > not to understand? probably nothing. as to what i know i don't understand, it's how arin could make meaningful or useful policy that takes into account unprovable assertions about unmeasureable forces. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Apr 21 20:37:19 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:37:19 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <003501c8a411$05ab2280$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Paul Vixie > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:31 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > > > > >> There's an IPv4 black market now. > > > > > can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, > > > what average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they > > > manage whois, is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it > > > first begin operations, is volume growing or shrinking, how many > > > participants? things like that. > > > > paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there > that you seem > > not to understand? > > probably nothing. as to what i know i don't understand, it's > how arin could make meaningful or useful policy that takes > into account unprovable assertions about unmeasureable > forces. Until some examples of successful black market behavior in IPv4 are cited in this forum, claims that a black market exists are nothing more than political horse pucky It's as bad as the Republicans wanting to pass the flag-burning laws when there's no evidence that flag burning has occurred in 99.9% of the times that they claim it has. Ted From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 20:38:41 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:38:41 +0900 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <480D3391.60202@psg.com> Paul Vixie wrote: >>>> There's an IPv4 black market now. >>> can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, what >>> average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they manage whois, >>> is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it first begin operations, >>> is volume growing or shrinking, how many participants? things like that. >> paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there that you seem >> not to understand? > probably nothing. as to what i know i don't understand, it's how arin could > make meaningful or useful policy that takes into account unprovable assertions > about unmeasureable forces. i don't either. but it has a well established track record of doing so. but amateur regulation only goes so far. the pros are coming. maybe it's time to let go? randy From tvest at pch.net Tue Apr 22 00:47:21 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:47:21 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <480D3391.60202@psg.com> References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> <480D3391.60202@psg.com> Message-ID: <4598FC44-A8EB-4284-8460-30C6E6421F2F@pch.net> On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:38 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: >>>>> There's an IPv4 black market now. >>>> can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, >>>> what >>>> average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they >>>> manage whois, >>>> is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it first begin >>>> operations, >>>> is volume growing or shrinking, how many participants? things >>>> like that. >>> paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there that you >>> seem >>> not to understand? >> probably nothing. as to what i know i don't understand, it's how >> arin could >> make meaningful or useful policy that takes into account unprovable >> assertions >> about unmeasureable forces. > > i don't either. but it has a well established track record of doing > so. > but amateur regulation only goes so far. the pros are coming. > > maybe it's time to let go? Hi Randy, From the vantage point of history, these arguments seem an awful lot like the debates of 1994-1995. The Internet may have grown a thousandfold since then, but the logic and the rhetoric and the positions on this issue have scarcely changed at all. Absolutely not at all, in fact. Was there anything in the substance of the old arguments that made one position any more/less an example of "amateur regulation" than the other? If so, back in 1994-1995, which side was the "amateur regulator" -- and what exactly was the other side? Since my postings here are often followed by comments about AR-ism, I'm going to speculate that the ARs prevailed back then. And yet, the pros didn't swoop in and take over back in 1996-1997. Some of them may have tried, but other pros seemed to believe that the amateurs were doing a good enough job for the mission to remain in their care. I think the same divisions still exist among the pros, just as they still do, clearly, among us amateurs. If (or when) there is consensus at the sovereign level, nothing's going to stand in their way. Thus, the mere fact of this debate stands as proof that such consensus does not now exist. The blatant absence of a united front back in 1994-1995 also didn't doom the undertaking back then, so while the critical audience may have grown in the interim, it's not clear to me why debate is any more intrinsically harmful now than it was back then. (very strange shades of the Democratic primary here) So, are you really saying that you no longer think that the community is competent to debate and decide its own future? I don't really believe that you think that -- I believe this is just a clever, high stakes rhetorical tactic. If I'm wrong, however, this is probably the wrong venue to take that message to... but no doubt there are plenty of other places where it would be received with great interest. TV From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 05:20:56 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:20:56 +0100 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <600245B1-D16A-4C7F-98CC-062F49EDD0C5@wisc.edu> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> <600245B1-D16A-4C7F-98CC-062F49EDD0C5@wisc.edu> Message-ID: > There's the beginning of such an issue list here: > http://www.civil-tongue.net/6and4/wiki/HistoricalData > > > We need to encourage people to file bug reports on IPv6 so > that things > > can be fixed. Perhaps ARIN could solicit specific bug reports and > > operate some kind of issue tracking system for these. > > Ditto. That wiki is better than nothing, but I would rather see NANOG or ARIN or somebody like Team Cymru, operating something that looks more like an issue-tracking system. The kind that software development projects use. This gives you the ability to report on the number of open issues in each class of severity which, in turn, gives you some simple numbers to report publicly as a rough measure of progress. If somebody OWNED IPv6, then we would already have something like this, unfortunately the IETF created IPv6, then flung it out in the world to sink or swim on its merits. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Apr 22 05:40:08 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:40:08 +0100 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net><4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com><4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com><443de7ad0804181144v3bd37240h71eb7267ef81ba04@mail.gmail.com> <009e01c8a3ef$eb22d960$5dbb13ac@atlanta.polycom.com> Message-ID: > For instance, my company has a legacy Class B network that is > "in use". > However, it's entirely possible that the finance folks would > decide that, for a sufficient amount of money, we'd renumber > to 10/8 and sell the Class B, or perhaps renumber into a /24 > subnet (for our public servers) and sell the rest. I'm not > aware of anyone having offered us money, so I have no idea > what our CFO's reaction would be. My worry is that people will only consider letting go of unused blocks, not renumbering. And most of that space is probably in orgs who have a class B which raises the specter of ISPs who can't get a /17 from ARIN so they get 8 /20s from class B holders. This means 8 new routes announced rather than 1. > > the transfer policy HARMS the organizations who succeed in buying > > addresses because they lose large sums of money which reduces their > > ability to move to IPv6. > > It is not up to you to tell other organizations how to best > allocate their funds. No, but I can call things as I see them. There is a cost-benefit issue here for companies. Do I spend money on IPv6 which has delayed benefits, or do I spend it on IPv4 and risk not being in a position to invest additional money in two years when I need to shift to IPv6. The people promoting IPv4 address trading are pushing up the costs for companies who do not invest in IPv6. And money spent on IPv4 address blocks is not an investment, unlike money spent on upgrading routers to v6-compatible devices or upgrading monitoring/management systems to support v6. > If some folks decide that paying for > IPv4 space is better _for them_ than migrating to IPv6 (if > that's even possible), so be it. I'll also point out that > for every party "harmed" in your view this way, there is > another organization _receiving_ money to help fund their migration. Yes. My position is that these are the true beneficiaries of a transfer policy. I also think that there will be a smaller number of buyers than sellers. These buyers will be shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe just desperately scrambling to get by until their IPv6 capability comes on line. There will be many sellers, mostly smaller orgs who have already gotten their IPv6 capability well underway, and who like the idea of getting their competitors to finance the smaller orgs headstart. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe MIT and HP will be the true beneficiaries... > Disclosures are only required when someone has a conflict of > interest; lack of disclosures does not imply people are > hiding things. Unless you're accusing AC/BoT members of > ethics violations, one should assume that those who haven't > made a disclosure have nothing to disclose. IP address blocks have no monetary value. Why should anyone bother to disclose a holding or make any distinction between legacy or not? If there were no talk of transfer policies, I don't see the point in making any kind of formal disclosure. Let people search the ARIN db if they are curious. But all of a sudden, things change when we are seriously considering proposals which monetize IP address blocks. Now is the time for this sea change to be publicly recognized and for formal disclosures to be made. > Furthermore, neither the AC nor BoT actually makes a decision > on policy -- the community does. The BoT rubber-stamps the > AC's decisions unless there is evidence that the IRPEP was > not followed (which is rare). The AC gauges community > consensus, regardless of the members' individual views. As > others have pointed out, members of both bodies have recused > themselves (as shown in the minutes of their meetings) to > avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I haven't trawled through the minutes of such meetings. And as you say, the decisions are made by the community so what is wrong with announcing address holdings to the community? --Michael Dillon From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Tue Apr 22 09:29:54 2008 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:29:54 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <480D3391.60202@psg.com> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4099A1F95@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > it's how arin > > could make meaningful or useful policy that takes into account > > unprovable assertions about unmeasureable forces. > > i don't either. but it has a well established track record > of doing so. > but amateur regulation only goes so far. the pros are coming. > > maybe it's time to let go? Are you asking a stimulating question, or advocating a different governance model? If the latter, would you describe the model you would like to see, and a transition plan? Lee > > randy From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Tue Apr 22 09:36:36 2008 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:36:36 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4099A1FAD@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there that > you seem not to understand? I'll bite. Can anyone provide a useful definition? Wikipedia suggests that at least three actors are required for a "market," so that one can evaluate competing offers. A "black" market is one in which applicable regulations are being evaded. Are these conditions met in whatever circumstances people are using the phrase? Lee > randy From plzak at arin.net Tue Apr 22 09:42:10 2008 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:42:10 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <480D3391.60202@psg.com> References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> <480D3391.60202@psg.com> Message-ID: > > i don't either. but it has a well established track record of doing > so. > but amateur regulation only goes so far. the pros are coming. > > maybe it's time to let go? > > randy Randy - could you please identify the pros? Would this be a different governance model that the current bottom up, community regulated model? If so, what governance structure do you propose? Ray > _______________________________________________ > 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 kkargel at polartel.com Tue Apr 22 10:23:44 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:23:44 -0500 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <003501c8a411$05ab2280$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> References: <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> <003501c8a411$05ab2280$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066A1061E@mail> Being as at this point IP addresses are not transferrable property then doesn't that make every transaction where an ISP grants leased use of IP addresses to it's customers for off site termination without SWIP or other registration a de facto black market (or at least grey market) transaction? That would say we have a pretty widespread and common place black market in existance today. -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:37 PM To: 'Paul Vixie'; 'Randy Bush' Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf > Of Paul Vixie > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:31 PM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > > > > >> There's an IPv4 black market now. > > > > > can you describe it? how many transactions, what dollar volume, > > > what average price, is it all sales or also leasing, how do they > > > manage whois, is it done by M&A of shell companies, when did it > > > first begin operations, is volume growing or shrinking, how many > > > participants? things like that. > > > > paul, what is it about the term "black market" is there > that you seem > > not to understand? > > probably nothing. as to what i know i don't understand, it's how arin > could make meaningful or useful policy that takes into account > unprovable assertions about unmeasureable forces. Until some examples of successful black market behavior in IPv4 are cited in this forum, claims that a black market exists are nothing more than political horse pucky It's as bad as the Republicans wanting to pass the flag-burning laws when there's no evidence that flag burning has occurred in 99.9% of the times that they claim it has. 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 randy at psg.com Tue Apr 22 10:46:37 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:46:37 +0900 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <20080421183555.121C9A68AF@smtp2.arin.net> <86mynnqbxo.fsf@seastrom.com> <20080421225243.GA27451@panix.com> <480D2ED1.7090109@psg.com> <76660.1208824231@sa.vix.com> <480D3391.60202@psg.com> Message-ID: <480DFA4D.5040906@psg.com> rant warning. hit delete now. but you asked! > Randy - could you please identify the pros? not well, because i too am a geek and not a policy expert. what differentiates me is that i seem to be one of the few that admit it. but it looks like a mix of government and civil society folk, heavy on the former. heck, in a/p, most of the big nirs are already tied to the governments, and they have the big lir bases. > Would this be a different governance model that the current bottom > up, community regulated model? yep. and just because we're thinking with our bottoms up does not mean we are particularly wise or fair. others might look at it as amazing self-protection by established players. look how long a community of vested incumbents has kept barriers to entry at the low end. cathy screamed at me in public when i suggested small allocations in the first arin denver meeting; when we had an actual victim there whose business was being severely hampered by our bottom up policies. now, when the end is in sight, we are finally talking about sharing the last orts here in the restaurant at the end of the universe. how magnanimous of us. to be clear, the bald-faced trade we made was protecting the incumbents' router capital costs by making it hard for folk at the low end. we are well past the limits of our talents. read the last year of gibberish on this list. how many address policies can dance on the head of a pin? it's embarrassing. > If so, what governance structure do you propose? darned if i know. heck, i helped make this mess. at least i admit it. and i am embarrassed. i just think it's time to stop trying to micro-manage all those dancing angels, to try to see that the last 'free' chunks of v4 go as fairly as we can, to let an open market try to get the best use out of the v4 space as we can, to go about making a new fun mess of ipv6 or nats, and try to figure out how we survive. e.g. tell me. what are we gonna do in a couple of years when there is no more 'free' v4 space to sell, we're giving ipv6 away for free to 'promote' it, and folk are starting to wonder just how much it is really worth paying for a whois service and dns delegation? what's the business plan here? i wonder if the instinctive fear this future generates is a large part of why we are turning even more control freakish. randy From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Apr 22 14:40:13 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:40:13 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A063141066A1061E@mail> Message-ID: <000c01c8a4a8$4d7a97c0$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:24 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > > > Being as at this point IP addresses are not transferrable > property then doesn't that make every transaction where an > ISP grants leased use of IP addresses to it's customers for > off site termination without SWIP or other registration a de > facto black market (or at least grey market) > transaction? That would say we have a pretty widespread and common > place black market in existance today. > No it doesen't because the ISP that is granting the lease is STILL responsible for it. If someone takes the IP number that this ISP leases out and goes and uploads a bunch of child porn from it, Interpol is going to come knocking on that ISP's door, and they are going to suddenly find that all of these academic arguments about how they are not responsible just because they forgot to SWIP it, will be thrown out the window. They ARE responsible and a court will not let them off the hook about it until they cough up the names of the perpretrators. What I think the people throwing around the term "IPv4 black market" are meaning, is a situation where an ISP holding an IPv4 block "sells" it to another independent organization, then the "selling" ISP essentially lies to the RIR (ie: violates it's RSA) to get the receiving organization to become the holder of record of the block. In other words, suppose you have a small ISP "SmallCo Inc." that owns an IPv4 block it doesen't need. You have an ISP named "MCI Corp" that needs more IPv4 and does not meet the utilization criteria to get it from ARIN SmallCo secretly sells it's block to MCI Corp. SmallCo sends a name-change in to ARIN claiming it's spinning off it's ISP operations to a separate company named "NewCo Inc" ARIN changes the record on the block. MCI Corp then registers the company name "NewCo Inc" as a subsidiary of MCI Corp. in whatever state it's incorporated in. Another "black market" scenario would be for a large org that did not meet utilization criteria to create an independent company, use that company to obtain a block from ARIN, then "buy" that independent company. Of course, that only works before IPv4 runout. I am not familiar enough with the existing language of the various RSA's that the RIR's use to know if such behaviour is explicitly prohibited but I think it is, certainly it violates the intent. In any case, I would assume that ARIN would have the guts to revoke assignments on any blocks that were transferred in this manner, if it discovered them. Thus, I think the risks of block revocation would likely make an "IPv4 black market" a non-starter. But, there is an old saying in criminal behaviour that the liklihood of a crime happening is inversely proportional to the penalty, and the risk of being caught. If ARIN spends very little effort checking up the validity of address requests, and in cases where it does find fraud (because someone rats it out for example) it does little more than a hand-slapping and does NOT revoke the holding, then it would definitely encourage an IPv4 black market to form post-runout. We see this all the time in government regulation of polluters, for example. The typical MO of the EPA when it discovers a polluter, is to tell the polluter that if they spend the money to install pollution control that they will only get a token fine and nobody will go to jail. As a result, this encourages industry to pollute because the polluters know that if they are caught, the penalties are merely what they would have to do to comply with the law in the first place - and the money they saved during the years of operating without the expensive pollution controls will far and away exceed what they lose on the token fine. Ted From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Tue Apr 22 15:19:08 2008 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:19:08 -0400 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: <000c01c8a4a8$4d7a97c0$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> References: <000c01c8a4a8$4d7a97c0$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> Message-ID: I have not worked for an ISP/LIR and haven't managed address assignments. So I want to ask some questions related to the "reality" of this scenario. At 11:40 -0700 4/22/08, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >In other words, suppose you have a small ISP "SmallCo Inc." that >owns an IPv4 block it doesen't need. In that case, isn't ARIN justified in recalling the block? Or is this a block that is "legacy?" The context of my question is that I have long assumed that the issue with the markets is the large amount of legacy (=RIR unencumbered space) and not the space covered by registration service agreements. > >You have an ISP named "MCI Corp" that needs more IPv4 and does >not meet the utilization criteria to get it from ARIN > >SmallCo secretly sells it's block to MCI Corp. How is this different than reassigning or reallocating addresses from SmallCo to MCI? Instead of selling the addresses as capital, why don't they just record a charge (= to an amortization "cost" - remember, I'm not an economist), a "rental" of the addresses? >SmallCo sends a name-change in to ARIN claiming it's spinning off it's >ISP operations to a separate company named "NewCo Inc" ARIN changes the >record on the block. > >MCI Corp then registers the company name "NewCo Inc" as a subsidiary >of MCI Corp. in whatever state it's incorporated in. This seems like a lot of trouble to accomplish what an upstream/downstream relationship already is. If I understand that right. >Another "black market" scenario would be for a large org that did not >meet utilization criteria to create an independent company, use that >company to obtain a block from ARIN, then "buy" that independent company. >Of course, that only works before IPv4 runout. My problem is that I find it hard to imagine that a large organization could not meet the utilization criteria (in a way cheaper than having to incorporate and buy a new company). I could understand these scenarios after the free pool runs out and that is the reason that the large organization failed to get space. >I am not familiar enough with the existing language of the various RSA's >that the RIR's use to know if such behaviour is explicitly prohibited but >I think it is, certainly it violates the intent. My read of the scenarios is that these seem like a lot of work to circumvent the rules when there's gotta be something else that was missed. Maybe these scenarios are close to what's happening, or could happen, but I don't see that the scenarios are realistic. >In any case, I would assume that ARIN would have the guts to revoke >assignments on any blocks that were transferred in this manner, if it >discovered them. Thus, I think the risks of block revocation would likely >make an "IPv4 black market" a non-starter. I can imagine that the one wanting the space might not get what they want, but if someone has space available, that's space ARIN could revoke, no? >The typical MO of the EPA when it discovers a polluter, is to tell the >polluter that if they spend the money to install pollution control that >they will only get a token fine and nobody will go to jail. The limitation of this analogy is that there's no widespread cost to clean up when a block of addresses has been "hoarded." Unless you stretch this to include router slots or something. Addresses held back represent growth that isn't happening but once they are reclaimed, the damage is instantly undone. I don't mean to argue. I'm just not following... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Apr 22 16:46:41 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:46:41 -0700 Subject: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001801c8a4b9$f8063300$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Edward Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:19 PM > To: ppml at arin.net > Cc: ed.lewis at neustar.biz > Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed > > > I have not worked for an ISP/LIR and haven't managed address > assignments. So I want to ask some questions related to the > "reality" of this scenario. > > At 11:40 -0700 4/22/08, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >In other words, suppose you have a small ISP "SmallCo Inc." > that owns > >an IPv4 block it doesen't need. > > In that case, isn't ARIN justified in recalling the block? As long as SmallCo keeps paying the yearly fee and does not request additional space that would require justification, how is ARIN going to know there is a block to be recalled? > Or is > this a block that is "legacy?" > > The context of my question is that I have long assumed that the issue > with the markets is the large amount of legacy (=RIR unencumbered > space) and not the space covered by registration service agreements. > No. The legacy space isn't significant even though people think it is, this has come up multiple times on this list and several people have bothered to do the research and run the math, and the amount of IPv4 that could be freed from legacy holders isn't going to significantly extend the IPv4 runout date. The issue is that post IPv4 runout your going to have an Internet with mixed IPv4/IPv6 on it. Orgs that are moving to IPv6 will eventually have proxies or translators or gateways or whatnot so that IPv6 customers can talk to an IPv4 Internet, and IPv4 customers can talk to an IPv6 Internet. Ultimately your going to enter a period of time where some orgs will have all IPv6 customers, and will be able to use proxies or gateways or translators for those customers to access the remaining IPv4 on the Internet. At that time they will have unused IPv4. What to do with it? If it's returned to the RIR then it will be available for reassignment to orgs who have not yet converted to IPv6. That's what the community should want, of course. However, if the org sells it, the org may get a windfall if they are an early IPv6 adopter. So you can see that a time will come when the early adopters may want to have ARIN bless such transactions. And some people think that if ARIN blesses these transactions it will encourage orgs to abandon IPv4 all the earlier - which will ultimately add pressure to the rest of the Internet to switch to IPv6. The downside of course is by making IPv4 available to slow-starters, it can also act to delay IPv6 introduction. The other downside is that as the RSA that the org signed disallows consideration of IPv4 as "property" there is no legal mechanism for the seller to "sell" the numbers - thus ARIN would have to be involved in such a transfer, (perhaps allowing an org to sell "reservations") but even setting up such a scheme greatly weakens that section of the RSA. I could see a court case where someone claims that ARIN setting up an "IPv4 Market" invalidates section 9. of the RSA as ARIN themselves are now treating IP addressing as property. And if that section is invalidated then the entire idea of an ARIN-controlled market falls apart. Which means now you will have spammers buying IPv4 blocks on the black market that ARIN -cannot- revoke under Section 4 c ii, and iii. and all kinds of nasty things. > > > >You have an ISP named "MCI Corp" that needs more IPv4 and > does not meet > >the utilization criteria to get it from ARIN > > > >SmallCo secretly sells it's block to MCI Corp. > > How is this different than reassigning or reallocating addresses from > SmallCo to MCI? Because SmallCo still is responsible on a reallocation. If ARIN goes to SmallCo and says "you haven't paid your bill we are yanking your allocation" then MCI can't do a damn thing about it. (except sue SmallCo) > Instead of selling the addresses as capital, why > don't they just record a charge (= to an amortization "cost" - > remember, I'm not an economist), a "rental" of the addresses? > That is what a SWIP does. > >SmallCo sends a name-change in to ARIN claiming it's > spinning off it's > >ISP operations to a separate company named "NewCo Inc" ARIN changes > >the record on the block. > > > >MCI Corp then registers the company name "NewCo Inc" as a > subsidiary of > >MCI Corp. in whatever state it's incorporated in. > > This seems like a lot of trouble to accomplish what an > upstream/downstream relationship already is. If I understand that > right. > > >Another "black market" scenario would be for a large org > that did not > >meet utilization criteria to create an independent company, use that > >company to obtain a block from ARIN, then "buy" that independent > >company. Of course, that only works before IPv4 runout. > > My problem is that I find it hard to imagine that a large > organization could not meet the utilization criteria (in a way > cheaper than having to incorporate and buy a new company). There's been stories in the bad old days of large orgs with many internal WAN circuits, each of which were numbered with a /24. I have gone through renumbering of a large network myself and it takes a -lot- of work. I can easily imagine a scenario where a large org has thousands of hosts with STATIC IP addresses in application configuration files and they would regard renumbering as more expensive than buying IP's from a black marketer. Personally I think such logic is stupid because your passing up an opportunity to correct a lot of old crappy configurations, but I tend to think long term - most CEO's do not. > I could > understand these scenarios after the free pool runs out and that is > the reason that the large organization failed to get space. > > >I am not familiar enough with the existing language of the various > >RSA's that the RIR's use to know if such behaviour is explicitly > >prohibited but I think it is, certainly it violates the intent. > > My read of the scenarios is that these seem like a lot of work to > circumvent the rules when there's gotta be something else that was > missed. Maybe these scenarios are close to what's happening, or > could happen, but I don't see that the scenarios are realistic. > > >In any case, I would assume that ARIN would have the guts to revoke > >assignments on any blocks that were transferred in this > manner, if it > >discovered them. Thus, I think the risks of block revocation would > >likely make an "IPv4 black market" a non-starter. > > I can imagine that the one wanting the space might not get what they > want, but if someone has space available, that's space ARIN could > revoke, no? > That is a good question. Here is the RSA for ARIN: http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/rsa.pdf Read it and decide for yourself. Here is my $0.02: Yes. Here's the operative section of the RSA: 4. CONDITIONS OF SERVICE (c) Cooperation. During the term of this Agreement, Applicant shall provide ARIN complete, up-to-date and accurate information, assistance, and cooperation that ARIN requests in ARIN's provision of the Services to Applicant, including, without limitation, during its review of Applicant's utilization of allocated number resources. In other words, ARIN can any time during the term of the agreement, request a review, (see section 8) and the registrant must comply - including providing ARIN with information showing that it is no longer using the IPv4 it was assigned (due to replacing it with IPv6 let's assume). > >The typical MO of the EPA when it discovers a polluter, is > to tell the > >polluter that if they spend the money to install pollution > control that > >they will only get a token fine and nobody will go to jail. > > The limitation of this analogy is that there's no widespread cost to > clean up when a block of addresses has been "hoarded." Unless you > stretch this to include router slots or something. Addresses held > back represent growth that isn't happening but once they are > reclaimed, the damage is instantly undone. > That wasn't the point of the analogy, actually. I was illustrating that when penalties are light enough more people will do the wrong thing, nothing more. Thus, the claim that an "IPv4 black market" will form by itself post-IPv4 runout is untrue. An "IPv4 black market" will only form if the penalties for violating the RSA are light, and there's little effort on ARIN's part to root out the participants in such a black market. Ted From matt at conundrum.com Tue Apr 22 17:17:39 2008 From: matt at conundrum.com (Matthew Pounsett) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:17:39 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <1119465E-CC39-4C22-88C8-FAF882636E50@pch.net> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <1119465E-CC39-4C22-88C8-FAF882636E50@pch.net> Message-ID: <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> On 20-Apr-2008, at 17:33 , Tom Vest wrote: >> I don't think there has been a land grab: hence my use of "if". I >> think that IP addresses have, for the most part, been assigned >> fairly and equitably based on the conditions and understanding at >> the time they were given out. > > I agree entirely. However, I also believe that resource transfer > proposals as currently defined would represent a fundamental and > irreversible break from this policy/practice/outcome. Considering that "fair and equitable distribution" is what we think we have now with justification requirements, and considering that these requirements for justification are maintained in 2008-2, I'm not sure I understand how it is a fundamental break from fair and equitable distribution. Could you expand on that? > Whose demands for redistribution rise to the level of "requirements" > -- aspiring sellers or would-be buyers? Incumbent buyers or new > entrant buyers -- i.e., the current and future "customers" that don't > participate in ARIN deliberations (yet)? Personally, the problem with depletion that I think needs fixing is the problem of the new company that comes to ARIN the day after depletion looking for addresses for their new network. Yes, they are in an excellent position to fire up v6 and never have to worry about a transition, but most of their customers will not be able to reach them on v6, and so they will need some way to acquire at least a small number of v4 addresses to make their web site, mail servers, and various other public-facing services work. v4 will be around in some form or another for a long time. I don't think it's going to "go away" in any significant way until it's cheaper to run single-stack v6 (both in terms of straight-up operational costs and the ability to do whatever business people need to do on v6 only). As long as v4 is around, any new player on the 'net will require some v4 addresses... not necessarily a lot, but some. In order to allow new players to get the addresses they require post- RIR-depletion, we need some sort of incentive for those already migrating to v6 to actually free up v4 addresses where possible. There will be places where networks don't need to run dual stack, but it will cost money to remove the need for the v4 stacks, and to renumber into smaller blocks of a company's current v4 addresses. I'm not entirely convinced that a paid transfer policy is the best incentive; it seems to carry a lot of negative baggage with it, and require a lot of complex restrictions in order to maintain the fair balance that (I hope) we all want. However, so far it's the only remotely viable suggestion I've seen. > How is any new entrant ever going to be able to bypass the need to > reach the universe of IPv4-addressed resources? The context of your question suggests you think this is a reason not to have this sort of transfer policy. Let me ask you the same thing though; in the absence of a policy along these lines, how will a new entrant ever do business with other companies/individuals/whomever in the universe of IPv4-addressed resources? I would very much like to see alternative ideas explored that would address this issue. > And if incentives for > incumbent IPv4 resource holders are realigned so that the worse they > ever face is big bucks for small IPv4 sales, plus the collective > ability to manage/limit future competition, what incentive will they > ever face to migrate to IPv6 themselves? I believe that, in order to ever receive bucks of any amount for v4 resources, companies will need to begin the migration to v6 and free up those v4 resources. Presumably these organizations will be growing themselves, even as they transfer away v4 resources (the old truism that any company that isn't growing is shrinking) and so they must be acquiring new resources from somewhere. v6 would be the only option. > Perhaps future new ISPs will > take comfort from the old "donut hole" peering theories -- i.e., they > won't really be totally marginalized forever -- but the fact is those > theories only hold water in situations when/where (a) the supply > critical resource (in this case, "private line" bandwidth inputs) is > so vast and/or growing so fast that price discipline cannot hold, and/ > or (b) incumbent resource holders are subject to gov-mandated resale > requirements and price cap restrictions. Do you believe that in the 'do nothing' scenario (i.e. stick with roughly our current distribution mechanism) that new players will be any less marginalized? If that's not what you're advocating, and I've misread you, can you be clearer about what alternative action you'd like to see the community take? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 22 17:28:23 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:28:23 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <1119465E-CC39-4C22-88C8-FAF882636E50@pch.net> <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> Message-ID: <180A9F18-BAE9-4689-A5FA-55151CDBBDAC@delong.com> On Apr 22, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > On 20-Apr-2008, at 17:33 , Tom Vest wrote: > >>> I don't think there has been a land grab: hence my use of "if". I >>> think that IP addresses have, for the most part, been assigned >>> fairly and equitably based on the conditions and understanding at >>> the time they were given out. >> >> I agree entirely. However, I also believe that resource transfer >> proposals as currently defined would represent a fundamental and >> irreversible break from this policy/practice/outcome. > > Considering that "fair and equitable distribution" is what we think > we have now with justification requirements, and considering that > these requirements for justification are maintained in 2008-2, I'm > not sure I understand how it is a fundamental break from fair and > equitable distribution. Could you expand on that? > Well, at least to one extent, instead of being the combination of justification and first-come first-serve, it now becomes highest-bidding justified user, which, could place organizations with fewer financial resources at a clear disadvantage vs. organizations with greater financial resources. >> Whose demands for redistribution rise to the level of "requirements" >> -- aspiring sellers or would-be buyers? Incumbent buyers or new >> entrant buyers -- i.e., the current and future "customers" that don't >> participate in ARIN deliberations (yet)? > > Personally, the problem with depletion that I think needs fixing is > the problem of the new company that comes to ARIN the day after > depletion looking for addresses for their new network. Yes, they > are in an excellent position to fire up v6 and never have to worry > about a transition, but most of their customers will not be able to > reach them on v6, and so they will need some way to acquire at least > a small number of v4 addresses to make their web site, mail servers, > and various other public-facing services work. > This could argue for the possibility of reserving the last /8 or two for "transitional addressing" allocations/assignments rather than handing them out as business as usual. (A /8 makes quite a few /28 or /29 assignments for this purpose vs. a few months of business as usual). > v4 will be around in some form or another for a long time. I don't > think it's going to "go away" in any significant way until it's > cheaper to run single-stack v6 (both in terms of straight-up > operational costs and the ability to do whatever business people > need to do on v6 only). As long as v4 is around, any new player on > the 'net will require some v4 addresses... not necessarily a lot, > but some. > The solutions for reaching the v4 internet from v6 only clients are starting to mature fairly rapidly. The bigger issue, certainly, is how to make it possible to build a v6-only site that is reachable from v4-only clients. I think there is room for community effort and out reach as I think that eyeball providers are going to need to address this with something akin to NAT-PT Proxies with DNS voodoo. If the majority of ISPs with v4 clients can provide this service transparently to their users, I think that goes a long way towards solving this. > In order to allow new players to get the addresses they require post- > RIR-depletion, we need some sort of incentive for those already > migrating to v6 to actually free up v4 addresses where possible. > There will be places where networks don't need to run dual stack, > but it will cost money to remove the need for the v4 stacks, and to > renumber into smaller blocks of a company's current v4 addresses. > This assumes that the migration will begin sooner and/or move faster than I think the facts at hand suggest is likely. As such, I think we might need a solution other than incentives and some form of reservation for this purpose might be necessary. Owen From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Apr 22 17:51:27 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:51:27 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> Message-ID: <001e01c8a4c3$04529c80$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Matthew Pounsett > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:18 PM > To: arin ppml > Subject: Re: [ppml] Research on transfer markets,was: RFC > 1744 and its discontents > > > > Personally, the problem with depletion that I think needs fixing is > the problem of the new company that comes to ARIN the day after > depletion looking for addresses for their new network. Yes, > they are > in an excellent position to fire up v6 and never have to > worry about a > transition, but most of their customers will not be able to > reach them > on v6, and so they will need some way to acquire at least a small > number of v4 addresses to make their web site, mail servers, and > various other public-facing services work. > So if they are multihomed they go to one of their feeds and request a /24, then advertise it via BGP in the normal fashion. Companies have been doing this for years, so what? Are you unaware that you can obtain an AS number and advertise IP addressing that was allocated to you by your feed? As long as your feed SWIPS it, and as long as it is a minimum of a /24, your fine. I think there's some confusion by use of the term "depletion" We are talking "RIR-depletion" we are NOT talking "IPv4-depletion" like the entire Internet will come to a grinding halt. There will still be plenty of IPv4 around post RIR-depletion. It is just not going to be available from the RIR's. But it will certainly be available from many networks for many years afterwards. The only downside is that getting it from an existng network means if at some point in the future you decide to cancel service from that network, you will have to give it up and renumber. Anyone needing more IPv4 is going to only need it if they are connected to the Internet. Thus, the end of RIR-IPv4 availability simply means that people now will have to get IPv4 from whomever they are connected to. if that ISP has no more IPv4 then they merely find another ISP. It's not like there's any shortage of them. > v4 will be around in some form or another for a long time. I don't > think it's going to "go away" in any significant way until it's > cheaper to run single-stack v6 (both in terms of straight-up > operational costs and the ability to do whatever business > people need > to do on v6 only). As long as v4 is around, any new player on the > 'net will require some v4 addresses... not necessarily a lot, > but some. > > In order to allow new players to get the addresses they require post- > RIR-depletion, we need some sort of incentive for those already > migrating to v6 to actually free up v4 addresses where possible. We already have this - those existing players will have incentive to renumber to free up IPv4 so they can sell IPv4 Internet connectivity to these "new players" > There will be places where networks don't need to run dual > stack, but > it will cost money to remove the need for the v4 stacks, and to > renumber into smaller blocks of a company's current v4 addresses. > > I'm not entirely convinced that a paid transfer policy is the best > incentive; it seems to carry a lot of negative baggage with it, and > require a lot of complex restrictions in order to maintain the fair > balance that (I hope) we all want. However, so far it's the only > remotely viable suggestion I've seen. > > > How is any new entrant ever going to be able to bypass the need to > > reach the universe of IPv4-addressed resources? > > The context of your question suggests you think this is a reason not > to have this sort of transfer policy. Let me ask you the same thing > though; in the absence of a policy along these lines, how will a new > entrant ever do business with other > companies/individuals/whomever in > the universe of IPv4-addressed resources? > > I would very much like to see alternative ideas explored that would > address this issue. > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/ http://www.join.uni-muenster.de/Dokumente/Howtos/Howto_TRT.php?lang=en http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/networking/napt/ http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~mef/research/napt/reports/usenix98/ http://www.datatekcorp.com/literature/pdf/IEEE_IPV6_IPV4.pdf http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/MAG/vol40-1/paper21.pdf Ted From randy at psg.com Tue Apr 22 18:46:18 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:46:18 +0900 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net> <20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org> <48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> <1119465E-CC39-4C22-88C8-FAF882636E50@pch.net> <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> Message-ID: <480E6ABA.6020502@psg.com> [ i do not disagree (strongly) with much of your message, but i really can not let the following go ] > Considering that "fair and equitable distribution" is what we think we > have now some may think that. the screwees we barred from entry at the lower end sure do not, and have not for a decade. have we not read their pain on nanog and this list? what we have is a highly jury rigged distribution based on how market incumbents thought the game should be played. if we don't think it is jury rigged, why is policy so long and complex and why do we keep making up more? let me repeat > look how long a community of vested incumbents has kept barriers to > entry at the low end. cathy screamed at me in public when i suggested > small allocations in the first arin denver meeting; when we had an > actual victim there whose business was being severely hampered by our > bottom up policies. now, when the end is in sight, we are finally > talking about sharing the last orts here in the restaurant at the end of > the universe. how magnanimous of us. > > to be clear, the bald-faced trade we made was protecting the incumbents' > router capital costs by making it hard for folk at the low end. and, at the other end, 75% of the address space has gone to ten entities in the last couple of years. and take another look at the internal statistics, . perhaps we should understand that some people might not consider this "fair and equitable distribution?" and i do not blame arin hostmasters, management, ... they do a great and often thankless job. we, the community did it [ab]using arin's philosophy of thinking with our bottoms up. and i share the blame for this. randy From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Apr 22 19:37:54 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <480E6ABA.6020502@psg.com> Message-ID: <002401c8a4d1$e365d140$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Randy Bush > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:46 PM > To: Matthew Pounsett > Cc: arin ppml > Subject: Re: [ppml] Research on transfer markets,was: RFC > 1744 and its discontents > > > [ i do not disagree (strongly) with much of your message, but > i really can not let the following go ] > > > Considering that "fair and equitable distribution" is what > we think we > > have now > > some may think that. the screwees we barred from entry at > the lower end sure do not, and have not for a decade. have > we not read their pain on nanog and this list? > > what we have is a highly jury rigged distribution based on > how market incumbents thought the game should be played. if > we don't think it is jury rigged, why is policy so long and > complex and why do we keep making up more? > The ARIN policy is really not any more complex than the Parker Brothers Monopoly game rules. See: http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm > let me repeat > > > look how long a community of vested incumbents has kept barriers to > > entry at the low end. cathy screamed at me in public when > i suggested > > small allocations in the first arin denver meeting; when we had an > > actual victim there whose business was being severely > hampered by our > > bottom up policies. now, when the end is in sight, we are finally > > talking about sharing the last orts here in the restaurant > at the end > > of the universe. how magnanimous of us. > > > > to be clear, the bald-faced trade we made was protecting the > > incumbents' router capital costs by making it hard for folk > at the low > > end. > > and, at the other end, 75% of the address space has gone to > ten entities in the last couple of years. and take another > look at the internal statistics, > . > > perhaps we should understand that some people might not > consider this "fair and equitable distribution?" > There is a reason for that which has nothing to do with IP space assignment, and has a lot to do with how the US FCC punted on the issue of requiring networks to be open. Tell me, how many ISPs are choices on ANY given cable TV network in the US? ONE!!!!!!! Thank the FCC for that. Tell me, how many ISP's are choices on the Verizon fiber deployment? (ie: FIOS) ONE!!!!!! Thank the FCC for that one as well. And the DSL providers are not far behind. > and i do not blame arin hostmasters, management, ... they do > a great and often thankless job. we, the community did it > [ab]using arin's philosophy of thinking with our bottoms up. > The idea that policy in IPv4 assignment has significantly affected the trend of consolidation is pure fiction. Consolidation is in MANY markets. It is the NORMAL AND NATURAL progression of corporations in any capitalistic market. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ANTI-TRUST LAWS Left to themselves, just about ALL markets would collapse into monopolies. And the idea of protecting incumbents router costs? Baw ha ha ha ha!!!!! Geeze Randy, ex-runner of gated software, please, please lecture us on how ALL ISPs MUST USE HARDWARE ROUTERS that have super expensive fixed cards in them. We ran gated and later Zebra quite well for years on FreeBSD, and would be still doing so to this day if Ebay hadn't made used Cisco gear available for LESS than the cost of a fast Pentium. >From a TECHNICAL perspective, an ISP can be EASILY built from purely commodity, cheap PC hardware that will serve quite enough customers to qualify the ISP for a /22 (IPv4) And if your too incompetent to build one (an amazing thing if your planning on running that large of an ISP) you can go to Imagestream and buy a PC off the shelf with it preconfigured as a router and have at it. The problem of building an ISP with that many customers is a SALES AND MARKETING one. NOT a technical one. When you are competing against a cable provider that has the city covered with a sole monopoly ISP, and has the bankroll to LOSE MONEY for YEARS at a time to build up a customer base, it is no wonder that small ISP's can't get started these days. Ted From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 23 04:44:12 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:44:12 +0100 Subject: [ppml] Research on transfer markets, was: RFC 1744 and its discontents In-Reply-To: <001e01c8a4c3$04529c80$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> References: <038A52FA-C51C-485D-BE86-68D9D7EFF383@conundrum.com> <001e01c8a4c3$04529c80$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> Message-ID: > > the problem of the new company that comes to ARIN the day after > > depletion looking for addresses for their new network. > The only downside is that getting it from an existng network > means if at some point in the future you decide to cancel > service from that network, you will have to give it up and renumber. Actually, no you will not have to give it up and renumber in this scenario. Instead, you will have to go live on IPv6. Getting an IPv4 allocation at that late date is only a stopgap measure to give you time to get IPv6 functional in your network. Here's where the idea comes in of requiring *ALL* applicants for IPv4 space over the next two years or so, to provide answers to a survey of IPv6 deployment which includes signed statements of intent from the CFO level. This shouldn't cause anyone great difficulty to get the information, but will have the effect of raising the profile of IPv4 exhaustion within the MBA-bearing community. --Michael Dillon From info at arin.net Wed Apr 23 12:05:52 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:05:52 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region Message-ID: <480F5E60.5060101@arin.net> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on ARIN's website. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to: 1. Accept the proposal as written. If the AC accepts the proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting. 2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal until the next regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the author. The AC will work with the author to clarify, combine or divide the proposal. At their following meeting the AC will accept or not accept the proposal. 3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the proposal, the AC will explain their decision via the PPML. If a proposal is not accepted, then the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the petition fails, then the proposal will be closed. The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN will provide the names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML. In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal Name: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region Author: Cathy Aronson and Paul Andersen Proposal Version: Initial Submission Date: 23 April 2008 Proposal type: New Policy term: Renewable Policy statement: Minimum Allocation. The minimum IPv4 allocation size for ISPs from the Caribbean portion of the ARIN region is /22. 1. Allocation Criteria. 1. The requesting organization must show the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 from their upstream ISP. This allocation (/22) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 4 /24s. 2. A multi-homed organization must show the efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /23 from their upstream ISP. This allocation (/23) may have been provided by an ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. The organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of 2 /24s. 2. Utilization Reporting and Justification. All other ARIN policies regarding the reporting of justification information for the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space will remain in effect. Rationale: ARIN staff have noted that organizations in the Caribbean region have problems meeting the current criteria due to the fact that the population in the region is smaller than that of Canada and the US. There is also a lack of competition with many countries in the region faced with a monopoly or duopoly situation in terms of transport providers. To spur development in the region a similar proposal was passed in this region for the portion of the African region that ARIN administered prior to the formation of AfriNIC. This proposal seeks a similar outcome. Timetable for implementation: immediate From awahid at cwgo.com Wed Apr 23 12:31:26 2008 From: awahid at cwgo.com (Aamir Wahid) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:31:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 34, Issue 32 Message-ID: <949445613@mail.cwgo.com> From bill at herrin.us Wed Apr 23 13:41:05 2008 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:41:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region In-Reply-To: <480F5E60.5060101@arin.net> References: <480F5E60.5060101@arin.net> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0804231041i3f907401h7b356a0d96221659@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Member Services wrote: > Policy Proposal Name: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region > Policy statement: > > Minimum Allocation. The minimum IPv4 allocation size for ISPs from > the Caribbean portion of the ARIN region is /22. > > 1. Allocation Criteria. > 1. The requesting organization must show the efficient > utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 from their > upstream ISP. This allocation (/22) may have been provided > by an ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be > contiguous address space. The organization must meet the > requirement of efficient use of 4 /24s. > 2. A multi-homed organization must show the efficient > utilization of an entire previously allocated /23 from their > upstream ISP. This allocation (/23) may have been provided > by an ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be > contiguous address space. The organization must meet the > requirement of efficient use of 2 /24s. Greetings, Could you clean up the language a little, and perhaps rephrase it as an insert into the NRPM with the appropriate numbering? Reading this, it isn't clear to me whether you intend 1.1 and 1.2 to apply to single and multihomed LIRs (ISPs) respectively, or whether you intend it to apply to LIRs (ISPs) and end-user orgs respectively. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From paul at vix.com Wed Apr 23 20:48:32 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:48:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] is anybody presenting at, or attending, TPRC-2008? Message-ID: <85926.1208998112@sa.vix.com> www.tprc.org has details. the cfp deadline is may 2. sort of in arin's area. From sascha at aya.yale.edu Thu Apr 24 17:16:16 2008 From: sascha at aya.yale.edu (Sascha Meinrath) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:16:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] is anybody presenting at, or attending, TPRC-2008? Message-ID: <4810F8A0.5080901@aya.yale.edu> Hi Paul, > www.tprc.org has details. the cfp deadline is may 2. sort of in arin's area. I probably will be. --Sascha From info at arin.net Fri Apr 25 11:33:02 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:33:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposed Revision to the ARIN Policy Development Process Message-ID: <4811F9AE.1020108@arin.net> On 8 April 2008, at ARIN XXI in Denver, Colorado, Scott Bradner presented a proposed policy development process to replace the current Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). We invite the entire community to review and comment on the proposed new PDP. The presentation can be found at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ppm.html and the webcast can be found at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ppm.html. Please post any comments no later than 5 PM EDT, Friday, 9 May 2008 to arin-ppml at arin.net. PRINCIPLE ARIN's Internet Resource Policies are documented community decisions that directly determine the rules by which Internet numbering resources are managed and administered by ARIN. Internet Resource Policies are developed in an open and transparent manner by the Internet community. Anyone may participate in the process - ARIN membership is not required. The Policy Development Process (PDP) described in this document defines how policy is established in the ARIN region. The ARIN Board of Trustees adopts proposed Internet Number Resource Policies recommended to it by the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) if the Board determines that the PDP has been followed, that support and consensus for a policy has been reached among the community, and if the proposed policies are consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and with the applicable laws and regulations. It is important to note that Internet Resource Policies are distinctly separate from ARIN general business practices and procedures. ARIN's general business practices (including fees) and procedures are not within the purview of the Policy Development Process. (The ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process can be used to propose changes in non-policy areas.) OVERIVEW The proposed PDP is intended to bring forth clear, technically sound and useful policy; reduce overlapping policy proposals; require both staff and legal assessments before discussion; give adequate opportunity for discussion prior to each public policy meeting; and provide a means of review prior to possible adoption. The proposed PDP empowers the ARIN Advisory Council by shifting its scope from a policy advisory body to a policy development body while providing checks and balances and maintains an open and transparent process. THE POLICY DEVEOPMENT PROCESS 1. Proposal. [15 Days, maximum] a. Submittal. Policy proposals may be submitted at any time. Anyone in the community, except a member of the ARIN Board of Trustees or a member of ARIN staff can originate a policy proposal. Policy proposals must be sent to the policy e-mail address at ARIN. Proposals can be submitted at any time but only proposals received more than 70 days before a Public Policy Meeting (PPM) can generate a draft policy for consideration at that meeting. b. Clarity & Understanding. ARIN staff works with the proposal originator to ensure there is clarity and understanding of what is being proposed. The staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this stage, their only aim is to make sure that they understand what the proposal is proposing and believe that the community will as well. If understanding is reached the proposal is announced to the community via the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and forwarded to the AC. The proposal is dropped if the staff and originator cannot reach an agreement on clear and understandable text. In this case, the originator may make a Submittal Petition and send the proposal to PPML and request community support to have the proposal forwarded to the AC for review. There is no AC action in this phase. 2. Draft Policy. [30 Days, maximum] a. Development & Evaluation. The AC assumes ownership of all proposals. The AC develops and evaluates proposals to only bring forth technically sound policies that make a positive contribution to the Number Resource Policy Manual. The AC may rewrite, merge, abandon, etc.; for example, they may use a proposal as an idea to generate a draft policy. If the AC intends to move a draft policy forward, it must first submit it for staff and legal review (10 days max to perform). The AC must understand and address staff and legal comments before a proposal may go on. These comments may cause the AC to revise a draft policy. b. Selection. The AC selects the draft policies that will be published for discussion and review by the community on the PPML. The relevant staff and legal comments will be published along with each draft policy. If any member of the community, including a proposal originator, is dissatisfied with the AC action on a policy proposal they can initiate a Discussion Petition to move this particular proposal to the PPML for discussion as a draft policy. A successful petition may result in competing versions of the same draft policy. Staff and legal review will be conducted and published for successful petitions. 3. Discussion and Review. [25 Days, minimum] Only draft policies selected by the AC or successfully petitioned are open to community discussion and review on PPML. The text of all draft policies is frozen at 10 days prior to the Public Policy Meeting. The text remains frozen until after the completion of the Public Policy Meeting so that a single text for each draft policy is considered at the meeting. 4. Public Policy Meeting. The AC presents draft policies at the Public Policy Meeting; the successful petitioner presents theirs. Competing proposals, if any, will be discussed together. Discussion and votes at the meeting are for the consideration of the AC. 5. Consensus. a. Discussion Evaluation. [30 Days, maximum] At the conclusion of the PPM the AC owns all draft policies, including those that were successfully petitioned. The AC reviews all draft policies and, taking into account discussion both on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting, decides what to do with each draft policy. The AC may rewrite, merge, abandon, send to last call, etc. The results of the AC's decisions are announced to the PPML. Draft policies that are not abandoned or sent to last call are placed on the AC docket for further development and evaluation. If any member of the community, including a proposal originator, is dissatisfied with the AC action on a policy proposal they can initiate a Last Call Petition to move this particular proposal to the PPML for last call. b. Last Call [10 Days, minimum] The AC selects draft policies that have support both in the community and the AC itself and sends them to a last call for comments on the PPML. The last call period will be for a minimum of 10 days. The AC may decide that certain draft proposals may require a longer last call period of review, such as those that were revised based on comments received while the text was frozen. If the AC sends a draft policy to last call that is different from the frozen version, then the AC will explain and justify changes to the text. c. Last Call Review [30 Days, maximum] The AC determines consensus for each draft policy by reviewing last call comments, revisiting its decision (the AC may rewrite, merge, abandon, etc.), and determining readiness for consideration by the Board of Trustees. If the AC modifies a draft policy, it will be sent for another round of last call or may be placed back on the AC's docket for further development and evaluation. If any member of the community is dissatisfied with the AC action on a policy proposal they can initiate a Board of Trustees Consideration Petition to move this particular proposal for consideration by the Board of Trustees. The results of the AC's decisions are announced to the PPML. The AC forwards the draft policies that it supports to the Board of Trustees for consideration. 6. Board of Trustee Review. [30 Days, maximum] The ARIN Board of Trustees reviews and evaluates each draft policy presented to it. The Board examines each draft policy in terms of fiduciary risk, liability risk, conformity to law, development in accordance with the ARIN PDP, and adherence to the ARIN Articles of Incorporation and bylaws. The Board may adopt, reject or remand draft policies to the AC. Rejections will include an explanation. Remands will include an explanation and a recommendation. The Board may also seek clarification from the AC without remanding the draft policy. The results of the Board's decision are announced to the community via PPML. 7. Implementation. The expected implementation date of the policy is announced at the time that adoption of the policy is announced. ARIN staff updates to include the adopted policy into the Number Resource Policy Manual and implements and publishes a new version of the manual. REMINDER: COMMUNITY REVIEW REQUEST We invite the entire community to review and comment on the proposed new PDP. The presentation can be found at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ppm.html and the webcast can be found at: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/ppm.html. Please post any comments no later than 5 PM EDT, Friday, 9 May 2008 to arin-ppml at arin.net. Raymond A Plzak President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From jrhett at svcolo.com Mon Apr 28 17:20:12 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:20:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] [ppml] Policy to help the little guys In-Reply-To: <001f01c88b13$11b7b230$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> References: <001f01c88b13$11b7b230$6fce4b41@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <2C53585B-9548-4BEB-B1A4-4A3D111BE403@svcolo.com> On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > The last time we bought bandwidth I had to argue with the salesguy > to get them to understand we wanted a full unrestricted table sent > to us. > By default, they filtered their outgoing table at the /24 boundary, > and that was just the beginning, they sent a worksheet listing all of > the default filters they put in additionally to this. I've been involved with trying to help some smaller operators with the exact opposite problem. The large providers appear to be taking a "you can do anything you want with the routes we give you" hands off approach. I actually never experienced the problem you are mentioning. Was this a tier-1 or a regional ISP? (I don't have much if any experience with the regionals) We don't have problems with routes sent, but a lot of the peer-1s seem to have major problems tagging their routes according to their own documentation. I spent at least an hour a week dropping notes to our peers/uplinks about problems with their community strings. > Yes I guess there's networks out there who are still in the Dark > Ages. I would submit that when the fertilizer impacts the rotating > air-moving device that they and their customers will get a very > rapid education in the Correct Way to do things. And if they and > their customers are too incompetent to understand what is going > on, they will go bankrupt and the rest of us will be well rid of them. > > So, my question still stands - are we discussing theory or practice? If incompetence or lack of quality testing actually killed off companies, the market would be very different from what it is today. It's a fairly easy argument that the largest vendor of network gear has the least amount of QA in their releases. By your logic they would have failed by now, and it just hasn't happened. Although I like your logic ;-) -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From jrhett at svcolo.com Mon Apr 28 17:29:25 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:29:25 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] [ppml] No transfer policies are needed In-Reply-To: References: <47FAC58D.909@apnic.net><20080416230532.GA40861@rommie.caida.org><48068D84.3070207@apnic.net> <4807ECB4.8000705@internap.com> <4808BDB0.2040504@internap.com> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:47 AM, wrote: > This is where I disagree that there is any such problem which > needs solving. I have seen no evidence that organizations will > start getting rid of any of their IPv4 allocations when they > can no longer get fresh new ones. ...... > IPv4 exhaustion will put the emphasis on such > internal auditing and clawback, but will not, in and of itself, > free up addresses to transfer. You're forgetting that large blocks of swamp space are held by the remnants of long failed companies. The space is not in use, but it doesn't cost that person to keep it since they never signed an RSA. Once they have the option of selling the space, motivation will exist. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550