From info at arin.net Tue Dec 2 14:53:23 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:53:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves Message-ID: <49359233.1010903@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 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: Depleted IPv4 reserves Author: Dan Alexander Proposal Version: 1 Submission Date: 12/2/2008 Proposal type: New Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: (add the following section to the nrpm) 4.1.8 Depleted IPv4 reserves A limit will be applied to all IPv4 address requests when ARIN's reserve of unallocated IPv4 address space drops below an equivalent /9. When this happens, an ISP or End User may receive up to a single /20 within a six month period. Rationale: As the reserve of IPv4 address space becomes smaller, there is a risk that many organizations will be denied resources by a large, last minute request. By implementing a throttle on the last of the IPv4 address space, a more limited group of organizations will be impacted, allowing many organizations to receive ongoing resources during the transition to IPv6. According to the ARIN statistics page http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html, 1,993 organizations were issued IP space in 2006 and 2007. Of these allocations 41% of the applicants received less than a /20. On the opposite end, 82 organizations received large blocks. Given that the last reserve of IPv4 space cannot possibly meet the needs of the 82 organizations, the space could be managed in a way to provide for the needs of a wider base of consumers while the largest ISP's build momentum behind IPv6. The goal is to find a balance between the needs of organizations requiring space, and avoiding the restrictions on end user growth. For this reason, any caps on allocations should be implemented when the reserves are essentially depleted, rather than trying to restrict end user growth when IP space is still readily available. By putting a six month window on the maximum allocation, the remaining IP space could provide at least one year for everyone to implement other solutions while still being able to obtain an IPv4 address allocation. The time period was also added to provide a consistent rate of depletion, avoiding a scenario where a large organization could queue multiple, justifiable requests, resulting in the scenario the proposal is intended to avoid. Additional language may need to be added in the event a paid transfer policy is approved. The thinking is to have two pools of available IP. One being the current IANA allocated, reserve of IP space. The second being IP blocks recovered through monetary incentive. This proposal would apply to the IANA allocated reserves and would not apply to blocks made available by monetary means. An additional thought was to avoid tying this policy shift specifically to the last /8 allocated by IANA. This allows the policy to come in and out of play in the event that IPv4 address space is abandoned or returned to ARIN. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From jrhett at svcolo.com Tue Dec 2 16:24:25 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:25 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> Message-ID: I'm not sure I see what goal you are trying to accomplish with this proposal. Why is it better to cut off larger providers to ensure that smaller organizations can continue to get space? This is good for the smaller organization obviously. Why is it good for the entire ARIN region? On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Member Services wrote: > 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 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: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > Author: Dan Alexander > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Submission Date: 12/2/2008 > > Proposal type: New > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > (add the following section to the nrpm) > > 4.1.8 Depleted IPv4 reserves > > A limit will be applied to all IPv4 address requests when ARIN's > reserve > of unallocated IPv4 address space drops below an equivalent /9. When > this happens, an ISP or End User may receive up to a single /20 > within a > six month period. > > Rationale: > > As the reserve of IPv4 address space becomes smaller, there is a risk > that many organizations will be denied resources by a large, last > minute > request. By implementing a throttle on the last of the IPv4 address > space, a more limited group of organizations will be impacted, > allowing > many organizations to receive ongoing resources during the > transition to > IPv6. > > According to the ARIN statistics page > http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html, 1,993 organizations were > issued IP space in 2006 and 2007. Of these allocations 41% of the > applicants received less than a /20. On the opposite end, 82 > organizations received large blocks. Given that the last reserve of > IPv4 > space cannot possibly meet the needs of the 82 organizations, the > space > could be managed in a way to provide for the needs of a wider base of > consumers while the largest ISP's build momentum behind IPv6. > > The goal is to find a balance between the needs of organizations > requiring space, and avoiding the restrictions on end user growth. For > this reason, any caps on allocations should be implemented when the > reserves are essentially depleted, rather than trying to restrict end > user growth when IP space is still readily available. > > By putting a six month window on the maximum allocation, the remaining > IP space could provide at least one year for everyone to implement > other > solutions while still being able to obtain an IPv4 address allocation. > The time period was also added to provide a consistent rate of > depletion, avoiding a scenario where a large organization could queue > multiple, justifiable requests, resulting in the scenario the proposal > is intended to avoid. > > Additional language may need to be added in the event a paid transfer > policy is approved. The thinking is to have two pools of available IP. > One being the current IANA allocated, reserve of IP space. The second > being IP blocks recovered through monetary incentive. This proposal > would apply to the IANA allocated reserves and would not apply to > blocks > made available by monetary means. > > An additional thought was to avoid tying this policy shift > specifically > to the last /8 allocated by IANA. This allows the policy to come in > and > out of play in the event that IPv4 address space is abandoned or > returned to ARIN. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Dec 2 16:51:38 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:51:38 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> Message-ID: <4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org> Jo Rhett wrote: > I'm not sure I see what goal you are trying to accomplish with this > proposal. Why is it better to cut off larger providers to ensure that > smaller organizations can continue to get space? This is good for > the smaller organization obviously. Why is it good for the entire > ARIN region? Isn't the logic obvious? A handful of large ISPs are consuming the _vast_ majority of the IPv4 address space [1]. If those orgs are effectively cut off when there is a /9 left, the remaining 3200+ orgs will still have an additional year or two's supply for their comparatively modest needs. Those large orgs would not have been able to meet their needs for more than a few months with that same /9 anyways, so they're not really affected much -- and they're also the orgs with the most addresses internally that could be more efficiently shuffled around and the _only_/ /orgs that have enough market power to get IPv6 deployment going for real (e.g. by providing purchasing pressure on laggard equipment vendors to implement it). That's not to say I support this proposal, but it does have a certain appeal. However, I'm not sure that further efforts to extend the life of IPv4, even if only for smaller orgs, is in the long-term interests of the community. S [1] http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html#ipv4org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3241 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From dlw+arin at tellme.com Tue Dec 2 17:05:51 2008 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:05:51 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> <4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 03:51:38PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > That's not to say I support this proposal, but it does have a certain > appeal. However, I'm not sure that further efforts to extend the life > of IPv4, even if only for smaller orgs, is in the long-term interests of > the community. It is if it helps to facilitate movement to IPv6. Some small orgs may need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the transition. I think I would support this proposal. I wouldn't mind seeing something added that required a justification to include plans for migration to IPv6, as additional gratuitous consupmtion of IPv4 probably shouldn't be encouraged. The intent seems solid, and I like the simplicity of the policy change. This will require further thought, but it seems like a good idea at first glance. -David From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Tue Dec 2 17:17:44 2008 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:17:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628EAE@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Considering that I work for one of them, I would agree that it is not better to cut off the larger providers. :) The reality is that they will be cut off regardless of whether this policy is in place or not. The final fragments of unallocated space will not serve the needs of the largest ISP's. The intent is to provide some last minute consistency in the rate of depletion. ARIN's reserves do not deplete at a constant rate. They are dependent on the timing of the organizations that request space, and these can come in a rush. Once 2007-23 (End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIR's) is triggered, ARIN will receive its last /8 from IANA. At a constant rate, a business could receive a small allocation from this reserve within the next six to 12 months, and plan appropriately. The extra large organization is already excluded from this option. Six months from that point, there will not be enough left to serve their needs. That leaves the final reserve to the first two or three extra large ISP that submit a qualified request. If this happens, these final reserves might accommodate the needs of less than one business quarter, rather than six months or more. This means that businesses cannot use the last /8 allocation as a milestone in planning, which is part of the reason 2007-23 was approved. I know the next response will be "tough luck" if you still haven't gotten your act together by this point, but we all know that nobody studies until the night before the exam. The intent of the proposal was to provide for a 6 to 12 month window of consistency that will serve the needs of the majority of the member orgs, at the cost of one or two organizations who's business model has already been forced to change by this point. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:24 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves I'm not sure I see what goal you are trying to accomplish with this proposal. Why is it better to cut off larger providers to ensure that smaller organizations can continue to get space? This is good for the smaller organization obviously. Why is it good for the entire ARIN region? On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Member Services wrote: > 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 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: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > Author: Dan Alexander > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Submission Date: 12/2/2008 > > Proposal type: New > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > (add the following section to the nrpm) > > 4.1.8 Depleted IPv4 reserves > > A limit will be applied to all IPv4 address requests when ARIN's > reserve of unallocated IPv4 address space drops below an equivalent > /9. When this happens, an ISP or End User may receive up to a single > /20 within a six month period. > > Rationale: > > As the reserve of IPv4 address space becomes smaller, there is a risk > that many organizations will be denied resources by a large, last > minute request. By implementing a throttle on the last of the IPv4 > address space, a more limited group of organizations will be impacted, > allowing many organizations to receive ongoing resources during the > transition to IPv6. > > According to the ARIN statistics page > http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html, 1,993 organizations were > issued IP space in 2006 and 2007. Of these allocations 41% of the > applicants received less than a /20. On the opposite end, 82 > organizations received large blocks. Given that the last reserve of > IPv4 > space cannot possibly meet the needs of the 82 organizations, the > space could be managed in a way to provide for the needs of a wider > base of consumers while the largest ISP's build momentum behind IPv6. > > The goal is to find a balance between the needs of organizations > requiring space, and avoiding the restrictions on end user growth. For > this reason, any caps on allocations should be implemented when the > reserves are essentially depleted, rather than trying to restrict end > user growth when IP space is still readily available. > > By putting a six month window on the maximum allocation, the remaining > IP space could provide at least one year for everyone to implement > other solutions while still being able to obtain an IPv4 address > allocation. > The time period was also added to provide a consistent rate of > depletion, avoiding a scenario where a large organization could queue > multiple, justifiable requests, resulting in the scenario the proposal > is intended to avoid. > > Additional language may need to be added in the event a paid transfer > policy is approved. The thinking is to have two pools of available IP. > One being the current IANA allocated, reserve of IP space. The second > being IP blocks recovered through monetary incentive. This proposal > would apply to the IANA allocated reserves and would not apply to > blocks made available by monetary means. > > An additional thought was to avoid tying this policy shift > specifically to the last /8 allocated by IANA. This allows the policy > to come in and out of play in the event that IPv4 address space is > abandoned or returned to ARIN. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 2 18:14:17 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:14:17 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628EAE@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628EAE@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <4935C149.3070809@psg.com> i find this quite interesting dan, in light of the proposal approved in apnic for the last /8, http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html randy From jrhett at svcolo.com Tue Dec 2 19:15:53 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:15:53 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> <4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <0F479AA4-904B-4D63-A275-2090D1AA483D@svcolo.com> On Dec 2, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Jo Rhett wrote: >> I'm not sure I see what goal you are trying to accomplish with >> this proposal. Why is it better to cut off larger providers to >> ensure that smaller organizations can continue to get space? >> This is good for the smaller organization obviously. Why is it >> good for the entire ARIN region? > > Isn't the logic obvious? A handful of large ISPs are consuming the > _vast_ majority of the IPv4 address space [1]. If those orgs are > effectively cut off when there is a /9 left, the remaining 3200+ > orgs will still have an additional year or two's supply for their > comparatively modest needs. Those large ... > That's not to say I support this proposal, but it does have a > certain appeal. However, I'm not sure that further efforts to > extend the life of IPv4, even if only for smaller orgs, is in the > long-term interests of the community. The logic is obvious. I'm saying that the logic doesn't impress me that this benefit for the smaller orgs is helpful in any real sense. For example: if you take money out of the budget to support a military base near a depressed region of the country, you are funding the military and trying to improve economics in that area. If you do this carefully, you can stimulate the economy all over the country. In comparison, a set side to hold money to give only to say, people that raise penguins is harder to understand. It helps the penguin breeders, certainly, but how does it do more than that? NOTE: My employer would actually benefit from this proposal, because we'd be looking for small segments exactly this size. So I am perhaps shooting myself in the foot when I ask this question. This is sheer curiosity -- does the author see a benefit to the larger community that I don't quite grasp? -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Tue Dec 2 20:09:57 2008 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:09:57 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <4935C149.3070809@psg.com> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628EAE@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> <4935C149.3070809@psg.com> Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628F1E@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Is that a good or bad "interesting"? -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 6:14 PM To: Alexander, Daniel Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves i find this quite interesting dan, in light of the proposal approved in apnic for the last /8, http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html randy From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 2 20:23:55 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:23:55 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628F1E@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628EAE@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> <4935C149.3070809@psg.com> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D948008628F1E@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <4935DFAB.5020201@psg.com> Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Is that a good or bad "interesting"? >> i find this quite interesting dan, in light of the proposal approved in >> apnic for the last /8, >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html good. note that in apnic we used "current minimum allocation," which you might want to consider. randy From mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 3 04:27:13 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 04:27:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net><4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org> <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Williamson > > Some small orgs may > need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the > transition. True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale, is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other consideration? > I think I would support this proposal. I wouldn't mind seeing > something added that required a justification to include plans for > migration to IPv6, as additional gratuitous consupmtion of IPv4 > probably shouldn't be encouraged. The intent seems solid, and I like > the simplicity of the policy change. This will require further > thought, but it seems like a good idea at first glance. I think most ISPs and ARIN's prime directive ought to be the maintenance of Internet connectivity. ISPs and network operators themselves, not ARIN, are in the best position to determine whether more v4 addresses are needed or whether a shift to v6 is required. I don't think we want to insert ARIN into the middle of this decision. Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a promise. Is ARIN in any position to realistically assess the credibility or appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for hundreds or thousands of small organizations? Is this a good use of its resources? Is it in any position to enforce such promises? If not, what is the point of such a requirement? From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 3 06:04:07 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:04:07 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a > promise. Is ARIN in any position to realistically assess the > credibility or appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for > hundreds or thousands of small organizations? Is this a good > use of its resources? Is it in any position to enforce such > promises? If not, what is the point of such a requirement? It's like banking. When a small business comes in and asks the banker for a bridging loan, is the bank really in a position to realistically assess the credibility of the plan? Are they in any position to enforce the small business owner's promises? No, and no. Bankers basically look at the small business's history of how they use cash and previous loans. They make lots of assumptions based on history and the current general economic conditions. In other words, they guess. It's an educated guess, but a guess nevertheless. As far as enforcement, if the business spends the money in a way different from the plan, banks really can't do much as long as the business meets its repayment schedule. In other words, as long as the business overall is generating cashflow, the specifics of how the bridge loan was used is irrelevant. For instance, the situation to be bridged may have changed, but the owner kept the loan anyway to invest in new equipment or an advertising program which was successful. The fact is that specific instances of a bridge loan don't work out according to plan. But that is not a good reason to do away with ALL bridge loans. Here in ARIN, this policy could fail in certain cases, but that is not a good reason to reject the policy entirely. My company is an ARIN member in the X-large class and even though I would expect this to directly affect us in an apparently negative way, I still don't oppose the policy. I know that we have a lot of internal initiatives going on to prepare for and to trial IPv6 on various of our IP networks including so the only real risk posed by this policy is related to timing. Will we be ready soon enough? Fortunatly, when there is a timing risk and you have identified that risk a year or two in advance, you can generally mitigate the risk by good project management so the risk isn't as big as it might seem. I believe that most of the large ISPs are in a similar position to us and could mitigate the risks from this policy through a combination of good project management and more executive support for IPv6 readiness. However, I would like ARIN to issue a new press release, even before we know if this policy is adopted. There is a good awareness of the IPv4 runout date, but it is often understood as being "the deadline". With various reserve measures in place and proposed, the actual deadline is sooner, and ARIN should make an effort to communicate this. For many larger ISPs their next IPv4 address allocation request will be the last one ever, period. --Michael Dillon From roger.fallon at capgemini.com Wed Dec 3 06:17:47 2008 From: roger.fallon at capgemini.com (Fallon, Roger J) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:17:47 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Unsubscribe Message-ID: Please unsubscribe me from this mailing list. Thanks..... Regards, Roger _________________________________________________________ Roger Fallon / Capgemini / London Consultant / DSS Networks Tel +44 (0) 870 904 4373 Email roger.fallon at capgemini.com Together. Free your energies _________________________________________________________ Capgemini is a trading name used by the Capgemini Group of companies which includes Capgemini UK plc, a company registered in England and Wales (number 943935) whose registered office is at No. 1 Forge End, Woking, Surrey, GU21 6DB This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1537 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1829 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 3 09:14:53 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:14:53 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ABE8@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:04 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > > Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a > > promise. Is ARIN in any position to realistically assess the > > credibility or appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for > > hundreds or thousands of small organizations? Is this a good > > use of its resources? Is it in any position to enforce such > > promises? If not, what is the point of such a requirement? > > It's like banking. When a small business comes in and asks > the banker for a bridging loan, is the bank really in a > position to realistically assess the credibility of the plan? > Are they in any position to enforce the small business owner's > promises? No, and no. > [Kevin says:] I don't understand this argument at all.. The bank doesn't care one whit what the customer uses the money for.. the bank only cares about whether or not the customer will repay the loan on schedule with interest. The comparisons between an IP registry and financial lending institutions just don't fly.. From tvest at pch.net Wed Dec 3 10:23:45 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:23:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ABE8@mail> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ABE8@mail> Message-ID: <7961FBD8-F861-4F73-B4FF-FC5DB645AC1E@pch.net> On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On >> Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com >> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:04 AM >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves >> >>> Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a >>> promise. Is ARIN in any position to realistically assess the >>> credibility or appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for >>> hundreds or thousands of small organizations? Is this a good >>> use of its resources? Is it in any position to enforce such >>> promises? If not, what is the point of such a requirement? >> >> It's like banking. When a small business comes in and asks >> the banker for a bridging loan, is the bank really in a >> position to realistically assess the credibility of the plan? >> Are they in any position to enforce the small business owner's >> promises? No, and no. >> > > [Kevin says:] I don't understand this argument at all.. The bank > doesn't care one whit what the customer uses the money for.. the bank > only cares about whether or not the customer will repay the loan on > schedule with interest. > > The comparisons between an IP registry and financial lending > institutions just don't fly.. The point is that as long as IPv4 is non-substitutable, then RIRs and LIRs need to manage IPv4 allocations/assignments the same way that banks manage credit creation (i.e., lending, etc.). There are at least two levels of constraint that both have in common. At the LIR/IP assignment level, the "bank" may not care about anything other than the ability of the customer to make monthly payments. However, if the revenue that the customer produces is actually related to that IPv4 assignment -- i.e., it's coming from some kind of online content or service -- then that scarce credit/IPv4 allocation is being used "productively," it's contributing to the satisfaction of some Internet-related demand, and probably one that either makes money or saves money in some way. If this is true, then then IPv4 consumed by that assignment for that particular application/service shouldn't have to be duplicated in the future; the rest of the IPv4 pool can be saved for additional, similarly unique requirements. Sure, that original requirement may grow, sure the requirement might have been private/ internal-only, but that *specific one* should be satisfied. By contrast, If the IPv4 could just be hoarded without consequence, then that would not be true. As you rightly note, most banks don't care (or care as much) about how the money gets used -- and that is why entry and participation in the banking industry is regulated. In order to establish a bank, one has to satisfy certain capitalization requirements that are functionally equivalent to the sorts of things that RIR hostmasters demand proof of when someone is seeking an initial IP number resource allocation. In both cases, they demonstrate that the aspiring new entrant possesses the means to use the power of lending / credit creation -- which is the primary function of banks -- "productively." It also demonstrates that they have put chips into the *relevant* game, i.e., Internet service delivery. That entry or eligibility requirement is not sufficient in itself to guarantee that a bank will, in fact, use this power prudently (obviously), which is why two other ongoing requirements are imposed on banks: capital reserve requirements, and periodic reporting requirements. Credit allocation and IP resource allocation/assignment are critical economic functions in the exact same way. If you do just the right amount, in the right distribution pattern, then the overall economy hums along nicely. Do it too sparingly or too restrictively, and some people that might be able to productively participate in the economy are excluded, with the result that they have to find other ways -- or other economies -- in which to participate. The common word for this phenomenon is "deflation." Conversely, allocate it too profligately and you begin to tax the carrying capacity of the overall system, and thereby reduce the value of everyone else's monetary/IP resources, in a process more commonly described as "inflation." In our world it takes the form of routing table "bloat." If too many lenders err too far in either extreme, then the overall system may collapse altogether, which is why bank regulators also impose capital reserve requirements (to indirectly modulate the rate of credit creation), and periodic reporting requirements, so that there is some possibility of catching institution-level problems before the rise to the level of system-level risks. Obviously, recent developments make it clear that such indirect regulatory mechanisms do not provide an absolute guarantee of safety or stability. If some industry participants are hellbent on acting in self-destructive ways, and there is insufficient transparency for regulatory or "counter-party" scrutiny to deter them, and/or no means to do anything about it, then that industry and everyone relying on it is absolutely at their mercy. Maybe it'll collapse today, or next month, or next year, or maybe not... not the sort of condition that most investors, entrepreneurs (other than speculators), or "users" find especially attractive... Needless to say, IPv6 can't and won't solve all the problems of the Internet, but it could solve this particular one. TV > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 3 10:25:57 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:25:57 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ABE8@mail> Message-ID: > The comparisons between an IP registry and financial lending > institutions just don't fly.. Perhaps if you understood the concept of bridge financing. --Michael Dillon From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Wed Dec 3 10:40:09 2008 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:40:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net><4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org><20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800862917D@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> As the author, let me clarify. The benefits this proposal may bring to a smaller organization is a positive byproduct, and not the primary intent. The primary intent is to ensure some resources remain available during a stable period of time that businesses can plan around. The final reserves of IPv4 space can be consumed by one or two organizations, leaving all others with very little time to react. This does not benefit the community. The community could benefit more with the understanding that everyone can be reasonably confident of obtaining a small ration of the last resources during a large enough window of time for alternative business plans to be executed upon. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:27 AM To: David Williamson Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Williamson > > Some small orgs may > need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the > transition. True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale, is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other consideration? > I think I would support this proposal. I wouldn't mind seeing > something added that required a justification to include plans for > migration to IPv6, as additional gratuitous consupmtion of IPv4 > probably shouldn't be encouraged. The intent seems solid, and I like > the simplicity of the policy change. This will require further > thought, but it seems like a good idea at first glance. I think most ISPs and ARIN's prime directive ought to be the maintenance of Internet connectivity. ISPs and network operators themselves, not ARIN, are in the best position to determine whether more v4 addresses are needed or whether a shift to v6 is required. I don't think we want to insert ARIN into the middle of this decision. Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a promise. Is ARIN in any position to realistically assess the credibility or appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for hundreds or thousands of small organizations? Is this a good use of its resources? Is it in any position to enforce such promises? If not, what is the point of such a requirement? _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From dlw+arin at tellme.com Wed Dec 3 11:10:42 2008 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:10:42 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20081203161041.GZ22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:27:13AM -0500, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On > > Behalf Of David Williamson > > > > Some small orgs may > > need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the > > transition. > > True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there > is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this > end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale, > is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other > consideration? Large orgs will also need transition space, yes. The flip side of that is that orgs who presently have been assigned more than a /12 in aggregate can probably come up with transition space without too much pain. Someone holding an aggregate /22 probably cannot. While we're talking about transition, it seems to me that handing out a /22 to an org wishing to provide a NAT-PT gateway (for example) is a bit foolish. We should hand them the space they need, which is probably a /26 or longer. That would provide for transitional space for many more orgs, both existing and new, of any size. (Before someone screams about the present unroutability of such long networks, please read NRPM section 4.1.1. It's not ARIN's problem - good stewardship of the number resources is.) -David From sethm at rollernet.us Wed Dec 3 11:46:14 2008 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:46:14 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <20081203161041.GZ22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> References: <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20081203161041.GZ22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> Message-ID: <4936B7D6.9070907@rollernet.us> David Williamson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:27:13AM -0500, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] >> On >>> Behalf Of David Williamson >>> >>> Some small orgs may >>> need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the >>> transition. >> True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there >> is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this >> end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale, >> is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other >> consideration? > > Large orgs will also need transition space, yes. The flip side of that > is that orgs who presently have been assigned more than a /12 in > aggregate can probably come up with transition space without too much > pain. Someone holding an aggregate /22 probably cannot. > > While we're talking about transition, it seems to me that handing out a > /22 to an org wishing to provide a NAT-PT gateway (for example) is a > bit foolish. We should hand them the space they need, which is > probably a /26 or longer. That would provide for transitional space > for many more orgs, both existing and new, of any size. (Before someone > screams about the present unroutability of such long networks, please > read NRPM section 4.1.1. It's not ARIN's problem - good stewardship of > the number resources is.) > Might not be ARIN's problem, but it's foolish to think one is being useful by handing out useless resources. Verizon already refuses to accept BGP announcements for anything smaller than an IPv6 /32. ~Seth From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 3 11:54:35 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:54:35 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <4936B7D6.9070907@rollernet.us> Message-ID: > Might not be ARIN's problem, but it's foolish to think one is > being useful by handing out useless resources. Verizon > already refuses to accept BGP announcements for anything > smaller than an IPv6 /32. If ARIN does nothing then when people ask what the problem is, lots of fingers will point at ARIN. But if ARIN allocates IPv4 /26's for special circumstances during this unique transition period, when people ask the same question, all the fingers will point elsewhere. And if all the fingers point at Verizon, they might soon find themselves subject to an FTC investigation. Or maybe they will just lose lots of customers. Either way, ARIN's actions will help most people keep the network running. We should not modify ARIN policy just because of foolish actions on the part of one or two ISPs. --Michael Dillon From sethm at rollernet.us Wed Dec 3 12:25:38 2008 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:25:38 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4936C112.1080401@rollernet.us> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> Might not be ARIN's problem, but it's foolish to think one is >> being useful by handing out useless resources. Verizon >> already refuses to accept BGP announcements for anything >> smaller than an IPv6 /32. > > If ARIN does nothing then when people ask what the problem > is, lots of fingers will point at ARIN. But if ARIN allocates > IPv4 /26's for special circumstances during this unique > transition period, when people ask the same question, all > the fingers will point elsewhere. And if all the fingers > point at Verizon, they might soon find themselves subject > to an FTC investigation. Or maybe they will just lose lots > of customers. Either way, ARIN's actions will help most > people keep the network running. > > We should not modify ARIN policy just because of foolish > actions on the part of one or two ISPs. > I wasn't referring to how Verizon is lame for not accepting ARIN /48's in IPv6. Verizon is the exception for IPv6 (as far as I know). The /24 boundary in IPv4 is much more rigorously enforced and far too entrenched *everywhere* for the FTC or even God himself to get it all out of there for a few special circumstances. I can announce less than a /24 right now. It won't get very far. Who in their right mind is going to contact every AS in the world and ask "pretty please, will you configure every BGP speaking router you have to accept my /26 because I'm special?" Their ISP is going to say "we're announcing it, tough luck if the rest of the world won't see it". Who does that help except cause mass frustration? And since it's an "IPv6 transition network" the uninitiated are going to blame IPv6 as something that doesn't work. ~Seth From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 3 12:33:22 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:33:22 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <4936C112.1080401@rollernet.us> References: <4936C112.1080401@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5A1CB1BD-1977-4976-BEA5-64DD89DF6F50@delong.com> > > The /24 boundary in IPv4 is much more rigorously enforced and far too > entrenched *everywhere* for the FTC or even God himself to get it all > out of there for a few special circumstances. I can announce less > than a > /24 right now. It won't get very far. Who in their right mind is going > to contact every AS in the world and ask "pretty please, will you > configure every BGP speaking router you have to accept my /26 because > I'm special?" Their ISP is going to say "we're announcing it, tough > luck > if the rest of the world won't see it". Who does that help except > cause > mass frustration? And since it's an "IPv6 transition network" the > uninitiated are going to blame IPv6 as something that doesn't work. If ARIN starts issuing /26s from a defined block for this purpose, I'm willing to bet that most of the active AS in the world will catch on to that fact quickly enough. Owen From sethm at rollernet.us Wed Dec 3 13:03:42 2008 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:03:42 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <5A1CB1BD-1977-4976-BEA5-64DD89DF6F50@delong.com> References: <4936C112.1080401@rollernet.us> <5A1CB1BD-1977-4976-BEA5-64DD89DF6F50@delong.com> Message-ID: <4936C9FE.1090500@rollernet.us> Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> The /24 boundary in IPv4 is much more rigorously enforced and far too >> entrenched *everywhere* for the FTC or even God himself to get it all >> out of there for a few special circumstances. I can announce less than a >> /24 right now. It won't get very far. Who in their right mind is going >> to contact every AS in the world and ask "pretty please, will you >> configure every BGP speaking router you have to accept my /26 because >> I'm special?" Their ISP is going to say "we're announcing it, tough luck >> if the rest of the world won't see it". Who does that help except cause >> mass frustration? And since it's an "IPv6 transition network" the >> uninitiated are going to blame IPv6 as something that doesn't work. > > If ARIN starts issuing /26s from a defined block for this purpose, I'm > willing to bet that most of the active AS in the world will catch on to > that fact quickly enough. > Possibly. I'm just thinking from the perspective of some of the absolute idiots I've had the (dis)pleasure to work with over the years. You know, the kind where they hold management meetings on technical issues without any technical people present and decide what the technical people will do to solve the problem. ~Seth From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Wed Dec 3 13:43:58 2008 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:43:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <5A1CB1BD-1977-4976-BEA5-64DD89DF6F50@delong.com> References: <4936C112.1080401@rollernet.us> <5A1CB1BD-1977-4976-BEA5-64DD89DF6F50@delong.com> Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F104816BA1DA6@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> Just because its assigned through ARIN doesn't mean it will be routed. ARIN has not nor do I foresee them changing their position that they do not guarantee routing and in addition there are other factors involved. It's not as simple as networks "catching on". Time will tell what really gives way and what doesn't. My 2 cents Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:33 AM To: Seth Mattinen Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > The /24 boundary in IPv4 is much more rigorously enforced and far too > entrenched *everywhere* for the FTC or even God himself to get it all > out of there for a few special circumstances. I can announce less than > a > /24 right now. It won't get very far. Who in their right mind is going > to contact every AS in the world and ask "pretty please, will you > configure every BGP speaking router you have to accept my /26 because > I'm special?" Their ISP is going to say "we're announcing it, tough > luck if the rest of the world won't see it". Who does that help except > cause mass frustration? And since it's an "IPv6 transition network" > the uninitiated are going to blame IPv6 as something that doesn't > work. If ARIN starts issuing /26s from a defined block for this purpose, I'm willing to bet that most of the active AS in the world will catch on to that fact quickly enough. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 3 14:28:23 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:28:23 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <4936C112.1080401@rollernet.us> Message-ID: > Who in their right mind > is going to contact every AS in the world and ask "pretty > please, will you configure every BGP speaking router you have > to accept my /26 because I'm special?" For a technical person you seem shockingly unaware of how things really work. In fact, ARIN makes an announcement that in this certain /9 block, the minimum allocation size will be /26 and ARIN expects to begin allocations from that block soon. The announcement will go to all the usual places that ARIN and the other RIRs announce when they are opening up a new /8. Many ISPs will then adjust their filters accordingly, and some people will set up special test servers that can be used to find out whose filters are broken. > Their ISP is going to > say "we're announcing it, tough luck if the rest of the world > won't see it". Who does that help except cause mass > frustration? And since it's an "IPv6 transition network" the > uninitiated are going to blame IPv6 as something that doesn't work. You are making too many assumptions here, most of them incorrect. The fact is that ARIN has no control over ISP policies, nevertheless ARIN has regularly changed the way that they allocate addresses and ISP policies *HAVE* been adjusted to fit. It's not painless but it does work eventually. --Michael Dillon From sethm at rollernet.us Wed Dec 3 17:45:02 2008 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:45:02 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49370BEE.3080306@rollernet.us> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> Who in their right mind >> is going to contact every AS in the world and ask "pretty >> please, will you configure every BGP speaking router you have >> to accept my /26 because I'm special?" > > For a technical person you seem shockingly unaware of how > things really work. In fact, ARIN makes an announcement that > in this certain /9 block, the minimum allocation size will be > /26 and ARIN expects to begin allocations from that block soon. > The announcement will go to all the usual places that ARIN and > the other RIRs announce when they are opening up a new /8. > I'm shockingly aware that I'm having problems with some networks accepting my /22. ~Seth From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 4 04:24:27 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:24:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA457@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Michael I think the critical issue on this policy proposal is the merit of setting a fixed and relatively small size for the last allocations. I would like to see more discussion of that. It could make sense, I just haven't heard enough. I only raised the question of a plan for v6 migration because I don't think the distribution of these blocks should be contingent on that. Let's not get distracted by more banking analogies. > -----Original Message----- > > > Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a > > promise. Is ARIN in any position to realistically assess the > > credibility or appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for > > hundreds or thousands of small organizations? Is this a good > > use of its resources? Is it in any position to enforce such > > promises? If not, what is the point of such a requirement? > > It's like banking. When a small business comes in and asks > the banker for a bridging loan, is the bank really in a > position to realistically assess the credibility of the plan? > Are they in any position to enforce the small business owner's > promises? No, and no. > From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 4 04:25:55 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:25:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800862917D@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net><4935ADEA.9050103@sprunk.org><20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800862917D@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA458@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Got it. That makes sense, it improves predictability. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:40 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > > As the author, let me clarify. > > The benefits this proposal may bring to a smaller organization is a > positive byproduct, and not the primary intent. The primary intent is to > ensure some resources remain available during a stable period of time > that businesses can plan around. > > The final reserves of IPv4 space can be consumed by one or two > organizations, leaving all others with very little time to react. This > does not benefit the community. The community could benefit more with > the understanding that everyone can be reasonably confident of obtaining > a small ration of the last resources during a large enough window of > time for alternative business plans to be executed upon. > > -Dan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:27 AM > To: David Williamson > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On > > Behalf Of David Williamson > > > > Some small orgs may > > need an additional allocation/assignment in order to get through the > > transition. > > True. But the same applies to any organization. In the proposal, there > is no clear rationale as to why small orgs should be privileged in this > end game over large orgs. The proposer needs to clarify their rationale, > is it based entirely on distributional equity or some other > consideration? > > > I think I would support this proposal. I wouldn't mind seeing > > something added that required a justification to include plans for > > migration to IPv6, as additional gratuitous consupmtion of IPv4 > > probably shouldn't be encouraged. The intent seems solid, and I like > > the simplicity of the policy change. This will require further > > thought, but it seems like a good idea at first glance. > > I think most ISPs and ARIN's prime directive ought to be the maintenance > of Internet connectivity. ISPs and network operators themselves, not > ARIN, are in the best position to determine whether more v4 addresses > are needed or whether a shift to v6 is required. I don't think we want > to insert ARIN into the middle of this decision. > > Besides, a "plan" in this context is nothing more than a promise. Is > ARIN in any position to realistically assess the credibility or > appropriateness of an ipv6 migration plan for hundreds or thousands of > small organizations? Is this a good use of its resources? Is it in any > position to enforce such promises? If not, what is the point of such a > requirement? > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 4 04:30:51 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:30:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <20081203161041.GZ22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> References: <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20081203161041.GZ22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA459@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > (Before someone > screams about the present unroutability of such long networks, please > read NRPM section 4.1.1. It's not ARIN's problem - good stewardship of > the number resources is.) Good stewards of a scarce resource don't give the last units to people who can't use them. From dlw+arin at tellme.com Thu Dec 4 08:37:10 2008 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:37:10 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA459@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20081202220551.GX22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA408@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20081203161041.GZ22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9023CA459@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20081204133710.GA22487@shell02.cell.sv2.tellme.com> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:30:51AM -0500, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > (Before someone > > screams about the present unroutability of such long networks, please > > read NRPM section 4.1.1. It's not ARIN's problem - good stewardship > of > > the number resources is.) > > Good stewards of a scarce resource don't give the last units to people > who can't use them. At what point in time? A /26 might not be useful today, but I can guarantee that if microsoftupdate.com was suddenly a VIP in a /28, it would get routed. It's a matter of the value of the content in a given routing slot. If reaching some new startup with content everyone wants requires routing to their NAT-PT block in a /26, ISPs will either route it or their customers will leave. What is and isn't routable is a matter of market value, not ARIN's allocation policies. Let's not get stuck in the belief that a specific allocation size cannot be used because of today's routing market. (And yes, this would put a bit more pressure on the routing table size problem, but that's going to have to get sorted out via some other mechanism anyway.) -David From info at arin.net Mon Dec 8 13:58:18 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:58:18 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Depleted IPv4 reserves In-Reply-To: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> References: <49359233.1010903@arin.net> Message-ID: <493D6E4A.2010906@arin.net> > The AC will assign shepherds in the near > future. ARIN will provide the names of the shepherds to the community > via the PPML. The ARIN Advisory Council shepherds for this proposal are Scott Leibrand and Paul Andersen. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Member Services wrote: > 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 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: Depleted IPv4 reserves > > Author: Dan Alexander > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Submission Date: 12/2/2008 > > Proposal type: New > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > (add the following section to the nrpm) > > 4.1.8 Depleted IPv4 reserves > > A limit will be applied to all IPv4 address requests when ARIN's reserve > of unallocated IPv4 address space drops below an equivalent /9. When > this happens, an ISP or End User may receive up to a single /20 within a > six month period. > > Rationale: > > As the reserve of IPv4 address space becomes smaller, there is a risk > that many organizations will be denied resources by a large, last minute > request. By implementing a throttle on the last of the IPv4 address > space, a more limited group of organizations will be impacted, allowing > many organizations to receive ongoing resources during the transition to > IPv6. > > According to the ARIN statistics page > http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html, 1,993 organizations were > issued IP space in 2006 and 2007. Of these allocations 41% of the > applicants received less than a /20. On the opposite end, 82 > organizations received large blocks. Given that the last reserve of IPv4 > space cannot possibly meet the needs of the 82 organizations, the space > could be managed in a way to provide for the needs of a wider base of > consumers while the largest ISP's build momentum behind IPv6. > > The goal is to find a balance between the needs of organizations > requiring space, and avoiding the restrictions on end user growth. For > this reason, any caps on allocations should be implemented when the > reserves are essentially depleted, rather than trying to restrict end > user growth when IP space is still readily available. > > By putting a six month window on the maximum allocation, the remaining > IP space could provide at least one year for everyone to implement other > solutions while still being able to obtain an IPv4 address allocation. > The time period was also added to provide a consistent rate of > depletion, avoiding a scenario where a large organization could queue > multiple, justifiable requests, resulting in the scenario the proposal > is intended to avoid. > > Additional language may need to be added in the event a paid transfer > policy is approved. The thinking is to have two pools of available IP. > One being the current IANA allocated, reserve of IP space. The second > being IP blocks recovered through monetary incentive. This proposal > would apply to the IANA allocated reserves and would not apply to blocks > made available by monetary means. > > An additional thought was to avoid tying this policy shift specifically > to the last /8 allocated by IANA. This allows the policy to come in and > out of play in the event that IPv4 address space is abandoned or > returned to ARIN. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From DHunter at steveandbarrys.com Tue Dec 9 16:02:16 2008 From: DHunter at steveandbarrys.com (Doug Hunter) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:02:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] AUTO: CN=Doug Hunter/O=SteveandBarrys is out of the office. (returning 12/12/2008) Message-ID: I am out of the office until 12/12/2008. I will respond to your email when I return. Note: This is an automated response to your message "ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 42, Issue 6" sent on 12/9/2008 12:00:01 PM. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away. ______________________________________________________ Disclaimer: This communication, the information contained herein and any attached documents, are for use by the designated addressee(s) named above only and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, its contents and any attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you. This communication does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer and no employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of this company or its parents, subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, the ?Company?) with another party by email without the issuance of a valid Purchase Order by the Company. Information in this communication is without warranty or representation whatsoever whether express or implied, and the Company will not be held liable for any inaccuracies or any losses, whether direct or indirect, arising from information herein provided. Any views opinions or personal comments presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. From dwhite at olp.net Mon Dec 15 12:50:11 2008 From: dwhite at olp.net (Dan White) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:50:11 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Status of root.rwhois.net and the rwhois mailing list Message-ID: <494698D3.4070509@olp.net> I've noticed for the past several days that the rwhois server running on root.rwhois.net is unavailable. When attempting to post to the rwhois mailing list (which appears to be hosted by ARIN), I do not see my posts (2) show up in the archives. Does anyone know who has responsibility for these projects that I could bug? Thanks, - Dan From info at arin.net Wed Dec 17 11:01:04 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:01:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] NRPM version 2008.5 - New Policy Implementation Message-ID: <49492240.7010603@arin.net> On 3 December 2008 the ARIN Board of Trustees, acting on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process had been followed, adopted the following policy proposal: * Policy Proposal 2008-4: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region This policy has been incorporated into version 2008.5 of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). NRPM version 2008.5 is effective 17 December 2008 and supersedes the previous version. See Appendix A of the NRPM for information regarding changes to the manual. The NRPM can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Appendix A can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From info at arin.net Tue Dec 23 14:15:01 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:15:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call Message-ID: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net> Policy Proposal 2008-6 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses On 18 December 2008 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN policy development process, determined that the community supports this proposal and moved it to last call. Feedback is encouraged during this last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This is an extended last call; it will expire at 23:59 EST, 21 January 2009. The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/index.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal 2008-6 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses Author: Bill Darte Date: 21 November 2008 Policy statement: 8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, ARIN-region number resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN or another organization, by the authorized holder of the resource. Number resources may only be received under RSA, with demonstrated need, in the exact amount which they are able to justify under ARIN resource-allocation policies. Rationale: In order for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing supply of IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN resources are no longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of documentation and ARIN services for those resources, this policy may be implemented. Its intent is to preserve the current tradition of need-based allocation/assignments for those still needing IPv4 resources during a transition period as the industry adopts IPv6. This policy is not intended to create a 'market' for such transfers and does not introduce or condone the monetization of address resources or a view of addresses as property. It does recognize that organizations making available unused or no longer needed address resources may incur certain costs that might be compensated by those acquiring the resources. This policy is intended to be transient and light-weight and does not encourage a sustained or continuing role for IPv4, but rather helps to mitigate a transitional crisis that may emerge while the industry adopts IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation of ARIN's Board of Trustees. Timetable for implementation: This policy, once ratified by the ARIN Board of Trustees, would be implemented when either the free-pool of IANA addresses is exhausted or IPv4 address resources in the ARIN Region reach a threshold of scarcity recognized by the ARIN Board of Trustees as requiring this policy implementation. From info at arin.net Tue Dec 23 14:17:58 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:17:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment - Adopted -- two others postponed Message-ID: <49513966.8030204@arin.net> On 18 December 2008 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN policy development process, recommended that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment. The next step for this proposal is the review by the ARIN Board of Trustees. Policy Proposal 2008-5 is available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html The AC postponed making a decision about the following two proposals until their meeting in January: * IPv4 Recovery Fund * Depleted IPv4 reserves These proposals are available at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/submission_archive.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) From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Tue Dec 23 15:31:32 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:31:32 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses Message-ID: Hello All, I want to reiterate that Policy Proposal 2008-6 is about providing flexibility to the Board of Trustees as the IPv4 pool depletes and the real circumstances that attend that process become apparent. It is also about establishing some progress toward shoring up and expanding upon ARIN's position vis-a-vis the current transfer policy in the face of such depletion as has been strenuously urged upon ARIN by it's legal counsel. It does not intend to stop debate about the needs ARIN and the industry may face as time passes. It is a 'stake in the ground' against which debate may continue. If it needs strengthening or greater detail then that may be remedied by future policy or it may be completely obviated by better policy. ARIN must decide the way forward through its policy proposal process and the engagement by all stakeholders in the process. I urge each of you to be engaged. Thank you all for your interest and involvement in ARIN and I look forward to seeing and/or working will you all in 2009. I'm sure that I speak for all my colleagues on the Advisory Council when I remind you that each of us is interested in your comments both on and off list. I wish everyone safe and happy holidays! Bill Darte ARIN AC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Mon Dec 29 10:18:30 2008 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:18:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund Message-ID: <200812291518.mBTFIVco027078@cjbsys.bdb.com> Nothing like coming late to the party but I'd not been keeping up with the list and I had 300+ emails to go through. That's a lot of reading and after plowing through it, I believe that this proposal adds complexity to ARIN's job and offers nothing to the world. I don't believe a regulatory group should be in the market of the group they're regulating. It seems like there are too many chances for conflicts. Let the market forces work. All the proposals regarding new ways of transfering network numbers require that the existing justifications be met so speculators should can't just buy numbers. Let those who need numbers find them. They'll have the most incentive to find something that they're willing to obtain by whatever means they feel appropriate. (money, discounts on XXX, free YYY for n years etc) This proposal ties ARIN hands in terms of allowing flexible market forces to work. I don't think it will work and it adds too much bureaucracy for ARIN. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Mon Dec 29 10:49:56 2008 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:49:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call Message-ID: <200812291549.mBTFnugV027314@cjbsys.bdb.com> After reviewing all the other proposals regarding new methods of address transfer, I think this offers the best and simplest method of allowing transfers between two end users. I think the start date is flexible enough but I don't think the 3 year life should be kept. I think the wording should allow it to run until superceded by new ARIN policy. Things like this tend to develop a life of their own and it would be silly to have an arbitrary end date if it continues to be useful. The lightweightness (?) of the proposal will probably make it the most likely to succeed of all the proposals thus far and we should not have an arbitrary end date for a successful policy. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Mon Dec 29 12:11:49 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:11:49 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy forIPv4 Addresses - Last Call References: <200812291549.mBTFnugV027314@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: Yes, I see your point about the 3 year duration. I confess that this 'feature' was included to assuage concern by some that an expanded transfer policy would forestall the coming of IPv6 by providing 'pressure relief'. In this way, it sent a signal that this was NOT a policy designed to preserve IPv4, but rather provide emergency relief. Of course the policy could be extended or replaced at any time by the community. Bill Darte ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Cliff Bedore Sent: Mon 12/29/2008 9:49 AM To: arin ppml Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy forIPv4 Addresses - Last Call After reviewing all the other proposals regarding new methods of address transfer, I think this offers the best and simplest method of allowing transfers between two end users. I think the start date is flexible enough but I don't think the 3 year life should be kept. I think the wording should allow it to run until superceded by new ARIN policy. Things like this tend to develop a life of their own and it would be silly to have an arbitrary end date if it continues to be useful. The lightweightness (?) of the proposal will probably make it the most likely to succeed of all the proposals thus far and we should not have an arbitrary end date for a successful policy. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Mon Dec 29 12:23:18 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:23:18 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy forIPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <200812291549.mBTFnugV027314@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: You may find APNIC proposal 67 (I think) just submitted, interesting. randy From kkargel at polartel.com Mon Dec 29 12:25:34 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:25:34 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer PolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <200812291549.mBTFnugV027314@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC86@mail> I just want to put my two cents worth in yet again and say that I do not see the need for any Emergency Transfer Proposal. We already have ARIN who already transfer IP's to and from users. ARIN does a pretty darn good job. The only reason for having the ETP is to create an artificial IP market for profit taking. Regardless of whether the policy states that its intention is not to create such a market that will be the effect. I will oppose any such policy. Kevin Kargel _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 11:12 AM To: Cliff Bedore; arin ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer PolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call Yes, I see your point about the 3 year duration. I confess that this 'feature' was included to assuage concern by some that an expanded transfer policy would forestall the coming of IPv6 by providing 'pressure relief'. In this way, it sent a signal that this was NOT a policy designed to preserve IPv4, but rather provide emergency relief. Of course the policy could be extended or replaced at any time by the community. Bill Darte ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Cliff Bedore Sent: Mon 12/29/2008 9:49 AM To: arin ppml Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy forIPv4 Addresses - Last Call After reviewing all the other proposals regarding new methods of address transfer, I think this offers the best and simplest method of allowing transfers between two end users. I think the start date is flexible enough but I don't think the 3 year life should be kept. I think the wording should allow it to run until superceded by new ARIN policy. Things like this tend to develop a life of their own and it would be silly to have an arbitrary end date if it continues to be useful. The lightweightness (?) of the proposal will probably make it the most likely to succeed of all the proposals thus far and we should not have an arbitrary end date for a successful policy. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Dec 29 16:15:50 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:15:50 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: whois POC e-mail cleanup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Michael, I'm sorry for the ALMOST SIX MONTH response to your comment here on sending this "process" to the ARIN suggestion box - but my delay was necessitated by ARIN's molassas-slow bureaucracy. As you suggested here, I did, in fact, send this "process" to the ARIN suggestion box on 8-27-2008 ARIN's final response was issued today 12-29-2008 it states the following: "ARIN wanted to follow up on your suggestions noted below and assigned numbers 2008.17 and 2008.18. Your suggestion was that ARIN "add a last contacted date to the WHOIS database, and begin a process of contacting all orgs that have not been contacted in over a year". To that end, WE WILL BEGIN NEXT MONTH CONTACTING the approximately 35,000 organizations registered in WHOIS that have legacy number resources or ARIN issued number resources. As previously mentioned, ARIN will contact all registered Points of Contact for these organizations by sending an e-mail, annually, requesting them to update their registration information with ARIN." However, this is as far as ARIN will go with the Suggestion Box. ARIN will not do the following without a Policy Proposal: 1) Set any kind of deadline to the orgs that have bogus e-mail addresses to correct their e-mail addresses 2) Make any modifications in the WHOIS database for orgs that DO NOT respond, indicating that they have not responded or that they have a bogus e-mail address 3) Supply any kind of report to the community listing the percentage of POCs that have bogus contact information, or percentage of POCs that ARIN hasn't gotten around to contacting yet. 4) Supply any indication that they have attempted contact to a specific POC. In short, if a POC gets an e-mail request from ARIN asking for an update, and the POC's contact info is all correct in WHOIS, and the POC merely does not bother responding that the info is correct - then there is no penalty. Thus, there will continue to be no way for the community to look at a POC entry in WHOIS that has an old Updated: field and determine if the reason the Updated: field has an old date in it is due to the contact info being invalid, or due to the POC merely being lazy and not confirming the e-mails. So, from the looks of it, the suggestion box suggestion isn't useful. About all it did (besides taking 1/3 of a year) was to get ARIN started on the process of at least paying attention to WHOIS. There is still no mechanism to hold the POC's feet to the fire to get the database cleaned up. That is going to take a policy proposal. Ted > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 7:09 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: whois POC e-mail cleanup > > > This seems to be more process than policy. > > Have you considered sending it to the ARIN suggestion box? > > Also, there should be a mechanism to get a complete list of > address blocks with REFUSED RESPONSE status, even if it is > via ftp and you need to apply for permission to download the list. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Dillon > MPLS Bid Support/IP Addressing Strategy - BT Design > 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK > Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 > Internet: michael.dillon at bt.com > Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com > > Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services > > Sent: 21 August 2008 14:56 > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: whois POC e-mail cleanup > > > > 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: whois POC e-mail cleanup > > > > Author: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > > Proposal Version: 1 > > > > Submission Date: 8/20/2008 > > > > Proposal type: new > > > > Policy term: permanent > > > > Policy statement: > > > > Under Directory Services in the NRPM > > > > add section 3.6 titled "Reliability of Whois information" > > > > 3.6.1 ARIN will use an automated system that once a year > > will attempt to e-mail all separate e-mail addresses in the > > directory. (including abuse addresses) At it's discretion, > > ARIN will attempt to contact by regular mail or phone all POC > > entries that have invalid e-mail addresses (i.e. e-mail > > addresses that bounce mail sent to them) and give them a 3 > > month deadline for correction of their mail address. The > > automated system will not use a mail cluster or other mail > > transmission software that is incompatible with commonly > > available anti-spam technologies, such as greylisting. > > > > LIR POC's that fail to respond to paper mails or telephone > > calls will have Their e-mail address replaced with "REFUSED > > RESPONSE" in the directory. Non-legacy POCs will be requested > > to remedy the situation by their next billing date. At it's > > discretion and considering the size or number of complaints > > about an organization, ARIN may require the organization to > > supply accurate contact information in it's directory entry > > as a condition of accepting payment from the organization for > > registration renewals. > > > > POCs belonging to blocks reassigned by LIRs who fail to > > respond will be replaced by the POC of the reassigning LIR. > > > > The automated e-mails will have a text string titled "ARIN > > Automated POC e-mail test" identifying them so that automated > > trouble ticket systems can be programmed to automatically > > delete the mail messages instead of replying to them. > > > > Other standard mailing list practices will be followed by > > ARIN to insure the absence of e-mail loops, etc. > > > > 3.6.1 ARIN will supply a report to the community, updated > > monthly, that lists the percentage of "REFUSED RESPONSE" > > POCs, the percentage of POCs that accept e-mails, and the > > percentage of POC addresses that have not responded but have > > not yet been notified by paper mail or telephone. > > > > Rationale: > > > > As the entire Internet community gets closer to the date that > > IPv4 will be exhausted, more attention is being focused on > > the possibility that there is significant amounts of > > allocated IPv4 that is abandoned. There are also concerns > > that as the amount of usable IPv4 space gets more and more > > crowded, that Internet criminals are turning to abandoned > > IPv4 space that is still listed as allocated in the whois > > directories to use to make attacks on hosts on the Internet. > > Because of these reasons, it is becoming more important that > > users of ARIN's whois data have a reasonable expectation that > > it is accurate. > > > > The current NRPM has a mechanism for adding, modifying, and > > deleting POCs. However it also carries an assumption that > > POCs belonging to defunct companies will be removed when the > > bills for allocated IP addressing cease being paid, and the > > address resources are then returned to the ARIN pool as a > > result. The problem is that this assumption does not hold > > true for so-called "Legacy" IP address holders since they do > > not pay a yearly fee. Furthermore, billing for the IP > > addressing allocations is done through paper mail, thus it is > > possible for a POC to have a valid street address, but an > > invalid E-mail address, and not be caught because they are > > current on their account. This is becoming a serious issue > > because contacting a POC via a street address is too slow for > > victims of an attack from a hijacked IP block to be able to > > complain to the block owners and the block owners to be able > > to catch the perpetrators. > > > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact 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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From bill at herrin.us Mon Dec 29 19:18:21 2008 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:18:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Member Services wrote: > Policy statement: > > 8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses > > For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, ARIN-region number > resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN or another > organization, by the authorized holder of the resource. > > Number resources may only be received under RSA, with demonstrated need, > in the exact amount which they are able to justify under ARIN > resource-allocation policies. The language here seems labyrinthine, almost government-speak. Even knowing that this was a transfer proposal, I had to parse it phrase by phrase before I caught on that "or another organization" means you can gift the released addresses to a specific registrant. Shooting from the hip, I think I might have chosen language along the lines of: For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, resource holders served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they release to ARIN. ARIN will honor said designation provided the recipient meets all other policy criteria for registering those resources. Which I hope actually means the same thing as the original policy statement. If it doesn't then the policy text still confuses me. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From mysidia at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 20:57:36 2008 From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:57:36 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab0812291755p58d4943el7f7d93784aabe276@mail.gmail.com> References: <200812291549.mBTFnugV027314@cjbsys.bdb.com> <6eb799ab0812291755p58d4943el7f7d93784aabe276@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6eb799ab0812291757n6e546bcdh3d8972606a2ff0ff@mail.gmail.com> [...] > The lightweightness (?) of the proposal will probably make it the most likely > to succeed of all the proposals thus far and we should not have an arbitrary > end date for a successful policy. It should be trivial to remove an end date on a successful policy after a policy has shown to be a good one. Temporarily applying a policy for trial purposes seems to make sense, and is safer than adopting a major change of policy outright in some cases. Without an end date, a policy that turns out to have major problems in practice that has not yet been superceded may remain in place for a long time, with no good successor, and not enough consensus to throw it away. On the other hand, if the policy proves to just be a bad thing, a sunset timer all but forces the bad policy to be re-examined and adjusted. The downside of a timer is the time ARIN staff and members will consume 3 years from now. If too many policies have such a timer, and turn out to be successful, a lot of time would be wasted making proposals and revising policies to remove 3-year-timer clauses. But I think allowing user-to-user transfers is a huge enough that the timer is actually warranted in this case. -- -J From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Mon Dec 29 22:53:38 2008 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:53:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: whois POC e-mail cleanup In-Reply-To: (Ted Mittelstaedt's message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:15:50 -0800") References: Message-ID: <86k59iuxml.fsf@seastrom.com> "Ted Mittelstaedt" writes: > So, from the looks of it, the suggestion box suggestion isn't useful. About > all it did (besides taking 1/3 of a year) was to get ARIN started on the > process of at least paying attention to WHOIS. There is still no mechanism > to hold the POC's feet to the fire to get the database cleaned up. That > is going to take a policy proposal. It seems that the suggestion box is very useful (albeit perhaps slower than you would have like liked) in that your sugestion has prompted staff to move to the very limits of what they believe is possible to implement without explicit community approval in the form of a formal policy that has gone through the IRPEP. Clearly you have the passion to be an enthusiastic champion for a proposal to tighten up WHOIS, and I encourage you to move forward with same. -r From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 30 11:57:24 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:57:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net> <3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Herrin's language seems much clearer to me, as well. --MM > -----Original Message----- > > Shooting from the hip, I think I might have chosen language along the > lines of: > > For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, resource holders > served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they > release to ARIN. ARIN will honor said designation provided the > recipient meets all other policy criteria for registering those > resources. > > > Which I hope actually means the same thing as the original policy > statement. If it doesn't then the policy text still confuses me. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Dec 30 12:20:13 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:20:13 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any peer-peer transfer policy will be to create an artificial commodity market for IP addresses, remove recyclable IP addresses from the fair-chase realm and will force everyone to pay every penny the market will bear for an IP address. Just because we could write the best policy in the world about humane ways to kill puppies doesn't mean it is a good idea to condone killing puppies, and I don't care if there are people out there doing it already anyway. I oppose peer-to-peer transfer policies in their entirety no matter what the wording. I know this will bring vicious flames from those wanting to make profits trading IP addresses, but I honestly do not believe it would be good for the community. ARIN manages registration of netblocks already, and does a fine job of it. I believe we can rely on them to steward that trust with the same responsibility and good will in the future. I believe bypassing ARIN in this manner would be a grave mistake. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:57 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency > TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call > > > Herrin's language seems much clearer to me, as well. > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Shooting from the hip, I think I might have chosen language along the > > lines of: > > > > For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, resource holders > > served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they > > release to ARIN. ARIN will honor said designation provided the > > recipient meets all other policy criteria for registering those > > resources. > > > > > > Which I hope actually means the same thing as the original policy > > statement. If it doesn't then the policy text still confuses me. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Dec 30 12:38:56 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:38:56 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> Message-ID: <495A5CB0.503@sprunk.org> Kevin Kargel wrote: > This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any peer-peer transfer policy will be to create an artificial commodity market for IP addresses, remove recyclable IP addresses from the fair-chase realm and will force everyone to pay every penny the market will bear for an IP address. > So you'd prefer a world where IP(v4) addresses can't be had at _any_ price because there is no incentive for those with excess space to return any? > Just because we could write the best policy in the world about humane ways to kill puppies doesn't mean it is a good idea to condone killing puppies, and I don't care if there are people out there doing it already anyway. > Ooh, why not throw in an analogy about child molesters, too? That'll be _sure_ to get the knee-jerk faction on your side. > I oppose peer-to-peer transfer policies in their entirety no matter what the wording. > That's fair. > I know this will bring vicious flames from those wanting to make profits trading IP addresses, Many, many folks have an entirely different motive: freeing up address space that _other_ people currently hold. I have no profit interest in address markets; I just want to make sure that, if someone wants addresses badly enough, they are able to get them. I do not feel that, without incentive, the people who have them currently will be willing to part with them -- and what legal authority ARIN has to forcibly take them (to give to others) is, for now at least, unclear. > but I honestly do not believe it would be good for the community. > Do you really think complete IPv4 exhaustion is better for the community? Or a widespread black market of address sales that _aren't_ registered with ARIN? Those are the only two other options and, as much as I dislike the idea of an address market, I believe it to be less bad than the alternatives. > ARIN manages registration of netblocks already, and does a fine job of it. I believe we can rely on them to steward that trust with the same responsibility and good will in the future. I believe bypassing ARIN in this manner would be a grave mistake. > This policy does _not_ allow folks to bypass ARIN, any more than the real estate market allows a homeowner to bypass the county recorder's office. The days of free land for the taking are nearly over, so the only choices we will soon have are move to a different continent (i.e. IPv6) en masse, or allow people to sell their land to others. The registrar function changes from giving away "free" government land for a registration fee to recording sales of private transactions -- again for a registration fee. S -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3241 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From kbanks at giantcomm.net Tue Dec 30 12:44:54 2008 From: kbanks at giantcomm.net (Kyle Banks) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:44:54 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com><7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> Message-ID: <00b401c96aa6$533bc070$3501a8c0@macc173.net> Dang, Did you just compare IP Policy with killing puppies.. Kyle V. Banks Service/Technical Representative Giant Communications 785-362-9331 EXT. 108 kbanks at giantcomm.net -- Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed--Benjamin Franklin -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:20 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyforIPv4 Addresses - Last Call This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any peer-peer transfer policy will be to create an artificial commodity market for IP addresses, remove recyclable IP addresses from the fair-chase realm and will force everyone to pay every penny the market will bear for an IP address. Just because we could write the best policy in the world about humane ways to kill puppies doesn't mean it is a good idea to condone killing puppies, and I don't care if there are people out there doing it already anyway. I oppose peer-to-peer transfer policies in their entirety no matter what the wording. I know this will bring vicious flames from those wanting to make profits trading IP addresses, but I honestly do not believe it would be good for the community. ARIN manages registration of netblocks already, and does a fine job of it. I believe we can rely on them to steward that trust with the same responsibility and good will in the future. I believe bypassing ARIN in this manner would be a grave mistake. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:57 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency > TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call > > > Herrin's language seems much clearer to me, as well. > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Shooting from the hip, I think I might have chosen language along the > > lines of: > > > > For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, resource holders > > served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they > > release to ARIN. ARIN will honor said designation provided the > > recipient meets all other policy criteria for registering those > > resources. > > > > > > Which I hope actually means the same thing as the original policy > > statement. If it doesn't then the policy text still confuses me. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 14:06:53 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:06:53 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> Message-ID: <495A714D.50008@psg.com> > This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any peer-peer > transfer policy will be to create an artificial commodity market for IP > addresses, lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually reflect reality, etc. the market exists, whether we like it or not, get over it. randy From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Dec 30 14:16:18 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:16:18 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A714D.50008@psg.com> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail> > > > This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any peer-peer > > transfer policy will be to create an artificial commodity market for IP > > addresses, > > lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we > can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually > reflect reality, etc. the market exists, whether we like it or not, get > over it. > > randy [Kevin says:] Ah, so you are saying that it bothers you that other people are doing bad things without you and you want to do them to? You are right, that is amusing.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 14:20:33 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:20:33 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail> Message-ID: <495A7481.5090000@psg.com> On 08.12.31 04:16, Kevin Kargel wrote: >>> This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any peer-peer >>> transfer policy will be to create an artificial commodity market for IP >>> addresses, >> lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we >> can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually >> reflect reality, etc. the market exists, whether we like it or not, get >> over it. > [Kevin says:] Ah, so you are saying that it bothers you that other people > are doing bad things without you and you want to do them to? You are right, > that is amusing.. somehow i missed where i said that. i have a feeling others might miss it too. do thanks for explaining what i did not say. saves us all a lot of guessing and contributes greatly to the conversation. will you stoop to ad homina next? what i am saying is that policies which deny reality do not improve the reality, they just make it more complex and make the policy makers less relevant, neither of which are good for the internet. canute got the clue, we can too. randy From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Dec 30 14:39:51 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:39:51 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A7481.5090000@psg.com> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail> <495A7481.5090000@psg.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA5@mail> > somehow i missed where i said that. i have a feeling others might miss > it too. do thanks for explaining what i did not say. saves us all a > lot of guessing and contributes greatly to the conversation. will you > stoop to ad homina next? > > what i am saying is that policies which deny reality do not improve the > reality, they just make it more complex and make the policy makers less > relevant, neither of which are good for the internet. > > canute got the clue, we can too. > > randy [Kevin says:] If your goal is to get people to stop hoarding IP addresses as opposed to profit taking then a more functional model would be something that reduces the value of hoarding, not the market model which actually enhances the value of hoarding. Find a solution that reduces the operability of black market netblocks and you will not only improve the rate of recycle but you will hamper the black market. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 14:59:42 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:59:42 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA5@mail> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail> <495A7481.5090000@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA5@mail> Message-ID: <495A7DAE.9010007@psg.com> > Find a solution that reduces the operability of black market netblocks and > you will not only improve the rate of recycle but you will hamper the black > market. i thought arin does not attempt to control routing. Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th century chronicler, tells how Canute set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes; but the tide failed to stop. According to Henry, Canute leapt backwards and said 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws'. He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again. -- from From kbanks at giantcomm.net Tue Dec 30 15:31:27 2008 From: kbanks at giantcomm.net (Kyle Banks) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:31:27 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A7DAE.9010007@psg.com> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail><495A714D.50008@psg.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail><495A7481.5090000@psg.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA5@mail> <495A7DAE.9010007@psg.com> Message-ID: <00cb01c96abd$98099da0$3501a8c0@macc173.net> You just made my day lol... You cannot control the uncontrollable... Kyle V. Banks Service/Technical Representative Giant Communications 785-362-9331 EXT. 108 kbanks at giantcomm.net -- Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed--Benjamin Franklin -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:00 PM To: Kevin Kargel Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call > Find a solution that reduces the operability of black market netblocks and > you will not only improve the rate of recycle but you will hamper the black > market. i thought arin does not attempt to control routing. Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th century chronicler, tells how Canute set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes; but the tide failed to stop. According to Henry, Canute leapt backwards and said 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws'. He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again. -- from _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 15:35:49 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:35:49 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <00cb01c96abd$98099da0$3501a8c0@macc173.net> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail><495A714D.50008@psg.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA2@mail><495A7481.5090000@psg.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACA5@mail> <495A7DAE.9010007@psg.com> <00cb01c96abd$98099da0$3501a8c0@macc173.net> Message-ID: <495A8625.4070801@psg.com> > You cannot control the uncontrollable... it is hard enough to learn in what ways to control what is controllable. but that's why we get the big bucks ;) God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. serenity prayer, origin contested From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Dec 30 16:36:50 2008 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:36:50 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A714D.50008@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> Message-ID: <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:06:53AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we > can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually > reflect reality, etc. the market exists, whether we like it or not, get > over it. Is this true in general, or is there something that makes the RIR data unique? After all, the same argument could be applied to many other things: There is a black market in ..... Rolexs things that say Disney on them drugs weapons endangered species prostitution murder for hire babies ...therefor we should turn it into a white market where it can be tracked and see the transfers. The market exists, get over it. If your love for markets is absolute, I admire your conviction. If its not, and you see a need for sensible rules at least for some markets then I suggest articulating why you think the RIR market should be a wide open free for all might be a more useful use of electrons than waving your hand as if it was an obvious absolute. The existence of a black market does not mean there should be "free trade" or no rules, it mearly means the item at hand has value. -- 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 kkargel at polartel.com Tue Dec 30 16:48:54 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:48:54 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail><495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACAD@mail> > > In a message written on Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:06:53AM +0900, Randy Bush > wrote: > > lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we > > can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually > > reflect reality, etc. the market exists, whether we like it or not, get > > over it. > > Is this true in general, or is there something that makes the RIR > data unique? After all, the same argument could be applied to many > other things: > > There is a black market in ..... > > Rolexs > things that say Disney on them > drugs > weapons > endangered species > prostitution > murder for hire > babies > > ...therefor we should turn it into a white market where it can > be tracked and see the transfers. The market exists, get over > it. > > If your love for markets is absolute, I admire your conviction. If > its not, and you see a need for sensible rules at least for some > markets then I suggest articulating why you think the RIR market > should be a wide open free for all might be a more useful use of > electrons than waving your hand as if it was an obvious absolute. > > The existence of a black market does not mean there should be "free > trade" or no rules, it mearly means the item at hand has value. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ [Kevin says:] Thank you Leo, that was a much more eloquent stating of what I was trying to say. My base feelings are that if what we are after is profit taking then perhaps an IP market is the way to go. This would not be my primary goal, but then I am not and likely will never be declared king of the world. If the position opens up though I am available. If what we are after really is managing and controlling the "Black Market" IP infrastructure then the way to do it is to diminish the value of the commodity, which in this case is quasi/non registered IP blocks. Without value or operability of the commodity the black market would collapse. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 17:03:08 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:03:08 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> > There is a black market in ..... > > Rolexs > things that say Disney on them > drugs > weapons > endangered species > prostitution > murder for hire > babies you left out nuclear material, hitler, black helicopters, and the plague. guilt by association is not a very convincing argument unless you like your news from murdoch. the market in ip space is black because we self-righteously protect our control of the market from entry with amateur social excuses and amateur policy making. randy From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Dec 30 17:20:48 2008 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:20:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> Message-ID: <20081230222048.GA16505@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:03:08AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > the market in ip space is black because we self-righteously protect our > control of the market from entry with amateur social excuses and amateur > policy making. You would agree with the following two statements then? - ARIN would function better as a title registrar. - The free market can allocate resources best. The thing I find odd about people who believe both of these things is they seem to have been for "needs based" allocation in the past. If indeed the market would do a better job of allocating space then would it not have been more efficient to not have needs based allocations, but rather quickly distribute all of the space via a lottery, auction or other system? That would have allowed us to have a much smaller ARIN in the past, and also prevented who knows how many meetings discussing allocation policy. The market could have figured out all of those things "automatically", at much lower cost and effort, right? More to the point, if we believe the free market is so good at it, why do we persist in needs based allocation, 1 year timeframes, and the like. Should we not switch to a title registrar situation now, either giving away (via lottery?) or selling (via auction?) all remaining space; since that would be more efficient? Did we get it wrong from the start? Should ARIN never have existed in a role other than title registrar? -- 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 matthew at matthew.at Tue Dec 30 18:04:42 2008 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:04:42 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACAD@mail> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail><495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACAD@mail> Message-ID: <495AA90A.8070309@matthew.at> Kevin Kargel wrote: > > ... > > My base feelings are that if what we are after is profit taking then perhaps > an IP market is the way to go. This would not be my primary goal, but then > I am not and likely will never be declared king of the world. If the > position opens up though I am available. > > If what we are after really is managing and controlling the "Black Market" > IP infrastructure then the way to do it is to diminish the value of the > commodity, which in this case is quasi/non registered IP blocks. Without > value or operability of the commodity the black market would collapse. > > I think there's a third possibility, that seems to be included in neither of the above, which is simply convincing people who are using IPv4 addresses to use fewer and return the rest. Some of that will be because there's a profit to be had (in the form of decisions like "is it more valuable to keep running this ISP with public address space, or shut it down / change it to a NATed-address ISP in trade for an immediate cash payout"), but I suspect even more of the money that changes hands will cover the people and equipment required to release the addresses to other users. It is very hard to convince a CIO to allocate equipment budget and staff time towards renumbering into private address space, setting up NAT, renumbering nameservers, etc. without presenting a proposal that includes "and when we do that, we get back 110% of the above cost in the form of cash" at the end. For enough return, the CIO might even agree to let the staff spend the time and money turning on IPv6! Matthew Kaufman From stephen at sprunk.org Tue Dec 30 18:36:21 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:36:21 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495AA90A.8070309@matthew.at> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail><495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACAD@mail> <495AA90A.8070309@matthew.at> Message-ID: <495AB075.9030704@sprunk.org> Matthew Kaufman wrote: > Kevin Kargel wrote: > >> My base feelings are that if what we are after is profit taking then perhaps an IP market is the way to go. This would not be my primary goal, but then I am not and likely will never be declared king of the world. If the position opens up though I am available. >> >> If what we are after really is managing and controlling the "Black Market" IP infrastructure then the way to do it is to diminish the value of the commodity, which in this case is quasi/non registered IP blocks. Without value or operability of the commodity the black market would collapse. >> > I think there's a third possibility, that seems to be included in neither of the above, which is simply convincing people who are using IPv4 addresses to use fewer and return the rest. Some of that will be because there's a profit to be had (in the form of decisions like "is it more valuable to keep running this ISP with public address space, or shut it down / change it to a NATed-address ISP in trade for an immediate cash payout"), but I suspect even more of the money that changes hands will cover the people and equipment required to release the addresses to other users. > > It is very hard to convince a CIO to allocate equipment budget and staff time towards renumbering into private address space, setting up NAT, renumbering nameservers, etc. without presenting a proposal that includes "and when we do that, we get back 110% of the above cost in the form of cash" at the end. For enough return, the CIO might even agree to let the staff spend the time and money turning on IPv6! > That is an appealing scenario, but it leads to one very simple question: who is going to give them that money? One group of folks says people who want the addresses you're using would pay you for them; that's called a market. If you're against that idea, the only other logical source of money I can think of is ARIN. Where will ARIN get that money, though? From the new registrant(s) of that space, of course. And that basically devolves into a market as well, with some new downsides added. S -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3241 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From tvest at pch.net Tue Dec 30 18:43:31 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:43:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> There is a black market in ..... >> >> Rolexs >> things that say Disney on them >> drugs >> weapons >> endangered species >> prostitution >> murder for hire >> babies > > you left out nuclear material, hitler, black helicopters, and the > plague. guilt by association is not a very convincing argument unless > you like your news from murdoch. > > the market in ip space is black because we self-righteously protect > our > control of the market from entry with amateur social excuses and > amateur > policy making. What distinguishes an amateur from a professional? Expertise, experience, judgment -- or is simply getting paid to do something enough? Or do you believe that "policy" itself is the problem, and that resource transfers will somehow eliminate both the need *and* the the very possibility of anyone else committing the sin of "address resource policy making" henceforth? Actually, I'm not sure that I've ever heard you make any kind of positive assertion (i.e., not sarcastic comments about any/all alternatives) about what you expect resource transfers to accomplish. What's the end game going to be, Randy? How are transfers going to affect registration data quality, the risk of (intentional and/or unintentional) address collisions, the continuing viability of cross- jurisdictional IP networks/services, the future likelihood of IPv6 adoption -- or any other TCP/IP-related development? When the amateurs leave the field, are the professionals going to take over, or will "policy" simply wither away altogether, as earlier utopians have repeatedly predicted? It seems to me that the answers/expectations matter a lot, even if the future remains somewhat uncertain. TV From matthew at matthew.at Tue Dec 30 18:44:19 2008 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:44:19 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495AB075.9030704@sprunk.org> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail><495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACAD@mail> <495AA90A.8070309@matthew.at> <495AB075.9030704@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <495AB253.7040306@matthew.at> Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > That is an appealing scenario, but it leads to one very simple > question: who is going to give them that money? > > One group of folks says people who want the addresses you're using > would pay you for them; that's called a market. > I'm in that group. If IPv4 addresses really do become unavailable via other means, there will be people who need them bad enough to pay enough money for them that holders of existing space can afford to release it and/or be persuaded to do so. > If you're against that idea, the only other logical source of money I > can think of is ARIN. Where will ARIN get that money, though? From > the new registrant(s) of that space, of course. And that basically > devolves into a market as well, with some new downsides added. > Would I trust ARIN as the escrow agent when buying a house? Not on my life. I think that answers how I feel about that option. Matthew Kaufman From sweeny at indiana.edu Tue Dec 30 21:38:56 2008 From: sweeny at indiana.edu (Brent Sweeny) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:38:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> the trick is not to wave our arms vainly against the wind, insisting on a view of the internet in our region that's just not realistic--either too wild-west *or* too regulated. I *believe* that what Randy is saying is that there's already a flourishing black market and that it's likely vain to think we can stop it by fiat *or* by trying to jigger the financials--it's assumed to be too well-entrenched and too adaptable. How large that market is may be both crucial and impossible to know, but it's foolish to pretend it isn't there, or is insignificant enough that rules alone might make it go away. And if it's large enough, our making rules that we claim would stop that market, or lessen its attractiveness, may in fact backfire and instead make the rule-making or -enforcing organization functionally irrelevant, even for those of us who want to be law-abiding--not because we disagree with the intent (and even expression) of the rules, but because even we have to finally agree that they don't sufficiently enhance the Internet's value. I think that's also the attraction to ARIN staying in the mix, trying to tame the wildness while remaining reasonable. So, to the extent possible it is attractive to structure this inevitable transition in a way that enhances transparent and reliable documentation of who has what--I *think* that's a goal everyone agrees is desirable. How much more ARIN should (and can) do is at the core of this debate, I think. At least that's the way I read the goals--apologies for how far off I am. Possibly --as so often-- the realistic position is somewhere in the middle: an acknowledgment that some 'free or unregulated exchange' (a euphemism for what others would call black market) is here and likely to stay (at least as long as it's financially or functionally [less onorous obstacles] attractive); I don't think that claiming not to recognize/accept them is going to have much effect as long as a critical mass of folks *do* route them, and I think that if our eyes are open enough we should be able to see the critical mass is there and I think is unlikely to change much. So I think I'm in favor of ARIN keeping a facilitating role, not trying to force a regulating one. I'd also suggest that the energy going into trying to reclaim a very small amount of ipv4 space has a pretty low ROI. We'd all be much better served, I believe, if we put the same amount of energy into trying to incent *everyone* into wider and faster and more pervasive v6 adoption. (Could ARIN refuse to give anyone any more ipv4 space if they're not already using --not just holding-- a significant amount of ipv6 space? Could any transit provider receive no more ipv4 space until and unless they support native ipv6 peering everywhere they peer? --and by extension, could the same be true of every transit consumer applying for more v4 space, that they are v6-peering with every upstream that offers it [and wishfully: were also carrying it ubiquitously downstream, though that's much harder to verify.] If that were true, the arguments for "needing" more v4 space would quickly dwindle--not into nothing, but into the really few edges where v6 cannot work. And it seemed to me that was more along the lines of what I saw ARIN's mission being. See, there I go waving my arms in the wind too...) Brent Sweeny, Indiana University (no ivory towers, but gothic ones;) > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:36:50 -0500 > From: Leo Bicknell > Subject: Re: Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > In a message written on Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:06:53AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >> lol. you mean turn the existing natural black market into one where we >> can actually track and see the transfers, have the rirs data actually >> reflect reality, etc. the market exists, whether we like it or not, get >> over it. > > Is this true in general, or is there something that makes the RIR > data unique? After all, the same argument could be applied to many > other things: > > There is a black market in ..... [lots of things] > ...therefor we should turn it into a white market where it can > be tracked and see the transfers. The market exists, get over > it. > > If your love for markets is absolute, I admire your conviction. If > its not, and you see a need for sensible rules at least for some > markets then I suggest articulating why you think the RIR market > should be a wide open free for all might be a more useful use of > electrons than waving your hand as if it was an obvious absolute. > > The existence of a black market does not mean there should be "free > trade" or no rules, it mearly means the item at hand has value. > From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Tue Dec 30 22:37:16 2008 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:37:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy Message-ID: <200812310337.mBV3bGIs008468@cjbsys.bdb.com> It appears that something has been lost in the discussion. From the 2008-6 proposal *8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses *For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, ARIN-region number *resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN or another *organization, by the authorized holder of the resource. *Number resources may only be received under RSA, with demonstrated need, *in the exact amount which they are able to justify under ARIN *resource-allocation policies. ----------------- That is NOT a free market. You cannot receive the numbers under this unless you show justification. Those who want the numbers must justify their need AND find someone willing to provide them. Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 22:54:18 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:54:18 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy In-Reply-To: <200812310337.mBV3bGIs008468@cjbsys.bdb.com> References: <200812310337.mBV3bGIs008468@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <495AECEA.1040401@psg.com> > That is NOT a free market. You cannot receive the numbers under this unless > you show justification. Those who want the numbers must justify their need > AND find someone willing to provide them. now that i am no longer on a handheld, i can point more definitively to the proposal we just made in apnic, which has similar language. the cover page is at , and the protein is in section 4. excuse the waste of pixels, but it is small enough that i will append it. it is a bit complex, as it tries to address concerns raised in the apnic region such as deaggregation, inter-region transfer, etc. it also uses british spelling :-) note that, in the apnic process, like ripe's, we don't quibble over wording. we know we're operators not lawyers. so we just try to get the intent clear. randy --- 4.1 An organisation may transfer: a. An intact allocated block - Allocated blocks smaller than the current minimum APNIC allocation size may also be transferred as an intact block. For example, a legacy /24. b. One or more subnets of an allocated block, provided no subnet is smaller than the current minimum APNIC allocation size. 4.2 The recipient must be able to justify use of the transferred resources according to current APNIC allocation and assignment criteria. 4.3 Transfers between regions are permitted providing that: a. The organisation originating transfer of an address block must follow the policies of the originating RIR. b. The organisation receiving an address block must follow the policies of the receiving RIR. 4.4 The originating address holder must be the holder of record, whether a current member, historical, or otherwise. 4.5 If either the origin or recipient of the address block is in the APNIC region, they should be the holder of a current account in APNIC or the appropriate NIR. 4.6 If the originating address holder is in the APNIC region, they are prohibited from receiving more IPv4 address space, whether via transfer or directly from APNIC, for two years. -30- From randy at psg.com Tue Dec 30 23:10:23 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:10:23 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <20081230222048.GA16505@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> <20081230222048.GA16505@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <495AF0AF.3090508@psg.com> > You would agree with the following two statements then? > - ARIN would function better as a title registrar. > - The free market can allocate resources best. you folk seem to love putting words in others' mouths. amazing. life is change. get used to it. and it is also not all black and white, good girls and bad guys, ... it's a complicated mess with a lot of wetware doing complicated things. that's why we get the big bucks :-). the v4 free pool is fast running out. therefore, arin's business as allocating 'new' space from that free pool in a strange fashion (read inhibiting new entrants) is over. we don't have to like it, we just have to live with it. arin can continue that strange life in ipv6. though it may find that allocating /32s means repeat customers will be at a low rate and that the fact that arin is actually in the business of leasing integers will be more and more plainly apparent, for which there will be consequences. whether arin will fulfill the needed function of a title registrar is a choice. whether it will do 'better' at that than as a renter of integers is an amusing, but not very well defined, question. whether arin will do better at it than some other party, who will surely arise should arin fail at that function, is also a matter of conjecturbation. we have a good real-world example of how well a totally unmeasured and unregulated free market operates. let's hope we have jobs next year. but, like most things in life, this does not imply that the opposite is true. my guess is that neither a free market in ipv4 space nor an effort to 'reclaim' ipv4 space will have much long term effect except to provide really good opportunities to piss off and polarize our community and give the 'suits' good reason to intervene in arin's policy process. the ip4 space that will be traded, reclaimed, or hijacked is not likely large enough to make much difference. but if you really think this is an important avenue, i wanna watch you get back the many /8s (more than all of china has, and unused on the internet!) given to the us military in a late quiet side deal, and that is by far the biggest chunk. keep your eye on the doughnut, not upon the hole. randy From bill at herrin.us Wed Dec 31 00:09:25 2008 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:09:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A714D.50008@psg.com> <20081230213649.GA14175@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <495A9A9C.5070409@psg.com> Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0812302109y2b6ec680r6f1f05f59aa46732@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > you left out nuclear material, hitler, black helicopters, and the > plague. guilt by association is not a very convincing argument unless > you like your news from murdoch. How did a complaint that a particular bit of policy language was confusing devolve in less than 24 hours into a rant about black helicopters, plague and Fox news? It's last call. For better or for worse, the apparent meaning behind the proposal has passed consensus. The justification for returning the proposal for further work is that is that the proposed policy language is poorly constructed and inscrutable. Smart folks on the AC. Are they smart enough to recognize that the proposal passed consensus based on amorphous explanations of its meaning instead of on what it actually said? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From plzak at arin.net Wed Dec 31 04:26:26 2008 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:26:26 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush Sent: 30 December, 2008 23:13 To: Leo Bicknell Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call Randy, Can you provide dates regarding this "quiet side" deal and identify the particular /8s? Ray (Speaking entirely for myself) ********************** the many /8s (more than all of china has, and unused on the internet!) given to the us military in a late quiet side deal, ************************ _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From randy at psg.com Wed Dec 31 05:10:28 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:10:28 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495B4514.5040809@psg.com> > Can you provide dates regarding this "quiet side" deal and identify > the particular /8s? > Ray (Speaking entirely for myself) >> the many /8s (more than all of china has, and unused on the >> internet!) given to the us military in a late quiet side deal, perhaps it would be less disingenuous if you spoke as the person who negotiated it as ceo of arin. randy From plzak at arin.net Wed Dec 31 07:08:27 2008 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:08:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call Message-ID: I would rather hear the date or dates and the idenity of the specific /8s from you as you are the one making the statement. Ray -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush Sent: 31 December, 2008 05:10 To: Ray Plzak Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call > Can you provide dates regarding this "quiet side" deal and identify > the particular /8s? > Ray (Speaking entirely for myself) >> the many /8s (more than all of china has, and unused on the >> internet!) given to the us military in a late quiet side deal, perhaps it would be less disingenuous if you spoke as the person who negotiated it as ceo of arin. randy From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Wed Dec 31 08:05:04 2008 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:05:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495B4514.5040809@psg.com> (Randy Bush's message of "Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:10:28 +0900") References: <495B4514.5040809@psg.com> Message-ID: <86abacebr3.fsf@seastrom.com> Randy Bush writes: >> Can you provide dates regarding this "quiet side" deal and identify >> the particular /8s? > > Ray (Speaking entirely for myself) >>> the many /8s (more than all of china has, and unused on the >>> internet!) given to the us military in a late quiet side deal, > > perhaps it would be less disingenuous if you spoke as the person who > negotiated it as ceo of arin. If there is any basis to this accusation at all, surely you can identify the /8s involved... please confine your choices to positive integers 1<=n<=223, though the range of 224 to 255 should be good for lulz. -r From craig.finseth at state.mn.us Wed Dec 31 08:47:27 2008 From: craig.finseth at state.mn.us (Craig Finseth) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:47:27 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <495A5CB0.503@sprunk.org> (message from Stephen Sprunk on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:38:56 -0600) References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A5CB0.503@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <200812311347.mBVDlRGq015256@inana.itg.state.mn.us> Kevin Kargel wrote: > This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any > peer-peer transfer policy will be to create an artificial > commodity market for IP addresses, remove recyclable IP addresses > from the fair-chase realm and will force everyone to pay every > penny the market will bear for an IP address. > So you'd prefer a world where IP(v4) addresses can't be had at _any_ price because there is no incentive for those with excess space to return any? IMHO, there will be very few people willing to sell addresses to me at a rate that I can afford, given that there are much larger players who are willing to pay more to keep me out of the market. > I know this will bring vicious flames from those wanting to make > profits trading IP addresses, Many, many folks have an entirely different motive: freeing up address space that _other_ people currently hold. I have no profit interest in address markets; I just want to make sure that, if someone wants addresses badly enough, they are able to get them. I do not feel that, without incentive, the people who have them currently will be willing to part with them -- and what legal authority ARIN has to forcibly take them (to give to others) is, for now at least, unclear. Personally, I think that a transfer policy will achieve the goal of enabling hoarders: in other words, they will go to the people who can pay more for them than to the people who will use them. And the people who can pay more for them are the larger players, and this will give them a _dis_incentive to go to IPv6. > but I honestly do not believe it would be good for the community. > Do you really think complete IPv4 exhaustion is better for the community? Or a widespread black market of address sales that _aren't_ registered with ARIN? Those are the only two other options and, as much as I dislike the idea of an address market, I believe it to be less bad than the alternatives. The black market exists on a small scale, but I don't see the larger players participating. For example, I don't see major US ISPs buying addresses on the black market. Craig From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Dec 31 09:26:21 2008 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:26:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> Message-ID: <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:38:56PM -0500, Brent Sweeny wrote: > the trick is not to wave our arms vainly against the wind, insisting on a > view of the internet in our region that's just not realistic--either too > wild-west *or* too regulated. I *believe* that what Randy is saying is that > there's already a flourishing black market and that it's likely vain to think > we can stop it by fiat *or* by trying to jigger the financials--it's assumed > to be too well-entrenched and too adaptable. How large that market is may be > both crucial and impossible to know, but it's foolish to pretend it isn't > there, or is insignificant enough that rules alone might make it go away. And Here's the problem I have had with that argument from the start, it's not self-consistent. The argument is that: 1) The black market is large enough, and powerful enough that we can't control it in any meaningful way. 2) The black market operates totally in the shadows, hidden from view, and can't be measured. It just doesn't make sense. If 50% of the IP space out there was traded by the black market we'd have people coming out of the woodwork talking about the deals they made. Even if all of these people managed to keep silent, we could measure by subtraction, half the space ISP's were asked to route would look "fishy" with wrong names, addresses, etc in whois. I'm going to suggest that I would be very surprised if more than 1 in 1000 IP blocks were traded on the black market per year. To put that in perspective the DoJ reports (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm) that about 20 people per thousand are the victim of a violent crime in the United States. Which is why I make the comparison. At 20 per 1000 per year and a current table size of 275,000 prefixes we'd have to have about 5,500 prefixes changing hands every year on the black market. I would think if there were 5,500 prefixes changing hands illegally we would notice. Now, there's a totally different argument to be made, and that is if we continue current policy (that is, pass no transfer enabling policies of any kind) that we will create a situation where the black market will mushroom to many times its current size in a very short period of time. I've seen some people make that argument, but very few. I will put one stick in the ground now. With what I believe to be the extremely low rate of "black market" activity we have today I see no reason for a policy which enables transfers to also effectively offer amnesty to past traders. I think to send a signal where we absolve those who previously did not follow the rules is only asking for more people to not follow the rules in the future. With all of the "title registrar" type proposals there is a high potential for absolution of past bad-acts. The buyer and seller of a block today, in violation of the rules, can simply submit a change of owner later after the policy is passed. Indeed, as a policy like this becomes more likely to pass we're actually encouraging the black market to act sooner as people begin to realize they can perform these sorts of transactions. Of course it may also create a situation where unscrupulous sellers hold the change ransom over their previous buyers, using the paperwork as an opportunity to extract more money. Wouldn't that be a real kick in the teeth, the policy that enables free transfers provides a renewed opportunity for bad-actors to victimize buyers. All of this is why I've offered up my alternative proposal. -- 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 kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 31 09:32:43 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:32:43 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:26 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 > > In a message written on Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:38:56PM -0500, Brent > Sweeny wrote: > > the trick is not to wave our arms vainly against the wind, insisting on > a > > view of the internet in our region that's just not realistic--either too > > wild-west *or* too regulated. I *believe* that what Randy is saying is > that > > there's already a flourishing black market and that it's likely vain to > think > > we can stop it by fiat *or* by trying to jigger the financials--it's > assumed > > to be too well-entrenched and too adaptable. How large that market is > may be > > both crucial and impossible to know, but it's foolish to pretend it > isn't > > there, or is insignificant enough that rules alone might make it go > away. And > > Here's the problem I have had with that argument from the start, > it's not self-consistent. > > The argument is that: > > 1) The black market is large enough, and powerful enough that we can't > control it in any meaningful way. > > 2) The black market operates totally in the shadows, hidden from view, > and can't be measured. > > It just doesn't make sense. If 50% of the IP space out there was > traded by the black market we'd have people coming out of the > woodwork talking about the deals they made. Even if all of these > people managed to keep silent, we could measure by subtraction, > half the space ISP's were asked to route would look "fishy" with > wrong names, addresses, etc in whois. I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone talks about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen anyone offer them, and searching even on newsgroups and other forums I have not seen offers of network for money. I have seen netblocks hijacked, but not illicitly sold. I believe it has happened, but I do not think the frequency of it happening is quite the problem it is touted to be. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Wed Dec 31 09:42:26 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:42:26 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> Message-ID: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> > I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone talks > about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been > approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen anyone > offer them, and searching even on newsgroups and other forums I have not > seen offers of network for money. I have seen netblocks hijacked, but not > illicitly sold. I believe it has happened, but I do not think the frequency > of it happening is quite the problem it is touted to be. head in sand and you expect to see things? well, to have it rubbed in your nose, see http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/uploads/Tuesday/Address%20Policy%202/upl/van_Mook-2007-08_v3.fx3k.pps randy From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 31 09:52:54 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:52:54 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB2@mail> > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:42 AM > To: Kevin Kargel > Cc: Leo Bicknell; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 > > > I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone talks > > about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been > > approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen anyone > > offer them, and searching even on newsgroups and other forums I have not > > seen offers of network for money. I have seen netblocks hijacked, but > not > > illicitly sold. I believe it has happened, but I do not think the > frequency > > of it happening is quite the problem it is touted to be. > > head in sand and you expect to see things? well, to have it rubbed in > your nose, see > http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe- > 57/presentations/uploads/Tuesday/Address%20Policy%202/upl/van_Mook-2007- > 08_v3.fx3k.pps > > randy I already stipulated that it happens.. I can't imagine that there is much in this world that 'never' happens.. I just wonder whether it happens with enough frequency to be significant . I would like to quote from an earlier post you made.. it seems you speak out of whichever side of your face when it is handy at the moment.. note the last sentence in: "> From: Randy Bush [mailto:*****] > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:27 PM > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicy > for IPv4 Addresses - Last Call > Arin does not necessarily need to control routing, but they could > cooperate with organizations (like cymru) who do. luckily for the internet, crymru is not a vigilante gang. if they were, they would quickly be ignored. > Also, I refuse to recognize the actions of criminals as an unopposable > force. That is just ethically unacceptable to me. hint: this is business, not ethics, illegal, ... impugning those with whom you do not agree does not further discourse. randy" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tme at multicasttech.com Wed Dec 31 09:55:07 2008 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:55:07 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml- >> bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:26 AM >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 >> >> In a message written on Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:38:56PM -0500, Brent >> Sweeny wrote: >>> the trick is not to wave our arms vainly against the wind, >>> insisting on >> a >>> view of the internet in our region that's just not realistic-- >>> either too >>> wild-west *or* too regulated. I *believe* that what Randy is >>> saying is >> that >>> there's already a flourishing black market and that it's likely >>> vain to >> think >>> we can stop it by fiat *or* by trying to jigger the financials--it's >> assumed >>> to be too well-entrenched and too adaptable. How large that >>> market is >> may be >>> both crucial and impossible to know, but it's foolish to pretend it >> isn't >>> there, or is insignificant enough that rules alone might make it go >> away. And >> >> Here's the problem I have had with that argument from the start, >> it's not self-consistent. >> >> The argument is that: >> >> 1) The black market is large enough, and powerful enough that we >> can't >> control it in any meaningful way. >> >> 2) The black market operates totally in the shadows, hidden from >> view, >> and can't be measured. >> >> It just doesn't make sense. If 50% of the IP space out there was >> traded by the black market we'd have people coming out of the >> woodwork talking about the deals they made. Even if all of these >> people managed to keep silent, we could measure by subtraction, >> half the space ISP's were asked to route would look "fishy" with >> wrong names, addresses, etc in whois. > > I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone > talks > about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been > approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen > anyone > offer them, and searching even on newsgroups and other forums I have > not > seen offers of network for money. I have seen netblocks hijacked, > but not > illicitly sold. I believe it has happened, but I do not think the > frequency > of it happening is quite the problem it is touted to be. > Most black markets tend to be small and marginal as long as the item in question is widely available at a reasonable price, and grow rapidly once that is no longer true. Regards Marshall > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kbanks at giantcomm.net Wed Dec 31 10:09:06 2008 From: kbanks at giantcomm.net (Kyle Banks) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:09:06 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> Message-ID: <003601c96b59$b9aa0ac0$3501a8c0@macc173.net> Nice Presentation Randy... I think the liquidity graph hit it right on the head... without problems, or turmoil there is no space for profit... take the Gas prices for example, we have several problems in a row I.E. Fires at factories, Spills, and the war in Iraq, and the Oil industry is the field that gets all the attention, first trickling down to the airlines, then to the auto industry which is now in jeopardy while the Oil industry has now calmed down with the lack of problems... As far as the black market goes, we have all seen, or possibly been a part of the "black market"... the simple definition of the "black market" is to acquire goods or services without traveling through the proper channels, I.E. taking the easier, less-expensive, or possibly illegal road... piracy of software, videos, or audio clips; along with completing a job while working "under the table" I.E. not reporting your income to the IRS is now seen as the most common activities within the "black market"... Now don't get me wrong, Yes, there are some people out there who would and do utilize the "black market" to acquire illegal drugs, guns, weapons, and even children and organs... I'm just simply pointing out that it isn't as intense as it may appear to be on television... Just my .02 Kyle V. Banks Service/Technical Representative Giant Communications 785-362-9331 EXT. 108 kbanks at giantcomm.net -- Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed--Benjamin Franklin -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:42 AM To: Kevin Kargel Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 > I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone talks > about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been > approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen anyone > offer them, and searching even on newsgroups and other forums I have not > seen offers of network for money. I have seen netblocks hijacked, but not > illicitly sold. I believe it has happened, but I do not think the frequency > of it happening is quite the problem it is touted to be. head in sand and you expect to see things? well, to have it rubbed in your nose, see http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/uploads/Tuesday/Ad dress%20Policy%202/upl/van_Mook-2007-08_v3.fx3k.pps randy _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 31 10:18:56 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:18:56 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> Message-ID: > head in sand and you expect to see things? well, to have it > rubbed in your nose, see > http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/uplo > ads/Tuesday/Address%20Policy%202/upl/van_Mook-2007-08_v3.fx3k.pps This is anecdotal evidence. Only two anecdotes were presented, one from someone offering to buy, and one from an Ebay seller who purportedly had a /24 to sell. I have seen about half a dozen incidents over the past 12 to 13 years, where people were offering to buy IP address blocks. In most of these cases, I and others, were able to educate the person that it was not necessary to buy addresses, simply work through the bureaucratic processes with ARIN and get them free. The key piece of advice that I gave people was to never take "no" for an answer from ARIN. If you actually have a legitimate IP network that needs to assign addresses to devices, then you will get them from ARIN if you only persist in asking ARIN what additional info they need in order to approve your request. So, for starters, I don't believe that inquiries from buyers really represent any kind of black market, just confused business people who misunderstand ARIN's role and processes. The Ebay case is interesting because it is recent. I have heard of other similar IP address sales, most frequently /24s, going back into the late 90s. I've no doubt that some of these, maybe half a dozen, actually did end up being sold. And maybe there are ten times as many that never came to light on Ebay. Even 60 transfers of /24 blocks over a ten year period, is not worth making a policy change. Because no-one has been able to demonstrate an actual completed IP address block sale, I believe that they are very uncommon indeed. And I strongly suspect that the vast majority of them are in the old Class C swamp space which has much larger issues related to whois records and relationships with legacy holders. If anyone with a swamp Class C in use today on the Internet, came to ARIN and said, we paid $500 for this block a few years back, and we want to trade it in for a fresh legitimate one, as far as I can see, under current policy, they would immediately be given a new /24. No need for transfer policies to clean up the whois database. --Michael Dillon From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 31 11:02:06 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:02:06 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 9:19 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 > {much snippage of good stuff} > > No need for transfer policies to clean up the whois database. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ I tend to agree with you Michael. The only persistent and constant reason for an ETP is profit taking - which may be a perfectly valid reason. I tend to think though that the majority of the community will not benefit from this new profitable market, and I do not see it as beneficial to make a policy change so that a few can make much more money from the rest. I guess it depends on your point of view, whether you are one of the few or one of the rest. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matthew at matthew.at Wed Dec 31 13:22:18 2008 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:22:18 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495BB85A.60506@matthew.at> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > ...If you actually > have a legitimate IP network that needs to assign addresses to > devices, then you will get them from ARIN if you only persist in > asking ARIN what additional info they need in order to approve > your request. > This will soon be known as "the good old days" The future is "If you actually have a legitimate IP network that needs to assign IPv4 addresses to devices, then you will NOT get them from ARIN because ARIN will not have any, at all, to give you. Persisting in asking ARIN what additional info they need in order to approve your request will be like banging your head into a brick wall." I am in 100% agreement that if ARIN can magically assure an unlimited future supply of IPv4 address space, there's no reason for anyone to give up old space to anyone who might have a better use for it. Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Wed Dec 31 13:26:09 2008 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:26:09 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> Message-ID: <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> Kevin Kargel wrote: > > ... > > I tend to think though that the majority of the community will not benefit > from this new profitable market, and I do not see it as beneficial to make a > policy change so that a few can make much more money from the rest. > > ... Either there will be people who need IPv4 address space enough that they'll pay money for it -- whether that market is one where the transfers are recorded via a transfer policy or one where the transfers are recorded through the manipulation of shell companies -- or there won't be, in which case nobody will use the new policy anyway, so it doesn't matter. Again, "option C", where we don't ever run out of IPv4 space and anyone who needs some can get it for nearly free is far preferable, but it isn't going to be on the table any more. Matthew Kaufman From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 31 13:40:15 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:40:15 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew at matthew.at] > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:26 PM > To: Kevin Kargel > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 > > Kevin Kargel wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I tend to think though that the majority of the community will not > benefit > > from this new profitable market, and I do not see it as beneficial to > make a > > policy change so that a few can make much more money from the rest. > > > > ... > Either there will be people who need IPv4 address space enough that > they'll pay money for it -- whether that market is one where the Actually it matters a lot. There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP addresses and depend on them for their business who will not be able to afford them. This tips the balance heavily in the favor of the big players and against the small guy and against the consumer who will ultimately have to pay for it. > transfers are recorded via a transfer policy or one where the transfers > are recorded through the manipulation of shell companies -- or there > won't be, in which case nobody will use the new policy anyway, so it > doesn't matter. > > Again, "option C", where we don't ever run out of IPv4 space and anyone > who needs some can get it for nearly free is far preferable, but it > isn't going to be on the table any more. > > Matthew Kaufman Option C is already on the table. It includes creating a larger pool of addresses to draw from. Sound familiar? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Wed Dec 31 13:44:21 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:44:21 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> Message-ID: <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> On 09.01.01 03:40, Kevin Kargel wrote: > There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP addresses > and depend on them for their business who will not be able to afford > them. i know asking folk to do the relevant reading gets repetitive, but you might want to look at apnic proposal-0062, which did pass in christchurch. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html randy From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 31 13:45:16 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:45:16 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495BB85A.60506@matthew.at> References: <495BB85A.60506@matthew.at> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB8@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:22 PM > To: michael.dillon at bt.com > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 > > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > ...If you actually > > have a legitimate IP network that needs to assign addresses to > > devices, then you will get them from ARIN if you only persist in > > asking ARIN what additional info they need in order to approve > > your request. > > > This will soon be known as "the good old days" > > The future is "If you actually have a legitimate IP network that needs > to assign IPv4 addresses to devices, then you will NOT get them from > ARIN because ARIN will not have any, at all, to give you. Persisting in > asking ARIN what additional info they need in order to approve your > request will be like banging your head into a brick wall." > > I am in 100% agreement that if ARIN can magically assure an unlimited > future supply of IPv4 address space, there's no reason for anyone to > give up old space to anyone who might have a better use for it. > > Matthew Kaufman > The truth of the matter is that IPv4 is running out, maybe not this month or even this (next) year, but it is running out. Business and network plans that are based strictly on IPv4 are going to be in trouble, plain and simple, regardless of what transfer plans or other longevity schemes we come up with. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Dec 31 13:50:16 2008 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:50:16 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> > > On 09.01.01 03:40, Kevin Kargel wrote: > > There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP addresses > > and depend on them for their business who will not be able to afford > > them. > > i know asking folk to do the relevant reading gets repetitive, but you > might want to look at apnic proposal-0062, which did pass in christchurch. > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html > > randy An excellent policy and an excellent stalling tactic, but you must recognize it as a stalling tactic and not a policy that will support IPv4 growth in perpetuity. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 14:05:26 2008 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:05:26 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> Message-ID: <495BC276.6000709@gmail.com> Kevin Kargel wrote: > There will be (are) many small businesses who > will need IP addresses and depend on them for their business who will not be > able to afford them. This tips the balance heavily in the favor of the big > players and against the small guy and against the consumer who will > ultimately have to pay for it. > Why do big ISPs need addresses? Mostly, it's to give them out to their residential and small business customers. If the price gets too high and those customers aren't willing to pay for real public IPs, the ISPs will do something else (IPv6 + some sort of NAT for IPv4, most likely). (FWIW, most small businesses don't qualify for space from ARIN anyway. Some medium sized businesses do.) After IPv4 free pool exhaustion, there are basically two possibilities for getting IPv4 addresses. One is that IPv4 addresses will only be available as PA space from providers who already have addresses. The other is a choice between PA from providers who have it, or paying someone (who's not a provider) to free up space and make it available (either directly, via a transfer policy, or indirectly, via something like Leo's proposal). As far as I can tell, having both choices is better for small and medium sized businesses than having only one. -Scott From randy at psg.com Wed Dec 31 14:07:33 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:07:33 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> Message-ID: <495BC2F5.4040003@psg.com> >>> There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP >>> addresses and depend on them for their business who will not be >>> able to afford them. >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html > An excellent policy and an excellent stalling tactic, but you must > recognize it as a stalling tactic and not a policy that will support > IPv4 growth in perpetuity. ain't nothin' gonna support ipv4 growth. a distinct problem with a small set of finite integers. ah well. but apnic prop-0062 does address the problem of new entrants needing *small* bits of ipv4 space (think siit / nat-pt) for a looooong time. something like this might be useful in the arin region. and it does partially address the issue you raised, about as much as one can given the small finite pool of integers. randy From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 14:07:32 2008 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:07:32 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> Message-ID: <495BC2F4.4090908@gmail.com> Kevin Kargel wrote: >> On 09.01.01 03:40, Kevin Kargel wrote: >> >>> There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP addresses >>> and depend on them for their business who will not be able to afford >>> them. >>> >> i know asking folk to do the relevant reading gets repetitive, but you >> might want to look at apnic proposal-0062, which did pass in christchurch. >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html >> >> randy >> > An excellent policy and an excellent stalling tactic, but you must recognize > it as a stalling tactic and not a policy that will support IPv4 growth in > perpetuity. > > Kevin > I think we all agree that any sort of transfer policy is only transitional, and at best represents a way to more smoothly transition to IPv6. -Scott From randy at psg.com Wed Dec 31 14:15:51 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:15:51 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495BC2F4.4090908@gmail.com> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> <495BC2F4.4090908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <495BC4E7.1070505@psg.com> > I think we all agree that any sort of transfer policy is only > transitional, and at best represents a way to more smoothly > transition to IPv6. you wish. do not ignore that there is a non-trivial group of folk who believe in and are pushing heavily, and sometimes deviously, for an ipv4-ipv4 natted world. randy From jmaimon at chl.com Wed Dec 31 14:32:21 2008 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:32:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495BC2F5.4040003@psg.com> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> <495BC2F5.4040003@psg.com> Message-ID: <495BC8C5.6030507@chl.com> Randy Bush wrote: >>>> There will be (are) many small businesses who will need IP >>>> addresses and depend on them for their business who will not be >>>> able to afford them. >>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v002.html >> An excellent policy and an excellent stalling tactic, but you must >> recognize it as a stalling tactic and not a policy that will support >> IPv4 growth in perpetuity. > > ain't nothin' gonna support ipv4 growth. a distinct problem with a > small set of finite integers. ah well. > Suppose class E, legacy unannounced swamp reclamation, tighter policies with smaller allocations producing a fraction of current burn rate and incentivized returns/transfers would extend ipv4 life far longer than anybody would want. Including long enough to kick in more space from ipv6/NAT conversions. So in effect, ipv4 integers forever being available is actually possible. Technically speaking, 25-50% of ipv4 may still be available to be used on the internet, even after pool runout. Picture explaining the justification for unavailability of every single /8 before a congressional hearing or similar, anyone want that job? (If there is even the remotest of possibilities of using E space, than reclaiming it should start sooner rather than later) From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 31 16:49:16 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:49:16 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> Message-ID: > Actually it matters a lot. There will be (are) many small > businesses who will need IP addresses and depend on them for > their business who will not be able to afford them. This > tips the balance heavily in the favor of the big players and > against the small guy and against the consumer who will > ultimately have to pay for it. In 1995 the big telecom companies were building out ATM networks and the big PC magazines were touting ATM to the desktop, and some kind of multichannel interactive cable-TV system called the information highway. In the meantime, the little guys were building services using an uncommon protocol called IPv4. Uncommon in the sense that there were few commercial offerings of IP and few books or courses teaching it. Why would the IPv6 transition be all that different? It seems to me that small businesses are much sharper than large ones since their decisions are a matter of life or death for the business. Knowing that IPv4 exhaustion is only a couple of years away, why would any small business put themselves in a position where their business is DEPENDENT on IPv4? I think this is mostly a non-issue. Some mid-sized businesses will back themselves into a corner and die. Some big ones will wound themselves seriously and end up being acquired. Let it be. > Option C is already on the table. It includes creating a > larger pool of addresses to draw from. Sound familiar? Over the past year there has been an awful lot more IPv6 activity within the big ISPs. Most of it rather quiet and only involving large customers because it is still in trial mode. But when the IPv4 address shortage really begins to bite and the hoarders come out offering to sell address blocks for a million or two, these big ISPs will thumb their noses at the speculators and turn on reasonably full-featured commercial IPv6 services. It's now a done deal. Forget about the few who complain that they can't make it happen in time because their corporate corpses will feed the rest of us. --Michael Dillon Happy New Year! May 2009 be the year of IPv6. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Dec 31 16:51:27 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:51:27 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> Message-ID: > An excellent policy and an excellent stalling tactic, but you > must recognize it as a stalling tactic and not a policy that > will support IPv4 growth in perpetuity. It is actually the reverse. This policy ensures that the supply of available IPv4 addresses runs out sooner. In other words, the first organization to fail to get an RIR allocation, will happen sooner than it would have, and that is the point where people start to feel the pain. --Michael Dillon From jrhett at svcolo.com Wed Dec 31 17:23:24 2008 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:23:24 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu> <20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:32 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone > talks > about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been > approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen > anyone I take it you aren't a directly listed ARIN contact? I get ~12 queries per year about buying IP address space. From jmaimon at chl.com Wed Dec 31 17:48:29 2008 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:48:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <495BF6BD.1050400@chl.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> Actually it matters a lot. There will be (are) many small >> businesses who will need IP addresses and depend on them for >> their business who will not be able to afford them. This >> tips the balance heavily in the favor of the big players and >> against the small guy and against the consumer who will >> ultimately have to pay for it. > > In 1995 the big telecom companies were building out ATM networks > and the big PC magazines were touting ATM to the desktop, Who wanted ATM to the desktop? > and > some kind of multichannel interactive cable-TV system called > the information highway. In the meantime, the little guys were > building services using an uncommon protocol called IPv4. Uncommon > in the sense that there were few commercial offerings of IP and > few books or courses teaching it. > > Why would the IPv6 transition be all that different? Because nobody wants IPv6. From pstewart at nexicomgroup.net Wed Dec 31 20:04:21 2008 From: pstewart at nexicomgroup.net (Paul Stewart) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:04:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: References: <495ADB40.4030009@indiana.edu><20081231142621.GA53224@ussenterprise.ufp.org><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB1@mail> Message-ID: <89D27DE3375BB6428DDCC2927489826A01DDCE34@nexus.nexicomgroup.net> Strange - ARIN contact here for a number of years and never been asked neither... I'm guessing some of it has to do with how much space you have from ARIN... just a guess... Paul -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jo Rhett Sent: December 31, 2008 5:23 PM To: Kevin Kargel Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:32 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > I have often wondered about this "black market" myself.. everyone > talks > about it, but in 15+ years of working in Internet I have never been > approached and offered IP addresses for sale. I have never seen > anyone I take it you aren't a directly listed ARIN contact? I get ~12 queries per year about buying IP address space. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Dec 31 22:50:06 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:50:06 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call In-Reply-To: <200812311347.mBVDlRGq015256@inana.itg.state.mn.us> References: <495138B5.4020301@arin.net><3c3e3fca0812291618q451d9adap55d970b1f96b41e@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9028B2CF6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AC98@mail> <495A5CB0.503@sprunk.org> <200812311347.mBVDlRGq015256@inana.itg.state.mn.us> Message-ID: <495C3D6E.9000101@sprunk.org> Craig Finseth wrote: > Kevin Kargel wrote: > > > This still does not obviate the fact that the effect of any > > peer-peer transfer policy will be to create an artificial > > commodity market for IP addresses, remove recyclable IP addresses > > from the fair-chase realm and will force everyone to pay every > > penny the market will bear for an IP address. > > > > So you'd prefer a world where IP(v4) addresses can't be had at _any_ > price because there is no incentive for those with excess space to > return any? > > IMHO, there will be very few people willing to sell addresses to me at > a rate that I can afford, given that there are much larger players who > are willing to pay more to keep me out of the market. > What "larger players" are interested in keeping the State of Minnesota "out of the market"? True, it may be possible that the price will be more than your organization can afford -- in which case you'll go to IPv6 and, perhaps, get a small "transition" assignment from ARIN for NAT-PT if you don't have any other space already or available from your upstream(s) that can be used for that purpose. OTOH, the market will be unable to supply the mega-ISPs with space for long, if at all, simply because of their voracious appetites. They will be weighing the cost (and odds) of acquiring space on the open market with the cost of moving to IPv6, and IMHO they will, in short order, decide that the latter option is cheaper. Smaller orgs that do not have the market power to demand their vendors adopt IPv6 will be able to survive on the space that is available on the market -- including what the mega-ISPs are able to sell off once their IPv6 transition is underway. > > I know this will bring vicious flames from those wanting to make > > profits trading IP addresses, > > Many, many folks have an entirely different motive: freeing up address > space that _other_ people currently hold. I have no profit interest in > address markets; I just want to make sure that, if someone wants > addresses badly enough, they are able to get them. I do not feel that, > without incentive, the people who have them currently will be willing to > part with them -- and what legal authority ARIN has to forcibly take > them (to give to others) is, for now at least, unclear. > > Personally, I think that a transfer policy will achieve the goal of > enabling hoarders: in other words, they will go to the people who can > pay more for them than to the people who will use them. > The policy still requires that the recipient justify the space they are to receive, so I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Of course, there is a wide gap between what is "justified" and what is truly "required"; you can "justify" public space for hosts that can as easily be put behind a NAT box on RFC 1918 space, so wiggle room does exist, but why would someone pay an (according to you) exorbitant price for something they do not plan to use nor which will have much value in a few years after the IPv6 transition is actually underway? > And the people who can pay more for them are the larger players, and this will give them a _dis_incentive to go to IPv6. > My view is that they will go to IPv6 as soon as it's cheaper than staying on IPv4. An address market which increases the cost of the latter will, hopefully, pull in that date rather than push it out. > > but I honestly do not believe it would be good for the community. > > > > Do you really think complete IPv4 exhaustion is better for the > community? Or a widespread black market of address sales that _aren't_ > registered with ARIN? Those are the only two other options and, as much > as I dislike the idea of an address market, I believe it to be less bad > than the alternatives. > > The black market exists on a small scale, but I don't see the larger > players participating. For example, I don't see major US ISPs buying > addresses on the black market. > ... because they don't need to. The only reason I can think of participating in the black market today is if one _can't_ justify address space and therefore get it for next to nothing from ARIN. That will change, though, when ARIN no longer has any more space to give away. S -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3241 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Wed Dec 31 23:02:37 2008 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:02:37 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6 In-Reply-To: <495BC8C5.6030507@chl.com> References: <495B84D2.7090503@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB3@mail> <495BB941.2000304@matthew.at> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB6@mail> <495BBD85.4070805@psg.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ACB9@mail> <495BC2F5.4040003@psg.com> <495BC8C5.6030507@chl.com> Message-ID: <495C405D.5090104@sprunk.org> Joe Maimon wrote: > Suppose class E, This has already been discussed to death, and the consensus is that we could not get patches to routers, CPE, hosts, embedded devices, apps, etc. out and applied widely enough in time for it to matter. It takes 5-10 years for major changes in IP stacks to be rolled out, and that's simply too late for IPv4 at this point. Perhaps if someone had started this effort in the mid-90s... > legacy unannounced swamp reclamation, Once 2007-14 gets through last call and makes it into the NRPM, I will be drafting a proposal to expand it to cover legacy space; we will see how well the community accepts that, given how long it took to get the non-legacy version to be adopted, not to mention the potential legal problems... > tighter policies with smaller allocations producing a fraction of current burn rate Not really possible; the mega-ISPs are already 80-90% of the burn rate, and they're also pretty darn efficient according to policy (though reality isn't always perfect). There's not much to be gained on this front, short of actually charging them the same rate per address that smaller ISPs pay, and nobody seems to have the balls to do that. > and incentivized returns/transfers would extend ipv4 life far longer than anybody would want. > If nobody wanted it, then nobody would pay for the addresses. Despite over a decade of work, IPv6 still isn't usable yet, and probably won't be for several more years. I predict it will _not_ be possible to go IPv6-only prior to or even a few months after the IPv4 pool is depleted. > Including long enough to kick in more space from ipv6/NAT conversions. So in effect, ipv4 integers forever being available is actually possible. > If there is some incentive (or other mechanism) to recover them, yes. Markets are very good at producing supply where there is demand, though we may not like the price... > Technically speaking, 25-50% of ipv4 may still be available to be used on the internet, even after pool runout. > How? That much of the pool isn't even available today. > Picture explaining the justification for unavailability of every single > /8 before a congressional hearing or similar, anyone want that job? > Not me. That's part of the reason I support reclamation: it's a lot easier to defend being out of addresses when you've made some effort to get back the ones that we all "know" aren't being used. > (If there is even the remotest of possibilities of using E space, than reclaiming it should start sooner rather than later) > See above. S -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3241 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: