From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr  1 01:08:54 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:08:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <49D2DE61.8020403@bogus.com>
References: <20090327162556.GA57288@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<49CD1524.5080200@matthew.at>
	<131D9C7318964D48AC33CC9768985A3C@tedsdesk>
	<49D2DE61.8020403@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50903312208r51ae838ei32b4cfbd0b343f93@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:

> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > What the problem is that it's hard to convince someone that the
> > device they have had for the last 5 years that's still working
> > perfectly, will not get support from the manufacturer for upgrades.
>
> Actually it's not, and in most case the adoption will be driven by the
> same things it was last time. ie more speed  on the wan from your *dsl
> platform docsis 3.0 or ftth deployment or on the lan side from 802.11n
> or gigabit ethernet, the trick always is sneak the new software support
> in with some things the customer really think they want... How many of
> us are still using the same cpe we were using in the era of 256K dsl
> service?



That's a costly trick. Try a capex program to replace all CPE so that every
customers has chip sets that support 3.0 and DOCSIS. It all sounds nice on
paper, but it isn't.

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090401/bb8a7c0d/attachment.htm>

From joelja at bogus.com  Wed Apr  1 01:50:19 2009
From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:50:19 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50903312208r51ae838ei32b4cfbd0b343f93@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090327162556.GA57288@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	
	<49CD1524.5080200@matthew.at>	
	<131D9C7318964D48AC33CC9768985A3C@tedsdesk>	
	<49D2DE61.8020403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50903312208r51ae838ei32b4cfbd0b343f93@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49D3009B.6040406@bogus.com>

Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com
> <mailto:joelja at bogus.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>     > What the problem is that it's hard to convince someone that the
>     > device they have had for the last 5 years that's still working
>     > perfectly, will not get support from the manufacturer for upgrades.
> 
>     Actually it's not, and in most case the adoption will be driven by the
>     same things it was last time. ie more speed  on the wan from your *dsl
>     platform docsis 3.0 or ftth deployment or on the lan side from 802.11n
>     or gigabit ethernet, the trick always is sneak the new software support
>     in with some things the customer really think they want... How many of
>     us are still using the same cpe we were using in the era of 256K dsl
>     service?
> 
> That's a costly trick. Try a capex program to replace all CPE so that
> every customers has chip sets that support 3.0 and DOCSIS. It all sounds
> nice on paper, but it isn't.

It doesn't sound nice on paper. It sounds messy, imperfect, likely to
move at different rates in different providers/regions/customers. It
will be subject to postive and negative network effects. The technology
lifecycle of some of the newer components may be shorter than we'd like,
while the older one's may in fact last longer than we think they should.
This is normal.

I expect we'll still be having this discussion in the context of some
other feature we think end-users or operators need to deploy in march of
2019...

> -M<
> 
> 



From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr  1 02:15:10 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 02:15:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <49D3009B.6040406@bogus.com>
References: <20090327162556.GA57288@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<49CD1524.5080200@matthew.at>
	<131D9C7318964D48AC33CC9768985A3C@tedsdesk>
	<49D2DE61.8020403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50903312208r51ae838ei32b4cfbd0b343f93@mail.gmail.com>
	<49D3009B.6040406@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50903312315raad3bc1i47784dfd635d9d16@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:

> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
[ clip ]


>
> > That's a costly trick. Try a capex program to replace all CPE so that
> > every customers has chip sets that support 3.0 and DOCSIS. It all sounds
> > nice on paper, but it isn't.
>
> It doesn't sound nice on paper. It sounds messy, imperfect, likely to
> move at different rates in different providers/regions/customers. It
> will be subject to postive and negative network effects. The technology
> lifecycle of some of the newer components may be shorter than we'd like,
> while the older one's may in fact last longer than we think they should.
> This is normal.



It wont be subject to technology life cycle at all. Accumulated depreciation
across balance sheets should prove that out. It will be subject to cost. Not
everyone has the same cash flow  and finance-ability that a NYSE listed tier
1 in the US has. While I expect to see convergence finally really happen and
sustain some level of net growth due to cost reductions for customers of
same products, I also expect little growth in v6. Cost, costs, and
costs-s-s-z.


Best,

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090401/ad13cc31/attachment.htm>

From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Apr  1 12:30:42 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:30:42 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
 2009
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF48@mail>
References: <376189.27706.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF47@mail>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF48@mail>
Message-ID: <49D396B2.70301@chl.com>



Kevin Kargel wrote:

>>>
>  Could someone please explain to me what legal risk there is from ARIN
>  continuing to fulfill it's mission without creating an IP market?  

Lawyers and politicians of all stripes shapes and colors.

"We're from the government and we're here to help"

Due diligence and unassailable high ground need to be priorities, now, 
before prime time.



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr  1 13:12:06 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:12:06 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
In-Reply-To: <49D2DE61.8020403@bogus.com>
References: <20090327162556.GA57288@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	<49CD1524.5080200@matthew.at>
	<131D9C7318964D48AC33CC9768985A3C@tedsdesk>
	<49D2DE61.8020403@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <73898D2ABBC44EF3AE27E5B5EBA7E4CE@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:24 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: matthew at matthew.at; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] How hard is it to transition to IPv6?
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > What the problem is that it's hard to convince someone that 
> the device 
> > they have had for the last 5 years that's still working perfectly, 
> > will not get support from the manufacturer for upgrades.
> 
> Actually it's not, and in most case the adoption will be 
> driven by the same things it was last time. ie more speed  on 
> the wan from your *dsl platform docsis 3.0 or ftth deployment 
> or on the lan side from 802.11n or gigabit ethernet, the 
> trick always is sneak the new software support in with some 
> things the customer really think they want... How many of us 
> are still using the same cpe we were using in the era of 256K 
> dsl service?
> 

Many of our Verizon-layer-2-provisioned DSL customers are because we
buy used Westell modems off the secondary market - often for as
low as $5 a modem - because the competitive reality is that any ISP
selling DSL is mandated to hand out a free CPE to a new customer.
(because the ILEC DSL ISP's are all doing it)

The chipsets that were released during the era of 256kx256k DSL all
supported 7MB down/896K up.  As a matter of fact, the Westell 36R516
is a real riot - because it's got a 10BaseT/half duplex only
ethernet port on it, so even though it's chipset supports 7MB
downstream and will train to that, your never going to get that amount
of data through it's Ethernet port - at least, not to a Windows system.

The issue is one of support - when your
a nationwide ISP your buying support staff off the rack at Costco
and it's more expensive to train them to support a dozen different
CPE's than to just send out a new CPE to exchange for any customer
calling in for support.  When you are a small ISP though, you hire support
people who are more flexible since they are expected to support a
lot of other stuff than just DSL, and supporting a dozen different
CPE models & different firmware revs. comes with the territory.

The unfortunate reality is that there's no "killer app" out there
that requires IPv6, and none of the NEW "all-in-one DSL modem/routers"
supplied by both of the ILECS we provision over support IPv6.  It is
actually going to be easier for us to provision IPv6 over DSL for
customers using antique  bridging-only DSL modems (Westell 36R516,
Westell 2100, etc.) that require the customer to put an
ethernet-to-ethernet router in between the DSL modem and their network,
than for us to provision it over a new, modern DSL modem/address translator,
unless of course, IPv6-compliant firmware is released for the new
device (which is what would be the best solution)

Ted



From kkargel at polartel.com  Wed Apr  1 13:16:22 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:16:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
	2009
In-Reply-To: <49D396B2.70301@chl.com>
References: <376189.27706.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF47@mail>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF48@mail>
	<49D396B2.70301@chl.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF78@mail>

> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:31 AM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
> 2009
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >  Could someone please explain to me what legal risk there is from ARIN
> >  continuing to fulfill it's mission without creating an IP market?
> 
> Lawyers and politicians of all stripes shapes and colors.
> 
> "We're from the government and we're here to help"
> 
> Due diligence and unassailable high ground need to be priorities, now,
> before prime time.


More smoke speak.  I have not heard one concrete example of any risk.  I see
no correlation between " Due diligence and unassailable high ground" and the
need to have an IP market.

There is no real risk or need that could not better be met by proper
management.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090401/efc07db2/attachment.bin>

From info at arin.net  Wed Apr  1 16:23:48 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:23:48 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?windows-1252?q?NRPM_version_2009=2E2_=96_New_Polici?=
 =?windows-1252?q?es_Implemented?=
Message-ID: <49D3CD54.1040407@arin.net>

A new version of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been
published to the ARIN website. NRPM version 2009.2 contains the
implementation of the following policies:

   2007-14: Resource Review Process

   2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment

   2007-23 (Global): End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs

2007-14 was adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees on 6 February 2009.
2008-5 was adopted by the ARIN Board on 5 January 2009. 2007-23, a
global policy proposal, was adopted by the ARIN Board on 20 June 2008,
and, ratified by the ICANN Board of Directors on 6 March 2009.

NRPM version 2009.2 is effective 1 April 2009 and supersedes the
previous version. See Appendix A of the NRPM for information regarding
changes to the manual.

The NRPM can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html

Appendix A can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html

Draft policies and proposals can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes are available at:
https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)





From vixie at isc.org  Thu Apr  2 09:28:06 2009
From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:28:06 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
	quotes from Ben Edelman)
Message-ID: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>

http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/28/execed.websites/index.html


From info at arin.net  Thu Apr  2 09:51:49 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:51:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml]
 =?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>

Draft Policy 2008-7
Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s

2008-7 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion on
this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN XXIII
Public Policy Meeting in San Antonio.

Draft Policy 2008-7 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_7.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft  Policy 2008-7
Identify  Invalid WHOIS POC?s

Date: 2 April 2009

Policy Statement:

During ARINs annual WHOIS POC validation, an e-mail will be sent to
every POC in the WHOIS database. Each POC will have a maximum of 60 days
to respond with an affirmative that their WHOIS contact information is
correct and complete. Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked
as such in the database. If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and
permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the record shall be
deleted. ARIN will maintain, and make readily available to the
community, a current list of number resources with no valid POC; this
data will be subject to the current bulk WHOIS policy.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate





From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 10:38:04 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:38:04 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
	=?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904020738r3d2c7259kc2e98361925df336@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 07:51, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Draft Policy 2008-7
> Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
>
> 2008-7 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion on
> this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN XXIII
> Public Policy Meeting in San Antonio.
>
> Draft Policy 2008-7 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_7.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft ?Policy 2008-7
> Identify ?Invalid WHOIS POC?s
>
> Date: 2 April 2009
>
> Policy Statement:
>
> During ARINs annual WHOIS POC validation, an e-mail will be sent to
> every POC in the WHOIS database. Each POC will have a maximum of 60 days
> to respond with an affirmative that their WHOIS contact information is
> correct and complete. Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked
> as such in the database. If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and
> permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the record shall be
> deleted. ARIN will maintain, and make readily available to the
> community, a current list of number resources with no valid POC; this
> data will be subject to the current bulk WHOIS policy.

To save others the stare and compare - the change is in the last
sentence; "number resources" now replaces the previous
"address-blocks."
~Chris

> 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.
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From rlc at usfamily.net  Thu Apr  2 10:52:53 2009
From: rlc at usfamily.net (Ron Cleven)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:52:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
	quotes from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net>

Gee, what an idea!  I guess it sounds smarter when someone from Harvard 
says it.

Paul Vixie wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/28/execed.websites/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org  Thu Apr  2 11:04:59 2009
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:04:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Invali?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?d_WHOIS_POC=B9s?=
In-Reply-To: <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
Message-ID: <C5FA222B.27255%leo.vegoda@icann.org>

On 02/04/2009 6:51, "Member Services" <info at arin.net> wrote:

[...]

> Policy Statement:
> 
> During ARINs annual WHOIS POC validation, an e-mail will be sent to
> every POC in the WHOIS database. Each POC will have a maximum of 60 days
> to respond with an affirmative that their WHOIS contact information is
> correct and complete.

It's probably implicit anyway but it might be a good idea to explicitly note
that PoCs with old contact data can be updated, too. I assume that would be
an acceptable response, anyway.

Regards,

Leo



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Apr  2 11:36:15 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:36:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
	=?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Draft Policy 2008-7
> Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s

Here's a very partial and very rough cost estimate on implementing
this proposal:

Let's assume it takes me 5 minutes to scan the email, recognize that
its the annual game of tag, find the instructions in the message,
follow the instructions to certify my POC record is still valid and
then get my mind back in the game for what I was working on before the
interruption.

5 minutes per contact * 223,000 POCs / 60 minutes per hour = 18,600 man-hours.

Most of your POCs earn between $30 and $70 per hour with a median
around $50. That's just what it costs for someone in North America who
is competent to perform deep technical work of this nature. Time value
to a company is typically 3 times or more what an employee is paid.
So, figure that those typically hours "cost" the organizations $150
each.

$150 per hour * 18,600 hours per year = $2,800,000 per year.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 11:46:07 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:46:07 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
	quotes from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com> <49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail>

> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:53 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?"
> (CNN;quotes from Ben Edelman)
> 
> Gee, what an idea!  I guess it sounds smarter when someone from Harvard
> says it.
> 
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> > http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/28/execed.websites/index.html

Amazing, you would almost think that Harvard had a whole bunch of IP's they
weren't using that they would like to sell at a profit!  lol
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/55295b39/attachment.bin>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Apr  2 12:28:17 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:28:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml]
 =?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>

So, that's an entertainingly large number, but, let's look at the  
reality.

Most organizations don't have more than 4 POCs with an average
more in the neighborhood of 2.

Even if we figure 4 POCs per organization, that's 0.33 man hours
per organization or an annual cost (by your estimation) more
in the range of $16.67/year per organization (or less).

For what it's worth, when I get these for my domain names, the
deep technical work required on my part is more like 90 seconds,
but, I'll let your 5 minute estimate stand for now.

In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or oppose
the policy?

Owen

On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:36 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Draft Policy 2008-7
>> Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
>
> Here's a very partial and very rough cost estimate on implementing
> this proposal:
>
> Let's assume it takes me 5 minutes to scan the email, recognize that
> its the annual game of tag, find the instructions in the message,
> follow the instructions to certify my POC record is still valid and
> then get my mind back in the game for what I was working on before the
> interruption.
>
> 5 minutes per contact * 223,000 POCs / 60 minutes per hour = 18,600  
> man-hours.
>
> Most of your POCs earn between $30 and $70 per hour with a median
> around $50. That's just what it costs for someone in North America who
> is competent to perform deep technical work of this nature. Time value
> to a company is typically 3 times or more what an employee is paid.
> So, figure that those typically hours "cost" the organizations $150
> each.
>
> $150 per hour * 18,600 hours per year = $2,800,000 per year.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 12:43:38 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:43:38 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
In-Reply-To: <CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
	<49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net><3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF8B@mail>


> 
> In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or oppose
> the policy?
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:36 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
I support 2008-7 if for no other reason than I am curious about the number
of netblocks with no valid POC.  I feel it will be worth my time to get that
information.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/490cff79/attachment.bin>

From farmer at umn.edu  Thu Apr  2 12:42:54 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:42:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?utf-8?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Invalid_WHO?=
	=?utf-8?q?IS_POC=E2=80=99s?=
Message-ID: <smtpd.33d3.49d4f05a.b2d4b.1@mta-a3.tc.umn.edu>

On 2 Apr 2009 William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > Draft Policy 2008-7
> > Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
> 
> Here's a very partial and very rough cost estimate on implementing
> this proposal:
> 
> Let's assume it takes me 5 minutes to scan the email, recognize that
> its the annual game of tag, find the instructions in the message,
> follow the instructions to certify my POC record is still valid and
> then get my mind back in the game for what I was working on before the
> interruption.
> 
> 5 minutes per contact * 223,000 POCs / 60 minutes per hour = 18,600 man-hours.
> 
> Most of your POCs earn between $30 and $70 per hour with a median
> around $50. That's just what it costs for someone in North America who
> is competent to perform deep technical work of this nature. Time value
> to a company is typically 3 times or more what an employee is paid.
> So, figure that those typically hours "cost" the organizations $150
> each.
> 
> $150 per hour * 18,600 hours per year = $2,800,000 per year.

Is that just a fun fact or are you arguing against the proposal?

In case you are arguing against the proposal, I will point out 
that many people are properly managing their POC data and 
already probably taking that 5 minutes to verify their POC data 
and other whois info on a regular basis already.  

So, I would argue this is not a new cost for many, only for 
those not actually properly maintaining their data.  So while 
there is a cost I suspect most of the new cost is falling on 
those that are not being good netizens anyway.  Therefore, 
they are probably pushing costs on to others who may have a 
hard time contacting them or getting issues dealt with in a 
timely manner.


From dudepron at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 13:19:36 2009
From: dudepron at gmail.com (Aaron)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:19:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
	=?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <480dad640904021019o47f44e44g93e0d4bd00091c4f@mail.gmail.com>

That assumes that each POC is unique. There are several organizations that
have multiple listings so that number is probably much less.

Aaron

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:36, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > Draft Policy 2008-7
> > Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
>
> Here's a very partial and very rough cost estimate on implementing
> this proposal:
>
> Let's assume it takes me 5 minutes to scan the email, recognize that
> its the annual game of tag, find the instructions in the message,
> follow the instructions to certify my POC record is still valid and
> then get my mind back in the game for what I was working on before the
> interruption.
>
> 5 minutes per contact * 223,000 POCs / 60 minutes per hour = 18,600
> man-hours.
>
> Most of your POCs earn between $30 and $70 per hour with a median
> around $50. That's just what it costs for someone in North America who
> is competent to perform deep technical work of this nature. Time value
> to a company is typically 3 times or more what an employee is paid.
> So, figure that those typically hours "cost" the organizations $150
> each.
>
> $150 per hour * 18,600 hours per year = $2,800,000 per year.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/b06cb503/attachment.htm>

From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 13:39:28 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:39:28 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
	=?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904021039o768f6df9x5ccb6347a6a78710@mail.gmail.com>

Even if we accept your "partial and rough" assumptions, the final
number is almost meaningless with out a proper frame of reference.  In
this case I think the proper complimentary question is; what is the
cost of not doing anything - or in other words, what is the cost of
having bad POC data in WHOIS?

The first part of that question is:  How much time is spent per org
per year tracking down contact information for number resources
because the POC email is invalid?  Based on conversations with folks
who deal with abuse issues day to day, it is my understanding that
somewhere in the range of 40% to 50% of POC email address data is
currently worthless (no response).  When that is the case, these folks
must search for other methods of contact to reach the org in question.
 I don't have hard numbers on how many abuse contacts are made each
year but if OrgX has 4 POCs (and it does take them 5 minutes to reply
to an ARIN contact request), then a single 20 minute search for
another orgs contact info makes it worthwhile to get all POC data
validated.

The second part of that initial question is:  How many hijackings (or
other abuses) will be prevented, mitigated or shortened by having
valid POC data in WHOIS (and having a list of unmanaged space to
filter against)?  This one is even harder to put a solid number on but
I have to assume it is quite large.

There may also be a third cost benefit under this policy:  I
understand that ARIN staff currently spends a non-marginal amount of
time tracking down billing POCs year to year.  If timed correctly,
this POC email validation procedure could cut down on that
considerably by insuring that ARIN has at least a valid email address
to start with.

Finally, uncovering number resources that are currently abandoned is
of great benefit to the community and leads to the further benefit
that if and when anyone ever comes to ARIN with questions about
address utilization, ARIN will have better supporting information for
their answer.  "Yes, we _have_ verified that someone is using all that
space..."

~Chris


On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 09:36, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Draft Policy 2008-7
>> Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
>
> Here's a very partial and very rough cost estimate on implementing
> this proposal:
>
> Let's assume it takes me 5 minutes to scan the email, recognize that
> its the annual game of tag, find the instructions in the message,
> follow the instructions to certify my POC record is still valid and
> then get my mind back in the game for what I was working on before the
> interruption.
>
> 5 minutes per contact * 223,000 POCs / 60 minutes per hour = 18,600 man-hours.
>
> Most of your POCs earn between $30 and $70 per hour with a median
> around $50. That's just what it costs for someone in North America who
> is competent to perform deep technical work of this nature. Time value
> to a company is typically 3 times or more what an employee is paid.
> So, figure that those typically hours "cost" the organizations $150
> each.
>
> $150 per hour * 18,600 hours per year = $2,800,000 per year.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com ?bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Apr  2 13:54:22 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:54:22 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
	=?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or oppose
> the policy?

Hi Owen,

Support the general idea. Oppose as written.

The systemic costs have not been adequately quantified or considered.
Relatively trivial edits could and should be used to reduce the cost
with little or no damage to the proposal's effectiveness.

Edits I would make if it were my proposal include:

1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource has been
updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other behavior demonstrates
a high probability that the POC is valid, there's no need to burn more
of the POC's time.

2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded to this
or another query within the past 3 years.

3. Close the gap before "If ARIN staff deems a POC to be abandoned."
The proposal specifies no criteria for making such a determination. Is
staff intended to infer that a POC with a bad email address is
abandoned even if the phone number or postal address are still valid?
Or does this proposal direct staff to call and send postal mail when
the email bounces? The latter would be a huge direct cost to ARIN,
especially on the first sweep that hits the legacy registrations.



On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Aaron <dudepron at gmail.com> wrote:
> That assumes that each POC is unique. There are several organizations that
> have multiple listings so that number is probably much less.

I make no representations regarding the 223k number. I copied it from
the only post I saw which attempted to quantify the number of POCs in
the system.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr  2 13:58:25 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:58:25 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:54:22PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> 1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource has been
> updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other behavior demonstrates
> a high probability that the POC is valid, there's no need to burn more
> of the POC's time.
> 
> 2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded to this
> or another query within the past 3 years.

I think "3 to 5 years" is too long, but I would absolutely agree
that if ARIN has interacted with the POC via e-mail in the past
year there is no reason to re-ping the POC.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/43677591/attachment.sig>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 14:47:17 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:47:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
	<49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net><3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com><CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com><3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF8D@mail>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:58 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
> 
> In a message written on Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:54:22PM -0400, William
> Herrin wrote:
> > 1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource has been
> > updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other behavior demonstrates
> > a high probability that the POC is valid, there's no need to burn more
> > of the POC's time.
> >
> > 2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded to this
> > or another query within the past 3 years.
> 
> I think "3 to 5 years" is too long, but I would absolutely agree
> that if ARIN has interacted with the POC via e-mail in the past
> year there is no reason to re-ping the POC.
> 
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

I would agree that 1 year would be reasonable, and that any activity from a
POC should trigger "valid" status.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/0487dd14/attachment.bin>

From bill at herrin.us  Thu Apr  2 14:50:30 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:50:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> I think "3 to 5 years" is too long,

Hi Leo,

You're going from "never" to "every year." Given the cost factors,
make a more modest jump this first time and wait to see what the
resulting data quality looks like.

Better yet, place minimum and maximum timeframes in the policy and
direct ARIN staff to seek a good balance between collection cost and
data quality.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr  2 14:59:57 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:59:57 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090402185957.GB71744@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:50:30PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> You're going from "never" to "every year." Given the cost factors,
> make a more modest jump this first time and wait to see what the
> resulting data quality looks like.

One thing to recognize is that the first time through this process
is likely to be the worst, far worse than any other time.  I would
be willing to allow more than one year for the first round; three
would be a stretch to me, two would be a comfortable place.

However, once we have gone through the data I can't see any valid
argument against yearly checks.  If I look at "industry norms" 80%+
of the mailing lists I'm on sends me a reminder once month, domain
names generate a verification once a year, social networking sites
ping me if I haven't used them for about 3 months or so.  Once a
year seems to be on the long-end of the contact scale already.

The problem here is a balance between bugging people too often, and
bugging when there is still information.  For instance, with USPS
mail forwarding lasts 1 year, so if someone moves and forgets to
update their data there is real value to send them a letter every
year.  Online we often don't get forwards, but many records have
multiple POC's (noc, abuse, tech, etc).  Thus we'd like to send the
e-mail at a time when at least one is still valid (perhaps one
person has moved on, but the other three are still there).

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/db5ac267/attachment.sig>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Apr  2 15:11:41 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:11:41 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
	quotes from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <77E7687E1E234319A6B4B987401D072B@tedsdesk>


This is Executive Education?  (see the top of the webpage) 

Some of my favorite quotes from the article:


"...much of the technology which supports it has grown organically ..."

And the directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another: "It
contains that which aids plant growth, and is very strong." - from "How Shit
Happens"  (available at all fine humor websites)


"...This isn't just a theoretical debate, but something experts warn could
become a real issue within a few years..."

Hey, we're experts, we're experts!  COULD become?

"...the so-called IP addresses..."

Who you callin a so-called IP address!!!

"...could seriously hamper the Internet, saying the Web is in danger.."

Repeat after me: The Internet == Web.  The Internet == Web.  The Internet ==
Web.
Forget that man behind the curtain with a Linux box running secure
shell!!!!!

"...existing providers can't hold customers hostage..."

Hello!  Anyone heard of non-portable numbers?  Like what most customers
have?  Clue phone ringing!  Already happening!!

"..The bigger worries come if Internet Service Providers just cannot expand,
or just cannot enter the market. If that were to come to pass, I wouldn't be
surprised to see effects on service price and quality..." 

YES.  It would GET BETTER.  Did the author of the article ever stop to
reflect that consumer Internet access prices have stood at the venerable
$20 a month for the last FIFTEEN YEARS, and at the same time, bandwidth
has grown for the same dollar amount?  Every other industry has periodic
price increases EXCEPT US.  The ONLY WAY that this was sustainable was
by prices for upstream bandwidth dropping every year, which they did,
and ISP's buying more bandwidth and bringing on more $20-a-month
customers.  As a result the ISP's dollar sales increased which covered
all the other price increases ISP's have to pay, such as labor, office
rent, increased health costs, etc. etc.  PROFITS stayed FLAT.

But in the US the consumer access market hit saturation a while ago.  So
now, the only way to continue to grow revenue is stealing customers from the
weaker players.  As a result the number of ISP's in the US has been
shrinking, smaller ISP's are squeezed more at the expense of larger ISPs.
Eventually it will be all larger ISP's who will continue to consolidate
until they run up against anti-trust barriers, and then prices will
finally rise DESPITE WHAT IS DONE WITH SALES OF IPV4.  And then
once no customer growth is possible, the mega-ISP's will have customers
hostage and
ALL of them will jack rates WAY up.  Just like the soft drink manufacturers
have done - it's no coincidence that a 2-liter of EITHER Coke or Pepsi
costs the same $1.20 a bottle - and the contents of said bottle, wholesale
out to about 2 cents.  "but we have competition in soft drinks"  Yeah,
sure we do.

Obviously, this article came from a bunch of conservatives still stuck 
back in 1980 who can't admit their own incompetence.  Kind of what I
expected
from CNN.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:28 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" 
> (CNN;quotes from Ben Edelman)
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/28/execed.websites/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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 farmer at umn.edu  Thu Apr  2 15:28:46 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:28:46 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>,
	<20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>,
	<3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49D4CB9E.32145.B25590@farmer.umn.edu>

I believe we need this ASAP, I would like to see all POCs 
validated and the staff to have some time (6 months to a year) 
to investigate the non-responsive POCs before IANA free pool 
exhaustion.  Further, since the Board seems to believe there is 
an Emergency and a Transfer Policy needs to be implemented 
ASAP.   Therefore, I think we need to get moving on POC 
validation ASAP too.  

So honestly, I believe if this ends up going to the October PPM 
this policy will be to-little-to-late, and even more expensive 
solutions may become necessary.  

Would you be ok with changing the timing later, after we have 
learned how big the problem is or isn't?  Otherwise we need to 
come to a consensus on these timing issues ASAP.  

On 2 Apr 2009 William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> > I think "3 to 5 years" is too long,
> 
> Hi Leo,
> 
> You're going from "never" to "every year." Given the cost factors,
> make a more modest jump this first time and wait to see what the
> resulting data quality looks like.
> 
> Better yet, place minimum and maximum timeframes in the policy and
> direct ARIN staff to seek a good balance between collection cost and
> data quality.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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.



================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Apr  2 15:40:31 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:40:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <20090402185957.GB71744@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402185957.GB71744@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> The problem here is a balance between bugging people too often, and
> bugging when there is still information.

All I'm saying is: take it slow. We've gone decades without a POC
check and the world hasn't ended. No need to jump directly to an
expensive process.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com  Thu Apr  2 15:42:53 2009
From: Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com (Wettling, Fred)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:42:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
In-Reply-To: <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
Message-ID: <F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F938BBC3@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Member Services
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:52 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS
POC's

Draft Policy 2008-7
Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
2008-7 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion on
this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN XXIII
Public Policy Meeting in San Antonio.
Draft Policy 2008-7 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_7.html
<SNIP>

---------------------------------------
I support the current Draft Policy 2008-7 as written.  It's a
common-sense approach to improve the quality of data used for routine
operations and decision making.
Fred Wettling
Bechtel Corporation
http://globalipv6strategies.com/



From owen at delong.com  Thu Apr  2 15:50:49 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:50:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml]
 =?windows-1252?q?Draft_Policy_2008-7=3A_Identify_Inva?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lid_WHOIS_POC=92s?=
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BBD96AE9-0F0B-4301-806F-07D6C633D962@delong.com>


On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or oppose
>> the policy?
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> Support the general idea. Oppose as written.
>
> The systemic costs have not been adequately quantified or considered.
> Relatively trivial edits could and should be used to reduce the cost
> with little or no damage to the proposal's effectiveness.
>
> Edits I would make if it were my proposal include:
>
> 1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource has been
> updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other behavior demonstrates
> a high probability that the POC is valid, there's no need to burn more
> of the POC's time.

I think that the number of POCs that update their records annually is
low enough that this would not be a significant savings.

> 2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded to this
> or another query within the past 3 years.
>
You're again arguing for a 3-5 year refresh rate. However, this was  
discussed
quite a bit in prior proposals and such, and, I think there is general  
community
consensus around a 1 year refresh rate.

> 3. Close the gap before "If ARIN staff deems a POC to be abandoned."
> The proposal specifies no criteria for making such a determination. Is
> staff intended to infer that a POC with a bad email address is
> abandoned even if the phone number or postal address are still valid?
> Or does this proposal direct staff to call and send postal mail when
> the email bounces? The latter would be a huge direct cost to ARIN,
> especially on the first sweep that hits the legacy registrations.
>
ARIN staff are an intelligent group of people who
can and do develop good operational practices with general guidance
from the community in the form of policy. If you feel staff needs a more
specific operational practice in this area, I think that would be  
appropriate
to submit to the ACSP. I do not think that staff would determine a POC
to be abandoned based solely on a bad email address. I think email is
the first line of contact to identify POCs that may require follow-up  
via
phone and/or postal contact.

Owen



From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 15:55:58 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:55:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
	<49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net><3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com><CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com><3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com><20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org><3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com><20090402185957.GB71744@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF8E@mail>

> Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:41 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> > The problem here is a balance between bugging people too often, and
> > bugging when there is still information.
> 
> All I'm saying is: take it slow. We've gone decades without a POC
> check and the world hasn't ended. No need to jump directly to an
> expensive process.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

While I am probably the first in line at the "If it aint broke don't fix it"
counter, I do think we need 2008-7 as a first step toward identifying
abandoned netblocks.

Kevin Kargel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/dc738754/attachment.bin>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Apr  2 15:57:59 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:57:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
	<49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net><3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com><CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99E3AC8A74FF42C2A40C8F404C0830DB@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:54 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid 
> WHOIS POC's
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or 
> oppose the 
> > policy?
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> Support the general idea. Oppose as written.
> 
> The systemic costs have not been adequately quantified or considered.


When IPv4 runout has happened, the value of unused IPv4 is going to
climb quite rapidly to those who cannot get it.  Are you willing to
tell a brand new org that only needs a /23 that it's not worth the
time for the rest of the Internet community to search out and locate
an abandoned /23 that they can use, even though we know perfectly
well that there's many abandoned /23's buried in WHOIS?

That seems very shabby to me, and it's also just begging to get
the politicians and governments involved.

Just look for example during the last election how all the Republicans
were howling about the government could take care of the US dependent
on oil by just letting the petroleum companies drill in offshore areas.
It made no difference that careful studies by the very oil companies
this was supposed to help were saying the opposite - this was at it's
heart, a decision by the ignorant masses (the American people) that
the scientists working for the oil companies and for the government were
simply incompetent boobs, and needed to be overridden.

If McCain had been elected I guarantee they would be in the middle of
issuing more offshore leases right now.  Even though the oil companies
have said they mostly don't believe there's much chance of getting more
oil out there - but hey, if the government is going to give them the
leases for a dollar, then give them billions in tax credits to drill
there, well then they will drill.

And you really think you can get away will using some unfair cost
argument when we KNOW, not just guess like the oil scientists, that
there's abandoned IPv4 resources out there?  I think this is very
unrealistic.

Even if a "IPv4 buy-and-sell" market goes into effect this will
not remove the need for WHOIS validation - by contrast, it will
greatly increase the need for it, since you will have many
IPv4 brokers operating on the Internet and it's likely that as
prices rise, an increasing number of these transactions will
be under the table.


> Relatively trivial edits could and should be used to reduce 
> the cost with little or no damage to the proposal's effectiveness.
> 
> Edits I would make if it were my proposal include:
> 
> 1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource 
> has been updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other 
> behavior demonstrates a high probability that the POC is 
> valid, there's no need to burn more of the POC's time.
> 

This is an operational objection and it's been made clear many
times not to put operations into the policy manual.

You may suggest to the ARIN staff
that is tasked with implementing this to merely NOT designate
a non-responsive POC as non-responsive until they have NOT
responded by e-mail 3 - 5 years in a row.  Or, the staff can
NOT designate a POC non-responsive even if it doesn't respond
to the annual POC-ping, as long as it's responding in some
other manner.

Next?

> 2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded 
> to this or another query within the past 3 years.
>

see above.  The POC can choose to not respond to the ping without
fear of being marked bad in the database if ARIN staff simply says
that they won't designate a POC as unresponsive if the POC
responds in a different fashion (such as a recent WHOIS update)
 
> 3. Close the gap before "If ARIN staff deems a POC to be abandoned."
> The proposal specifies no criteria for making such a 
> determination. 

This is correct.  All prior trial balloons of this proposal drew
many and varied objections when they SPECIFICALLY TOLD ARIN
staff what criteria to use to deem a POC to be abandoned.  The
objections were to bringing operational details into the policy
manual.

> Is staff intended to infer that a POC with a 
> bad email address is abandoned even if the phone number or 
> postal address are still valid?

If the phone number and postal address are valid then the POC is
in violation of the contract they signed with ARIN that requires
that they supply complete POC data.  So, ARIN staff should remind
the POC of this.  If the POC refuses to update the e-mail address
to a correct e-mail address they are violating their contract
and can risk loss of their addresses on those grounds.

> Or does this proposal direct staff to call and send postal 
> mail when the email bounces?

NO.  Since the charter of ARIN is to manage IP address resources,
technically the charter dictates that when ARIN essentially becomes aware
of an unused address resource that they assign it.  This isn't
happening right now, because we still have virgin IPv4.  But
after IPv4 runout, pressure will be on ARIN to assign out the
bits and pieces of IPv4 and then it will be very important to
know what's in use and what's not.

Thus, ARIN's charter, not this policy proposal, directs ARIN staff
to verify a POC that it is brought to their attention is invalid. 

> The latter would be a huge 
> direct cost to ARIN, especially on the first sweep that hits 
> the legacy registrations.
>

The policy proposal gives ARIN staff flexibility.  LOGICALLY anyone 
at ARIN implementing this would cherry pick the LARGE blocks FIRST.

I highly doubt ARIN staff would spend time attempting to verify a POC
on a /24 that was not responding during the first round of e-mails.
This is another thing you can suggest as an operational detail.  I
would assume by the time they got the larger blocks validated that
it would be so far in the future that nobody would care about
POC handles on IPv4 resources.

Ted
 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Aaron <dudepron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That assumes that each POC is unique. There are several 
> organizations 
> > that have multiple listings so that number is probably much less.
> 
> I make no representations regarding the 223k number. I copied 
> it from the only post I saw which attempted to quantify the 
> number of POCs in the system.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: 
> <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 16:00:34 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:00:34 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
In-Reply-To: <BBD96AE9-0F0B-4301-806F-07D6C633D962@delong.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
	<49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net><3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com><CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com><3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<BBD96AE9-0F0B-4301-806F-07D6C633D962@delong.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF8F@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:51 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
> 
> 
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >> In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or oppose
> >> the policy?
> >
> > Hi Owen,
> >
> > Support the general idea. Oppose as written.
> >
> > The systemic costs have not been adequately quantified or considered.
> > Relatively trivial edits could and should be used to reduce the cost
> > with little or no damage to the proposal's effectiveness.
> >
> > Edits I would make if it were my proposal include:
> >
> > 1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource has been
> > updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other behavior demonstrates
> > a high probability that the POC is valid, there's no need to burn more
> > of the POC's time.
> 
> I think that the number of POCs that update their records annually is
> low enough that this would not be a significant savings.
> 

While the POCs that update may be few, the POCs that make changes or
amendments or ask questions or pay fees are not few.  My read says that any
activity by a POC counts as a refresh.  

I have no idea how ARIN will track this, perhaps a database of "last email
received" or some such, but it seems very doable.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/5b57334b/attachment.bin>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Apr  2 16:09:24 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:09:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net>
	<49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net><3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com><CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com><3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com><20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org><3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com><20090402185957.GB71744@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2CD3613859A64505845AD094C97B6F4B@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify 
> Invalid WHOIS POC?s
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> > The problem here is a balance between bugging people too often, and 
> > bugging when there is still information.
> 
> All I'm saying is: take it slow. We've gone decades without a 
> POC check and the world hasn't ended. No need to jump 
> directly to an expensive process.
> 

But that was during a time period where IPv4 was considered plentiful.

We've gone decades in the US without catalytic converters on lawnmowers
and the world hasn't ended either.  But, they are coming - EPA
just finalized regs on these last year:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm

Ted



From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 16:13:27 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:13:27 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
	<3c3e3fca0904020836y6bd0bdbeg395cf1f98203092c@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC1C9F64-CBA7-4888-B71D-D2F0F266B01E@delong.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904021054q5d5e1419j53d81ae622c3ce5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402175825.GA68697@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904021150j50479970u7462f18e1bb473d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402185957.GB71744@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904021240u68ae3f9dk8508151105e844f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904021313t46b32a53p1c132886a9d30a7e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 13:40, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>> The problem here is a balance between bugging people too often, and
>> bugging when there is still information.
>
> All I'm saying is: take it slow. We've gone decades without a POC
> check and the world hasn't ended. No need to jump directly to an
> expensive process.

We had free/unallocated IPv4 space that entire time too.  I do not
agree that the expense to the community is as astronomical as you seem
to believe.  We are talking about responding to a single email here.
Both of us could have done it multiple times today and not cost our
company any more time than we have responding to the ppml...  I am not
saying the world will end without this policy, or even the Internet --
I am saying the Internet will be better for it and that I for one am
willing to respond to one email a year to make it happen.
~Chris

>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com ?bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com  Thu Apr  2 16:41:08 2009
From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:41:08 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>

I've waited for calmer waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in hopes that others can do the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural commentary.   Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up with and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and opinions the rest of the community has.  While I am grateful for those who have already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks that have not yet posted to ppml on this subject.

Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.
Con: A hard date could be totally the wrong date.
Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the transfer policy as permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting back to original policy.
Alternate solution:  It might be better to write in a clause the requires review and analysis of the state of address space availability every year.  If there proves to be zero difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period of one year then revert back to original policy and deactivate this policy.
My opinion: Its cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything of its kind.  If in the future we enter into free flowing address space again, we can always enact the policy process to revert back to the original transfer policy.  Either way its not a show stopper but going without it seems to me to be the best way.


Implementation Date Now and no wait time
Pro: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market which is currently active and growing.
Pro: Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data.
Con: The free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to an end.
Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has reached a choking point.
My opinion: It sucks to see there is no escape from supply and demand.  The former utopian addressing world was great but the fact is when the quantity of anything becomes limited, people no longer freely share or give but require some form of monetary return.   We can't escape the fundamentals of supply and demand and I believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much as possible is more important than clinging to the past and in that time frame watching the black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and record of authoritative source decline.  We already need to improve in those areas and this isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right now, but it would be best to in the least take action that stops it from getting any worse while at the same time ensuring conservation/proper usage.


New Definition "Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal entities under common control or ownership."
Pro: This will force organizations into proper management of IP addresses.
Pro: This could cut down on waste from large organizations that are segmented.
Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address space on a higher level.  Currently one organization can own three or more companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address management.  With this additional definition Company A could have allot of address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.  This would force address management up to the organizational level.
Alternate solution: Grandfather existing organizations.
My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow for some organizations I believe its the most accurate and efficient way to manage address space.  It may also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of IPv6.
Clarification needed on what this policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6 both?)
New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for IPv4 only.  I think it needs to be clear what this policy will be applied to as it makes sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a supply and demand situation.

In Summary:
As I went through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the changes made are appropriate.  I don't think the sunset clause is a functioning tool.  I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to waiting and the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to address conservation and management.


Those are my 2 cents.  I hope to hear from the other community members that have not yet posted thoughts about the policy text itself.

Cheers
Marla Azinger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/f169746d/attachment.htm>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 17:00:13 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:00:13 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF90@mail>

________________________________________
>>From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Azinger, Marla
>>Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:41 PM
>>To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
review


?
?
>>Those are my 2 cents. ?I hope to hear from the other community members
that have not yet posted thoughts about the policy text itself.
?
>>Cheers
>>Marla Azinger

I know I have put my two cents worth in before, but I will do so again.  The
changes still permit the formation of for-profit IP brokerages and an IP
commodities market.  This in itself is a deal breaker.  No policy should be
implemented that allows either for-profit IP brokerages or an IP market.  It
is that simple.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/7ab67f63/attachment.bin>

From Alain_Durand at cable.comcast.com  Thu Apr  2 17:07:56 2009
From: Alain_Durand at cable.comcast.com (Durand, Alain)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:07:56 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
 review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <C5FAA16C.167EB%Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>

Here is my $.02, speaking as an individual.

Sunset clause:
I like the idea of a sunset clause as a forcing function to review this
policy. This seems to be a good thing to do, especially given the
controversial nature of this policy.

Implementation date:
Who, beside spammer, speculators & anybody who does not meet the ARIN public
policies would want to use paying transfer as long as there are addresses
available?
It seems to me that the community should delay the implementation of this
policy until the chocking point and use that time to clean-up whois
records...
At least it would lower the noise on questionable originator of transfers.

v4/v6
I?d like to see this policy explicitly restricted to IPv4. In the case the
world really embrace IPv6, at east we would have maintained somehow a more
sensible world there.

   - Alain.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/5fcee8c2/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Apr  2 17:04:57 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:04:57 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>


On Apr 2, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> I've waited for calmer waters to discuss the merits of this proposal  
> in hopes that others can do the same and not get lost in the sea of  
> procedural commentary.   Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here  
> is what I came up with and I would like to hear what other pro's,  
> con's, solutions and opinions the rest of the community has.  While  
> I am grateful for those who have already posted their opinions to  
> ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks that have not yet posted to ppml  
> on this subject.
>
> Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
> Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.
> Con: A hard date could be totally the wrong date.
> Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the transfer policy as  
> permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting back to  
> original policy.
> Alternate solution:  It might be better to write in a clause the  
> requires review and analysis of the state of address space  
> availability every year.  If there proves to be zero difficulty  
> fulfilling IP requests for a period of one year then revert back to  
> original policy and deactivate this policy.
> My opinion: Its cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or  
> anything of its kind.  If in the future we enter into free flowing  
> address space again, we can always enact the policy process to  
> revert back to the original transfer policy.  Either way its not a  
> show stopper but going without it seems to me to be the best way.
Pro: It provides a default expiry of a policy that much of the  
community considers
	otherwise undesirable.
Pro: It sends a clear message that this policy is transient in nature  
and not expected
	or intended to be a permanent extension to IPv4.

My  opinion: Much of the community was able to agree to 2008-6  
specifically because it
had a sunset clause and therefore provided a temporary solution to get  
over the
emergency, but, did not create a permanent market in IP addresses  
which many
regard as  a bad thing.  If the sunset proves to be undesirable, there  
can always
be policy action to extend or repeal it, but, that should be something  
that goes before
the community for consensus, not a line-item veto.

>
> Implementation Date Now and no wait time
> Pro: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black  
> Market which is currently active and growing.
> Pro: Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data.
> Con: The free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to  
> an end.
I don't agree with your premise on your first Pro or the Con.
First, the world of addressing as we know it continues until runout  
regardless of
this policy. The black market that exists today exists to serve those  
that would
not or would choose not to qualify under 2008-6 or 2009-1 anyway, so,  
I don't
see how this will diminish that black market in any way.

The implementation date doesn't really bother me that much one way or  
the
other, but, I think we should be realistic about what it does or does  
not change.
The community seemed to come to consensus around the idea of  
implementation
at a date when the board felt there was a sufficient need to implement  
the policy.
As such, if the board thinks that is now, then, so be it. We left it  
to their judgment.
>
> Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has reached a  
> choking point.
> My opinion: It sucks to see there is no escape from supply and  
> demand.  The former utopian addressing world was great but the fact  
> is when the quantity of anything becomes limited, people no longer  
> freely share or give but require some form of monetary return.   We  
> can't escape the fundamentals of supply and demand and I believe  
> maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much as possible is more  
> important than clinging to the past and in that time frame watching  
> the black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and record of  
> authoritative source decline.  We already need to improve in those  
> areas and this isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right  
> now, but it would be best to in the least take action that stops it  
> from getting any worse while at the same time ensuring conservation/ 
> proper usage.

I don't think there is a significant change to whois integrity until  
such time as
ARIN is no longer able to issue new addresses through the normal  
process.

>
>
> New Definition ?Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal  
> entities under common control or ownership.?
> Pro: This will force organizations into proper management of IP  
> addresses.
> Pro: This could cut down on waste from large organizations that are  
> segmented.
> Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of  
> address space on a higher level.  Currently one organization can own  
> three or more companies that up until now have operated separately  
> when it came to address management.  With this additional definition  
> Company A could have allot of address space that effectively stops  
> Company B from getting more address space because per the new  
> definition the addresses would need to be shared among the whole  
> Organization not individually by Company as in the past.  This would  
> force address management up to the organizational level.
> Alternate solution: Grandfather existing organizations.
> My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow for some  
> organizations I believe its the most accurate and efficient way to  
> manage address space.  It may also serve as an indirect push towards  
> the adoption of IPv6.
I don't see your Con as a Con from the community's perspective. I can  
see
how some organizations might consider it a con internally, but,  
looking at
it from the larger community perspective, I see it as a Pro.

You left out:
New Requirement: "Organization"
Pro: ?
Con: Excludes individuals that could currently qualify for address  
space from participating in the market to obtain additional address  
space.
Con: May prevent individuals that hold address space from providing it  
to the market (I am unsure of the interpretation of this).
Alternate Solution: Use the term resource holder in place of  
Organization where appropriate in the policy.
My opinion: This change should be made.  Any entity that can qualify  
under current policy should be able to participate on either side of  
any market we create.

> Clarification needed on what this policy specifically is applied to  
> (v4, v6 both?)
> New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for IPv4  
> only.  I think it needs to be clear what this policy will be applied  
> to as it makes sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a  
> supply and demand situation.
>
As it is currently written, I believe this policy would apply to IPv4,  
IPv6, and ASNs.  I believe that it should apply only to IPv4.

While most of this is a redux of what I have posted before in pieces,  
I think having all of it
collected in one thread is worth-while.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/27f3c2d8/attachment.htm>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 17:12:39 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:12:39 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <C5FAA16C.167EB%Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<C5FAA16C.167EB%Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF92@mail>

________________________________________
>>From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Durand, Alain
>>Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:08 PM
>>To: Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
review

>>Here is my $.02, speaking as an individual.

>>Sunset clause:
>>I like the idea of a sunset clause as a forcing function to review this
policy. This seems to be a good thing to do, especially given the
controversial nature of this >>policy.

>>Implementation date:
>>Who, beside spammer, speculators & anybody who does not meet the ARIN
public policies would want to use paying transfer as long as there are
addresses available?
>>It seems to me that the community should delay the implementation of this
policy until the chocking point and use that time to clean-up whois
records...
>>At least it would lower the noise on questionable originator of transfers.

>>v4/v6
>>I?d like to see this policy explicitly restricted to IPv4. In the case the
world really embrace IPv6, at east we would have maintained somehow a more
sensible world >>there.

>>???- Alain.


If you do not think 2009-1 is a sensible proposal then please do not support
it.  If it won't work for IPv6 then don't do it for IPv4 either.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/cd6fde40/attachment.bin>

From stephen at sprunk.org  Thu Apr  2 17:15:53 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:15:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
 2009
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087531F88@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <376189.27706.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>	<107DD4CEABC54F669D321A6EB64005F3@tedsdesk>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087531F88@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <49D52B09.1010709@sprunk.org>

Bill Darte wrote:
>
> So do you think ARIN needs to ask for all address space to be 
> re-justified, documented and when there is obvious under-utilization 
> they reclaim it?
>

See section 12 of the most recent NRPM (aka 2007-14).

I would debate "all", and I would encourage the BoT to rein in staff if 
they even started heading in that direction, but the policy is now in 
place and it was the intent of the proposal's authors that staff _would_ 
soon start reviewing resources that are suspected of being 
under-utilized and/or abandoned.

Getting a jump on this now -- before the pool is depleted and the 
transfer market starts in earnest -- is certainly in the interests of 
the community, because it keeps the "intergovernmental organizations" 
that want to take over address allocations from an easy claim to the 
moral high ground.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/3395165b/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 17:17:54 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:17:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>

 

My  opinion: Much of the community was able to agree to 2008-6 specifically
because it

had a sunset clause and therefore provided a temporary solution to get over
the

emergency, but, did not create a permanent market in IP addresses which many

regard as  a bad thing.  If the sunset proves to be undesirable, there can
always

be policy action to extend or repeal it, but, that should be something that
goes before

the community for consensus, not a line-item veto.


Where is everyone getting this "Much of the community support" for 2008-6?
2008-6 was not able to be ratified so the BoT took it upon themselves to
force it down our throats without community consensus!  There was very
little support for 2008-6.  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/f658aff5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/f658aff5/attachment.bin>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr  2 17:41:26 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:41:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
	2009
In-Reply-To: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087531F88@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
References: <376189.27706.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
	<107DD4CEABC54F669D321A6EB64005F3@tedsdesk>
	<EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087531F88@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
Message-ID: <20090402214126.GA80355@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 08:13:46PM -0500, Bill Darte wrote:
>    So do you think ARIN needs to ask for all address space to be
>    re-justified, documented and when there is obvious under-utilization
>    they reclaim it?

I think "all" is very much the wrong question to ask.

If someone has made an additional request via ARIN recently (6-24
months, or so) they have been reviewed to some extent.  Going back
and re-justifing space for those folks would be a waste of time for
all involved.

Of what's left, I think it's important to take some common sense
steps.  There's little value to reviewing an amount of space less
than or equal to the minimum allocation size, as if part were
recovered it could not be given back out to others.

That does leave an interesting set of folks.  I think it would be
of value to the ARIN community to do some spot checking.  It's like
the IRS picking out which tax returns to check, doing every single
one in the level of detail makes no sense; but you want to do enough
to get good data on compliance rates.

Truth is, we don't have a good handle on how well a particular
subset of the community is using space.  Perhaps all the space is
used efficiently.  Perhaps almost none of it is.

Back in 2006 when I did some WHOIS research there were 1.2 million
ORG records.

So, to that end, if we throw out people who got space from ARIN in
the last 24 months, and people with allocations less than or equal
to the current minimum, and then did audits on 1 in 1,000 to 1 in
10,000 per year (so, probably between 50-500 audits per year) and
reported on that I think we could accomplish several things:

  - Gain a LOT of knowledge.
  - Greatly increase the incentives for folks to track space properly.
  - Create another form of encouragement for folks to return space they
    aren't using.
  - Increase the perception that resource utilization matters on an
    ongoing basis, not just when you submit an application.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/074d055f/attachment.sig>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Apr  2 17:57:48 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:57:48 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>

Marla,
 
  The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1
anymore.  It is about whether or
not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize this
issue.
 
  If 2009-1 is put in place against opposition, then it will be subject to
constant additional
future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will require further
opposition against the majority to
keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach of trust.
Eventually it will go or the
Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then the atmosphere
will be so poisoned
that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a
critical time.
 
  There is still time now for the Board to apologize and atone for it's
mistake.  Atonement is
simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new,
fresh set of proposals
during the next round, or, restore the sunset clause.
 
  Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about the merits of this
proposal anymore.  It
is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are
all sitting here
scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge they
screwed up
and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible by policy later, of
just restoring
the sunset clause.
 
Ted
 



  _____  

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Azinger, Marla
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review



I've waited for calmer waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in
hopes that others can do the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural
commentary.   Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up
with and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and
opinions the rest of the community has.  While I am grateful for those who
have already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks
that have not yet posted to ppml on this subject. 
 
Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.
Con: A hard date could be totally the wrong date. 
Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the transfer policy as permanent
policy is better for the ARIN than reverting back to original policy. 
Alternate solution:  It might be better to write in a clause the requires
review and analysis of the state of address space availability every year.
If there proves to be zero difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period of
one year then revert back to original policy and deactivate this policy.
My opinion: Its cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything
of its kind.  If in the future we enter into free flowing address space
again, we can always enact the policy process to revert back to the original
transfer policy.  Either way its not a show stopper but going without it
seems to me to be the best way.


Implementation Date Now and no wait time
Pro: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market
which is currently active and growing.
Pro: Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data. 
Con: The free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to an end.  
Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has reached a choking
point.
My opinion: It sucks to see there is no escape from supply and demand.  The
former utopian addressing world was great but the fact is when the quantity
of anything becomes limited, people no longer freely share or give but
require some form of monetary return.   We can't escape the fundamentals of
supply and demand and I believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much
as possible is more important than clinging to the past and in that time
frame watching the black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and record
of authoritative source decline.  We already need to improve in those areas
and this isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right now, but it
would be best to in the least take action that stops it from getting any
worse while at the same time ensuring conservation/proper usage.
 

New Definition "Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal entities
under common control or ownership."
Pro: This will force organizations into proper management of IP addresses.
Pro: This could cut down on waste from large organizations that are
segmented. 
Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address
space on a higher level.  Currently one organization can own three or more
companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address
management.  With this additional definition Company A could have allot of
address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address
space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared
among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.
This would force address management up to the organizational level.
Alternate solution: Grandfather existing organizations.
My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow for some organizations I
believe its the most accurate and efficient way to manage address space.  It
may also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of IPv6.


Clarification needed on what this policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6
both?)
New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for IPv4 only.  I
think it needs to be clear what this policy will be applied to as it makes
sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a supply and demand
situation.

In Summary:
As I went through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the
changes made are appropriate.  I don't think the sunset clause is a
functioning tool.  I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to
waiting and the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to
address conservation and management.
 
 
Those are my 2 cents.  I hope to hear from the other community members that
have not yet posted thoughts about the policy text itself.
 
Cheers
Marla Azinger



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/fb244ef8/attachment.htm>

From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Thu Apr  2 17:48:24 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:48:24 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
	quotes from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com> <49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B2@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

I think this quote speaks volumes about how much thought has been put
into the repercussions of an open market:

<quote>
But would this mean ordinary Web users having to pay in order to surf?
Edelman believes not.

"If this transition goes smoothly, consumers should never notice. To
date, IP addresses have been a trivially small part of the cost of
Internet access and Web site hosting. Even if IP address prices
increased 100 times, consumers still probably wouldn't notice," he said.
</quote>

Funny thing about the variables 'supply' and 'demand', if you
miscalculate them, your results can be quite off.

- Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: Ron Cleven; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?"
> (CNN;quotes from Ben Edelman)
> 
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> > On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:53 AM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?"
> > (CNN;quotes from Ben Edelman)
> >
> > Gee, what an idea!  I guess it sounds smarter when someone from
> > Harvard says it.
> >
> > Paul Vixie wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/28/execed.websites/index.html
> 
> Amazing, you would almost think that Harvard had a whole bunch of IP's
> they weren't using that they would like to sell at a profit!  lol


From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr  2 18:12:53 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:12:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN;
	quotes from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B2@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>
	<49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B2@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF94@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Scott Beuker
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:48 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?"
> (CNN;quotes from Ben Edelman)
> 
> I think this quote speaks volumes about how much thought has been put
> into the repercussions of an open market:
> 
> <quote>
> But would this mean ordinary Web users having to pay in order to surf?
> Edelman believes not.
> 
> "If this transition goes smoothly, consumers should never notice. To
> date, IP addresses have been a trivially small part of the cost of
> Internet access and Web site hosting. Even if IP address prices
> increased 100 times, consumers still probably wouldn't notice," he said.
> </quote>
> 
> Funny thing about the variables 'supply' and 'demand', if you
> miscalculate them, your results can be quite off.
> 
> - Scott
> 
Agreed, my fear is not that the cost of IP addresses will go up 100 times, I
fear it will go up tens or hundreds of thousands of times..

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/e1b4d987/attachment.bin>

From matthew at matthew.at  Thu Apr  2 18:12:55 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:12:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
 review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <49D53867.6040101@matthew.at>

Azinger, Marla wrote:
>
>
>     */New Definition /**/?Organization. An Organization is one or more
>     legal entities under common control or ownership.?
>     /*
>
*I have a serious problem with this one. As an entrepreneur I have 
created and/or purchased over a half-dozen companies which use IP 
address space.

It would be fatal to some of these businesses for their IP address 
management to be lumped together simply because I am the majority owner 
of more than one of these. Among other things, it would drastically 
complicate things when I (as I often do) sell these entities to new 
owners or investors. As an example, I recently sold a podcasting-related 
entity shortly after I acquired a wireless ISP. Both used IP addresses, 
but in vastly different ways. Both are separate legal entities, one a 
California corporation which is now dissolved and whose assets are part 
of the Texas corporation, the other a Delaware corporation. There should 
be no reason why two different corporations should be required to share 
management of their IP address space simply as a consequence of their 
current ownership.

Ask any company doing private equity buyouts if they want to be managing 
the IP address space for the various types of companies under their 
control, as another example.

Matthew Kaufman
*


From matthew at matthew.at  Thu Apr  2 18:15:18 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:15:18 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
 review
In-Reply-To: <46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49D538F6.7090507@matthew.at>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Marla,
>  
>   The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1 
> anymore.  It is about whether or
> not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize 
> this issue.
>  
Agreed. Even though I am strongly in favor of an easy-to-use transfer 
policy and believe it would be better than the status quo.

Matthew Kaufman


From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Thu Apr  2 18:23:51 2009
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (John Sweeting)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:23:51 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <C5FAB337.295D%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

Ted, 

This specific thread IS about 2009-1. It is about having an intelligent
discussion about the contents of 2009-1 and providing input back to the
Board through the AC using this PPML mailing list so that the AC can then
make a recommendation to the Board. Marla is trying to reach out to everyone
in the community for their opinions on what the AC feels are the 4 most
important issues with 2009-1. If you want to continue to beat up the Board,
or the AC for that matter then it would be more appropriate to start a new
thread. Please let people that would like to voice their opinions about
2009-1 on this thread do that. I truly respect your right to your opinions
and to your right to share those opinions and would ask that you show the
same respect and courtesy in return. If the community has truly lost faith
in the Board members then I expect it will show in the next election.
Personally I do not think the Board has lost the trust of the community and
I think that most people feel that they have acted in a manner that they
felt necessary. Since we are still in the discussion stage I think it only
fair to see how this plays out and wait for the end result. As for the
Board, this is essentially the same Board that has served us so well over
the years and has helped to make ARIN what it is and for that I am willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I can ask that you
do the same but that, of course, is your decision. In closing I would ask
only that you allow this thread to stay on track for collecting opinions on
the actual wording in 2009-1. Thank you

For everyone else out there please take the time to provide your thoughts
and opinions on the 4 items that Marla has requested as it is critical for
the AC to understand the positioning of the community on this policy. Thank
you.


On 4/2/09 5:57 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> Marla,
>  
>   The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1
> anymore.  It is about whether or
> not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize this
> issue.
>  
>   If 2009-1 is put in place against opposition, then it will be subject to
> constant additional
> future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will require further
> opposition against the majority to
> keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach of trust.
> Eventually it will go or the
> Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then the atmosphere will
> be so poisoned
> that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a critical
> time.
>  
>   There is still time now for the Board to apologize and atone for it's
> mistake.  Atonement is
> simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new,
> fresh set of proposals
> during the next round, or, restore the sunset clause.
>  
>   Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about the merits of this
> proposal anymore.  It
> is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are
> all sitting here
> scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge they
> screwed up
> and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible by policy later, of
> just restoring
> the sunset clause.
>  
> Ted
>  
> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net  [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Azinger,  Marla
>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM
>> To:  arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and  con merits of 2009-1 review
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>> I've waited for calmer  waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in
>>> hopes that others can do  the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural
>>> commentary.    Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up
>>> with  and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and
>>> opinions the  rest of the community has.  While I am grateful for those who
>>> have  already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks
>>> that  have not yet posted to ppml on this subject.
>>>  
>>> Sunset  Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
>>> Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers  and resume original policy.
>>> Con: A hard date could be totally the  wrong date.
>>> Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the  transfer policy as
>>> permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting  back to original
>>> policy. 
>>> Alternate solution:  It might be  better to write in a clause the requires
>>> review and analysis of the state of  address space availability every year.
>>> If there proves to be zero  difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period
>>> of one year then revert back  to original policy and deactivate this policy.
>>> My opinion: Its  cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything
>>> of its kind.   If in the future we enter into free flowing address space
>>> again, we  can always enact the policy process to revert back to the
>>> original transfer  policy.  Either way its not a show  stopper but going
>>> without it seems to me to be the best  way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Implementation Date Now and no wait time
>>> Pro:  Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market
>>> which is  currently active and growing.
>>> Pro: Immediate implementation would  help preserve WHOIS data.
>>> Con: The free world of  addressing as we currently know it  comes to an end.
>>> Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has  reached a
>>> choking point.
>>> My opinion: It sucks to see there is no  escape from supply and demand.  The
>>> former utopian addressing world was  great but the fact is when the quantity
>>> of anything becomes limited, people  no longer freely share or give but
>>> require some form of monetary return.    We can't escape the fundamentals of
>>> supply and demand and I  believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much
>>> as possible is more  important than clinging to the past and in that time
>>> frame watching the  black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and
>>> record of authoritative  source decline.  We already need to improve in
>>> those areas and this  isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right
>>> now, but it would be best  to in the least take action that stops it from
>>> getting any worse while at  the same time ensuring conservation/proper
>>> usage.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> New  Definition ?Organization.  An Organization is  one or more legal
>>> entities under common control or  ownership.?
>>> Pro: This will force organizations into  proper management of IP addresses.
>>> Pro: This could cut down on  waste from large organizations that are
>>> segmented. 
>>> Con: Large  segmented organizations will have to face management of address
>>> space on a  higher level.  Currently one organization can own three or more
>>> companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address
>>> management.  With this additional definition Company A could have allot  of
>>> address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address
>>> space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared
>>> among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.
>>> This would force address management up to the organizational  level.
>>> Alternate solution: Grandfather existing  organizations.
>>> My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow  for some organizations I
>>> believe its the most accurate and efficient way to  manage address space.
>>> It may  also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of  IPv6.
>>  
>>>  
>>> Clarification needed on what this  policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6
>>> both?)
>>>  
>>> New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for  IPv4 only.  I
>>> think it needs to be clear what this policy will be  applied to as it makes
>>> sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a  supply and demand
>>> situation.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> In Summary:
>>> As I went  through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the
>>> changes made  are appropriate.  I don't think the sunset clause is a
>>> functioning  tool.  I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to
>>> waiting and  the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to
>>> address  conservation and management.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Those are my 2 cents.   I hope to hear from the other community members that
>>> have not yet  posted thoughts about the policy text itself.
>>>  
>>> Cheers
>>> Marla  Azinger
>>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/fec9dc3c/attachment.htm>

From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Thu Apr  2 18:30:49 2009
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (John Sweeting)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:30:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <49D53867.6040101@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <C5FAB4D9.2960%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

Matthew, 

Thank you, this is exactly the type of input we are requesting. Clear,
concise and to the point and especially easy to understand given the
examples you have provided.


On 4/2/09 6:12 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> Azinger, Marla wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >     */New Definition /**/?Organization. An Organization is one or more
>> >     legal entities under common control or ownership.?
>> >     /*
>> >
> *I have a serious problem with this one. As an entrepreneur I have
> created and/or purchased over a half-dozen companies which use IP
> address space.
> 
> It would be fatal to some of these businesses for their IP address
> management to be lumped together simply because I am the majority owner
> of more than one of these. Among other things, it would drastically
> complicate things when I (as I often do) sell these entities to new
> owners or investors. As an example, I recently sold a podcasting-related
> entity shortly after I acquired a wireless ISP. Both used IP addresses,
> but in vastly different ways. Both are separate legal entities, one a
> California corporation which is now dissolved and whose assets are part
> of the Texas corporation, the other a Delaware corporation. There should
> be no reason why two different corporations should be required to share
> management of their IP address space simply as a consequence of their
> current ownership.
> 
> Ask any company doing private equity buyouts if they want to be managing
> the IP address space for the various types of companies under their
> control, as another example.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman
> *
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 


P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/19086d8c/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Thu Apr  2 18:45:20 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:45:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <Acmz01mfgp1n3lz+Qkirfut2wOSAzQ==>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904021545q3fd5f97cx1fb003c218bbb2aa@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Azinger, Marla
<marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com> wrote:
> Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
> Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.

Pro: The policy expires unless there is fresh consensus to continue it.

A policy establishing an address market is well out in front of
anything we've done before. The odds of getting it right the first
time are effectively nil. The sunset date assures up front that the
mistakes we make here won't propagate indefinitely.


> New Definition ?Organization. ?An Organization is one or more legal entities
> under common control or ownership.?
> Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address

Con: Unenforceable. Ownership or control of legal entities is not
necessarily a matter of public record.

Con: Changes over time. Why should I be thrown into noncompliance just
because Buffet chose to buy a controlling stake both in my company and
in Verizon?



Use of the Emergency PDP process for a questionable definition of emergency.

Con: Sets a precedent for the misuse of the emergency PDP process.


Explicit disaggreation permission.

Con: encourages a BGP table explosion. While I personally think the
consequences of a BGP table explosion are overrated (the hardware
capability, at the moment, is very comfortable ahead of demand)

Or has that changed? 'Cause if we're no longer worried about the BGP
table, I'll happily submit a proposal extending the prefix length from
/22 to /24.


I reiterate that I adamantly OPPOSE proposal 2009-1.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Thu Apr  2 18:59:43 2009
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:59:43 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
	2009-1review
References: <Acmz01mfgp1n3lz+Qkirfut2wOSAzQ==><2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<3c3e3fca0904021545q3fd5f97cx1fb003c218bbb2aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC0403114EE2@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>

Thanks Bill, good input on the first two items. Realizing that 2008-6 has already been adopted by the Board based on the AC recommendation based on community consensus the last point is moot as far as 2009-1 since it already exists. On the 3rd point I just want to point out that we are still in the discussion stage and the Board is following current process, this is not an endorsement but merely an observation. 

________________________________

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of William Herrin
Sent: Thu 4/2/2009 6:45 PM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1review



On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Azinger, Marla
<marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com> wrote:
> Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
> Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.

Pro: The policy expires unless there is fresh consensus to continue it.

A policy establishing an address market is well out in front of
anything we've done before. The odds of getting it right the first
time are effectively nil. The sunset date assures up front that the
mistakes we make here won't propagate indefinitely.


> New Definition "Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal entities
> under common control or ownership."
> Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address

Con: Unenforceable. Ownership or control of legal entities is not
necessarily a matter of public record.

Con: Changes over time. Why should I be thrown into noncompliance just
because Buffet chose to buy a controlling stake both in my company and
in Verizon?



Use of the Emergency PDP process for a questionable definition of emergency.

Con: Sets a precedent for the misuse of the emergency PDP process.


Explicit disaggreation permission.

Con: encourages a BGP table explosion. While I personally think the
consequences of a BGP table explosion are overrated (the hardware
capability, at the moment, is very comfortable ahead of demand)

Or has that changed? 'Cause if we're no longer worried about the BGP
table, I'll happily submit a proposal extending the prefix length from
/22 to /24.


I reiterate that I adamantly OPPOSE proposal 2009-1.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
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.



P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.

From randy at psg.com  Thu Apr  2 19:05:27 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:05:27 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <C5FAB337.295D%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>
	<C5FAB337.295D%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <m2myayy7uw.wl%randy@psg.com>

[ just a multi-line <aol> ]

> This specific thread IS about 2009-1. It is about having an
> intelligent discussion about the contents of 2009-1 and providing
> input back to the Board through the AC using this PPML mailing list so
> that the AC can then make a recommendation to the Board.

[ intelligent discussion and ppml is a bit of a stretch given the
  repetitve ranting of the few.  i guess my .procmailrc needs updating ]

i have no comment on the process, finding arin's saussage recipies a bit
<deleted> for my taste.  but i thought marla's message was considered
and clueful, though i am sure many of us are still worried about her
office furniture.  she pretty much said it all; though good luck with
this list and the arin process.

it sure would be nice if reality was significantly different.  but if
king canute and ben edelman can get a clue, we can too.  maybe if the
energy being spent here trying to hold back the tide was spent instead
on helping get ipv6 more widely deployed, the internet would become a
better place in the long run.  in the short run, get higher on the beach
or get wet.

randy


From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Apr  2 19:05:39 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:05:39 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <C5FAB337.295D%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <46B57B17508D4F3FA5CEF5E0F30556DA@tedsdesk>
	<C5FAB337.295D%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <A1E22BAF96DA4E08AFE0C3C1F5D5EE43@tedsdesk>

John,
 
  If Marla is acting as an AC on 2009-1 and only requesting other people's
opinions then I
do not think it's appropriate for her to inject her own opinion in such a
request.
 
  The fact that she did add her opinion really changed it to her promoting
her POV - which is
OK for an AC to do (at least I think so) but on that case she is no longer
wearing her AC
hat, and her post is merely yet another in the currently existing
discussion.  Particularly
when her opinion is counter to the majority of posts on the topic already.
 
  I would suggest if Marla wants to wear her AC hat that she start a new
thread with
a NEUTRAL post.
 
  As for the rest regarding trust, I will observe that I certainly didn't
state that the
Board has become unelectable as a result of this one action - that's
something you
came up with.  I did say that if the Board continued to fight the community
over this
and continue to fight off attempts to strip this out if it does become
policy, that they
will then be unelectable.
 
 
Ted
 



  _____  

From: John Sweeting [mailto:john.sweeting at twcable.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Marla Azinger; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
2009-1review



Ted, 

This specific thread IS about 2009-1. It is about having an intelligent
discussion about the contents of 2009-1 and providing input back to the
Board through the AC using this PPML mailing list so that the AC can then
make a recommendation to the Board. Marla is trying to reach out to everyone
in the community for their opinions on what the AC feels are the 4 most
important issues with 2009-1. If you want to continue to beat up the Board,
or the AC for that matter then it would be more appropriate to start a new
thread. Please let people that would like to voice their opinions about
2009-1 on this thread do that. I truly respect your right to your opinions
and to your right to share those opinions and would ask that you show the
same respect and courtesy in return. If the community has truly lost faith
in the Board members then I expect it will show in the next election.
Personally I do not think the Board has lost the trust of the community and
I think that most people feel that they have acted in a manner that they
felt necessary. Since we are still in the discussion stage I think it only
fair to see how this plays out and wait for the end result. As for the
Board, this is essentially the same Board that has served us so well over
the years and has helped to make ARIN what it is and for that I am willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I can ask that you
do the same but that, of course, is your decision. In closing I would ask
only that you allow this thread to stay on track for collecting opinions on
the actual wording in 2009-1. Thank you

For everyone else out there please take the time to provide your thoughts
and opinions on the 4 items that Marla has requested as it is critical for
the AC to understand the positioning of the community on this policy. Thank
you.


On 4/2/09 5:57 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:




Marla,

 The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1
anymore.  It is about whether or
not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize this
issue.

 If 2009-1 is put in place against opposition, then it will be subject to
constant additional
future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will require further
opposition against the majority to
keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach of trust.
Eventually it will go or the
Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then the atmosphere
will be so poisoned
that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a
critical time.

 There is still time now for the Board to apologize and atone for it's
mistake.  Atonement is
simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new,
fresh set of proposals
during the next round, or, restore the sunset clause.

 Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about the merits of this
proposal anymore.  It
is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are
all sitting here
scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge they
screwed up
and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible by policy later, of
just restoring
the sunset clause.

Ted





 

  _____  

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net  [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Azinger,  Marla
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM
To:  arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and  con merits of 2009-1
review

 
 
 



I've waited for calmer  waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in
hopes that others can do  the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural
commentary.    Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up
with  and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and
opinions the  rest of the community has.  While I am grateful for those who
have  already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks
that  have not yet posted to ppml on this subject. 
 
Sunset  Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers  and resume original policy.
Con: A hard date could be totally the  wrong date. 
Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the  transfer policy as
permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting  back to original
policy. 
Alternate solution:  It might be  better to write in a clause the requires
review and analysis of the state of  address space availability every year.
If there proves to be zero  difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period
of one year then revert back  to original policy and deactivate this policy.
My opinion: Its  cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything
of its kind.   If in the future we enter into free flowing address space
again, we  can always enact the policy process to revert back to the
original transfer  policy.  Either way its not a show  stopper but going
without it seems to me to be the best  way.


Implementation Date Now and no wait time
Pro:  Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market
which is  currently active and growing.
Pro: Immediate implementation would  help preserve WHOIS data. 
Con: The free world of  addressing as we currently know it  comes to an end.

Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has  reached a
choking point.
My opinion: It sucks to see there is no  escape from supply and demand.  The
former utopian addressing world was  great but the fact is when the quantity
of anything becomes limited, people  no longer freely share or give but
require some form of monetary return.    We can't escape the fundamentals of
supply and demand and I  believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much
as possible is more  important than clinging to the past and in that time
frame watching the  black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and
record of authoritative  source decline.  We already need to improve in
those areas and this  isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right
now, but it would be best  to in the least take action that stops it from
getting any worse while at  the same time ensuring conservation/proper
usage.
 

New  Definition "Organization.  An Organization is  one or more legal
entities under common control or  ownership."
Pro: This will force organizations into  proper management of IP addresses.
Pro: This could cut down on  waste from large organizations that are
segmented. 
Con: Large  segmented organizations will have to face management of address
space on a  higher level.  Currently one organization can own three or more
companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address
management.  With this additional definition Company A could have allot  of
address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address
space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared
among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.
This would force address management up to the organizational  level.
Alternate solution: Grandfather existing  organizations.
My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow  for some organizations I
believe its the most accurate and efficient way to  manage address space.
It may  also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of  IPv6.






Clarification needed on what this  policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6
both?)

New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for  IPv4 only.  I
think it needs to be clear what this policy will be  applied to as it makes
sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a  supply and demand
situation.


In Summary:
As I went  through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the
changes made  are appropriate.  I don't think the sunset clause is a
functioning  tool.  I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to
waiting and  the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to
address  conservation and management.
 
 
Those are my 2 cents.   I hope to hear from the other community members that
have not yet  posted thoughts about the policy text itself.
 
Cheers
Marla  Azinger





  _____  

_______________________________________________
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.



P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time
Warner Cable be environmentally responsible. 



 









This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner

Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,

or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail

is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which

it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this

E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents

of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be

unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify

the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any

copy of this E-mail and any printout.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/44993178/attachment.htm>

From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Thu Apr  2 20:00:38 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:00:38 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18,
	2009
In-Reply-To: <20090402214126.GA80355@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <376189.27706.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com><107DD4CEABC54F669D321A6EB64005F3@tedsdesk><EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D03087531F88@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>
	<20090402214126.GA80355@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B9@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>


I very strongly support Leo's suggestion.

It seems a reasonable assumption that the people for whom
re-justification
of space is the most difficult are the people most likely to be wasting
it.

- Scott

> In a message written on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 08:13:46PM -0500, Bill
> Darte wrote:
> >    So do you think ARIN needs to ask for all address space to be
> >    re-justified, documented and when there is obvious under-
> utilization
> >    they reclaim it?
> 
> I think "all" is very much the wrong question to ask.
> 
> If someone has made an additional request via ARIN recently (6-24
> months, or so) they have been reviewed to some extent.  Going back and
> re-justifing space for those folks would be a waste of time for all
> involved.
> 
> Of what's left, I think it's important to take some common sense
steps.
> There's little value to reviewing an amount of space less than or
equal
> to the minimum allocation size, as if part were recovered it could not
> be given back out to others.
> 
> That does leave an interesting set of folks.  I think it would be of
> value to the ARIN community to do some spot checking.  It's like the
IRS
> picking out which tax returns to check, doing every single one in the
> level of detail makes no sense; but you want to do enough to get good
> data on compliance rates.
> 
> Truth is, we don't have a good handle on how well a particular subset
of
> the community is using space.  Perhaps all the space is used
> efficiently.  Perhaps almost none of it is.
> 
> Back in 2006 when I did some WHOIS research there were 1.2 million ORG
> records.
> 
> So, to that end, if we throw out people who got space from ARIN in the
> last 24 months, and people with allocations less than or equal to the
> current minimum, and then did audits on 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 per
> year (so, probably between 50-500 audits per year) and reported on
that
> I think we could accomplish several things:
> 
>   - Gain a LOT of knowledge.
>   - Greatly increase the incentives for folks to track space properly.
>   - Create another form of encouragement for folks to return space
they
>     aren't using.
>   - Increase the perception that resource utilization matters on an
>     ongoing basis, not just when you submit an application.
> 
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


From dwcarder at wisc.edu  Thu Apr  2 20:50:53 2009
From: dwcarder at wisc.edu (Dale W. Carder)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:50:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <4135F31D-9752-4A92-A94A-E63934A9277F@wisc.edu>


On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
>
> Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)

I object to the sunset clause removal.   It set a hard
line at which point the community would be forced to
reevaluate and/or let expire.

> Implementation Date Now and no wait time
> Pro: Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black  
> Market which is currently active and growing.
> Pro: Immediate implementation would help preserve WHOIS data.
> Con: The free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to  
> an end.

Implement this policy now, and let's move on to deploying IPv6.

> New Definition ?Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal  
> entities under common control or ownership.?

This sounds horrible.   I work for a quite complex set
of organizations, and we don't even have the mergers,
acquisitions and spin-offs of the private sector.

The last thing left out was the applicability of 2009-1 to
IPv4, IPv6, and ASN.  I object to this policy having anything
other than to do with IPv4.

In summary, I oppose 2009-1.

Dale

From randy at psg.com  Thu Apr  2 21:05:12 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:05:12 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits
	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>
Message-ID: <m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>

excuse if this is ad homina, but maybe we need to talk a bit about where
the rubber meets the road.  i promise not to even read this list for a
week, let alone post.

i have a hard time taking seriously anyone who talks about what others
should do about addressing and address space who have not done what they
need to do.

psg.com:/usr/home/randy> dig +short polarcomm.com. mx
10 mail.polarcomm.com.
psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host mail.polarcomm.com
mail.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.96.10
psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host www.polarcomm.com
www.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.96.9
psg.com:/usr/home/randy> dig +short polarcomm.com. ns
dus2.polarcomm.com.
dus1.polarcomm.com.
psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host dus1.polarcomm.com
dus1.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.99.253
psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host dus2.polarcomm.com
dus2.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.101.253

not one colon.  not even a polyp.

i am sick of those who tell other people what they can and can not do,
what they should and should not do, ...  when, in fact, they themselves
ain't doing jack <bleep> except pontificating and grandstanding.  maybe
folk should put half the energy into engineering as they put into
hyperbolic self-righteous demagoguery and amateur lawyering and economy.

and, on a constructive note, in case folk decide to actually work, for
some trivial clue see <http://archive.psg.com/ipv6-westin.html>.  it is
not generic.  it is certanly not brilliant.  but it attempts to be a
positive move to tell my own story, not tell others what their story
should be.

randy


From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Apr  3 06:55:12 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:55:12 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
Message-ID: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>

In order to continue collection of community input, the ratified policy
2008-6 will not be implemented until after the San Antonio public
policy meeting, April 26-29, 2009.  As previously announced, policy
proposal 2009-1 has been initiated in order to obtain community
consideration of several changes to 2008-6 that the Board believes
will improve policy in this area.

The Board is extending the discussion period for 2009-1 to allow
adequate time for the community to consider it and provide feedback.
After the San Antonio meeting, ARIN Board will adopt any aspects of
2009-1 it feels are warranted.  Any policy thus adopted will be on the
agenda of the next ARIN public policy meeting in October 21-23, 2009.

/John

John Curran
Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090403/61bdbd42/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Fri Apr  3 09:17:40 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:17:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>
References: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904030617v5c199f3aif2d3d63d01ede5ab@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> After the San Antonio meeting, ARIN Board will adopt any aspects of
> 2009-1 it feels are warranted.

John,

The board will, will it? You're that confident that the AC will
recommend 2009-1 for adoption? Or are you just dead set on taking
action that's out of order under section 7 of the PDP?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Apr  3 09:23:40 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:23:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904030617v5c199f3aif2d3d63d01ede5ab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904030617v5c199f3aif2d3d63d01ede5ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B9CE7ACD-A88F-4098-8F91-C3F7DF20E136@istaff.org>

On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>  
> wrote:
>> After the San Antonio meeting, ARIN Board will adopt any aspects of
>> 2009-1 it feels are warranted.
>
> John,
>
> The board will, will it? You're that confident that the AC will
> recommend 2009-1 for adoption? Or are you just dead set on taking
> action that's out of order under section 7 of the PDP?

Bill -

    The Board ultimately carries the responsibility to determine
    the policies of the ARIN, although this has to date always
    been the result of ratifying the recommendation of the ARIN
    Advisory Council.  The AC exists to advise the Board on policy
    matters, and as such the Board considers its recommendations
    very seriously.

    The issues raised by 2009-1 should be discussed here on this
    list, at public policy meeting in San Antonio, and by the AC
    in their deliberations.  The Board will need to weigh all of
    these to determine if any policy changes are needed.

Thanks!
/John



From Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com  Fri Apr  3 11:00:58 2009
From: Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com (Wettling, Fred)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:00:58 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F938BDB8@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>

Bechtel Internal / Non-Record//


Implementation Date
- Implementation should be immediate.  There is no value in delaying 2009-1
when[/if] it's approved in its final form

New Definition "Organization. An Organization is one or more legal entities
under common control or ownership"
- I agree with Dale Carder & others that this definition in its present form
is not workable.
- Further, the proposal does not address the divestiture aspect of transfers
- an organization selling off a business unit or part of its operations.
These transactions may also require the transfer of number resources.

Fred Wettling
http://globalipv6strategies.com/



Bechtel Internal / Non-Record//

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090403/61e7f1cc/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Fri Apr  3 11:13:59 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:13:59 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits
	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt><CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>
	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:05 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-
> 1review
> 
> excuse if this is ad homina, but maybe we need to talk a bit about where
> the rubber meets the road.  i promise not to even read this list for a
> week, let alone post.
> 
> i have a hard time taking seriously anyone who talks about what others
> should do about addressing and address space who have not done what they
> need to do.
> 
> psg.com:/usr/home/randy> dig +short polarcomm.com. mx
> 10 mail.polarcomm.com.
> psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host mail.polarcomm.com
> mail.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.96.10
> psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host www.polarcomm.com
> www.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.96.9
> psg.com:/usr/home/randy> dig +short polarcomm.com. ns
> dus2.polarcomm.com.
> dus1.polarcomm.com.
> psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host dus1.polarcomm.com
> dus1.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.99.253
> psg.com:/usr/home/randy> host dus2.polarcomm.com
> dus2.polarcomm.com has address 66.231.101.253
> 
> not one colon.  not even a polyp.
> 
> i am sick of those who tell other people what they can and can not do,
> what they should and should not do, ...  when, in fact, they themselves
> ain't doing jack <bleep> except pontificating and grandstanding.  maybe
> folk should put half the energy into engineering as they put into
> hyperbolic self-righteous demagoguery and amateur lawyering and economy.
> 
> and, on a constructive note, in case folk decide to actually work, for
> some trivial clue see <http://archive.psg.com/ipv6-westin.html>.  it is
> not generic.  it is certanly not brilliant.  but it attempts to be a
> positive move to tell my own story, not tell others what their story
> should be.
> 
> randy

Randy,
It is all well and good to talk..  I am glad you feel free to do so.  Our
problem in this area is that there are NO upstream providers that route
IPv6.  AT&T, Sprint and DCN have all refused to route IPv6 in this area.  I
am campaigning heavily to get them to do so.  

I HAVE gotten my IPv6 allocation .  I AM working towards getting the IPv6
going.  I am ready to jump on the bandwagon as soon as one of my providers
starts routing it.

Resources Used By Organization:
POLAR COMMUNICATIONS (AS14511) POLAR-COMMUNICATIONS 14511 
POLAR COMMUNICATIONS POLARCOMM-BLK-1 (NET-66-231-96-0-1) 66.231.96.0 -
66.231.127.255
POLAR COMMUNICATIONS POLARCOMM-BLK-2 (NET-216-196-64-0-1) 216.196.64.0 -
216.196.95.255
POLAR COMMUNICATIONS POLARCOMM-V6 (NET6-2610-188-1)
2610:0188:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 -
2610:0188:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF


Here are some colons.  Does that make you feel better?

Launching an attack and then promising to ignore any rebuttal is not good.
I hope you do read the list, and I hope you continue to post.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090403/472265b0/attachment.bin>

From jaitken at aitken.com  Fri Apr  3 11:14:49 2009
From: jaitken at aitken.com (Jeff Aitken)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:14:49 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
In-Reply-To: <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
References: <49C7DD6E.3010106@arin.net> <49D4C2F5.8050908@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20090403151449.GB56085@eagle.aitken.com>

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:51:49AM -0400, Member Services wrote:
> 2008-7 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion on
> this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN XXIII
> Public Policy Meeting in San Antonio.

I support 2008-7 as written.  I would prefer a modification that exempted
POCs with whom ARIN has corresponded in the previous 12 months.  I would
support a timeframe longer than 12 months iff that were the consensus, on
the theory that any validation is better than none.


--Jeff



From kkargel at polartel.com  Fri Apr  3 11:28:18 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:28:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>

Oops, forgot to put ppml in the Cc:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:24 AM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
> 
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> > wrote:
> >> After the San Antonio meeting, ARIN Board will adopt any aspects of
> >> 2009-1 it feels are warranted.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > The board will, will it? You're that confident that the AC will
> > recommend 2009-1 for adoption? Or are you just dead set on taking
> > action that's out of order under section 7 of the PDP?
> 
> Bill -
> 
>     The Board ultimately carries the responsibility to determine
>     the policies of the ARIN, although this has to date always
>     been the result of ratifying the recommendation of the ARIN
>     Advisory Council.  The AC exists to advise the Board on policy
>     matters, and as such the Board considers its recommendations
>     very seriously.
> 
>     The issues raised by 2009-1 should be discussed here on this
>     list, at public policy meeting in San Antonio, and by the AC
>     in their deliberations.  The Board will need to weigh all of
>     these to determine if any policy changes are needed.
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
Wow..  That did a pretty good job of explaining the board's attitude.  Wow.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090403/e263b1b2/attachment.bin>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Apr  3 12:03:42 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:03:42 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>
Message-ID: <B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>

> On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> [From: jcurran]
>>    The Board ultimately carries the responsibility to determine
>>    the policies of the ARIN, although this has to date always
>>    been the result of ratifying the recommendation of the ARIN
>>    Advisory Council.  The AC exists to advise the Board on policy
>>    matters, and as such the Board considers its recommendations
>>    very seriously.
>>
>>    The issues raised by 2009-1 should be discussed here on this
>>    list, at public policy meeting in San Antonio, and by the AC
>>    in their deliberations.  The Board will need to weigh all of
>>    these to determine if any policy changes are needed.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>>
> Wow..  That did a pretty good job of explaining the board's  
> attitude.  Wow.

Kevin -

   For clarity, it's not practical for me to engage the entire
   ARIN Board on a hours notice to review each email that I
   send, so it's not safe to consider the above an official
   statement of the Board.  I do think it reflects the Board's
   view (or would have put a personal disclaimer on it), but
   can't guarantee it, and hence you should consider it to be
   "John's attitude" as opposed to "the board's attitude"...

   Meta-comment on pedigree of my email aside, I am curious
   about your "Wow" comment.  This shouldn't actually be a
   big surprise, as the Board is ultimately responsible for
   the actions of organization, and with that comes the duty
   to ensure fidelity to the mission.  While we have had the
   benefit of excellent advice from the AC over the years
   (and hope it to continue for many more to come :-), it is
   indeed the ARIN Board's duty to ensure resource policy
   which best meets the organization's mission.

/John



From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri Apr  3 12:33:55 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:33:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>
	<B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <49D63A73.8000401@rollernet.us>

John Curran wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>>> [From: jcurran]
>>>    The Board ultimately carries the responsibility to determine
>>>    the policies of the ARIN, although this has to date always
>>>    been the result of ratifying the recommendation of the ARIN
>>>    Advisory Council.  The AC exists to advise the Board on policy
>>>    matters, and as such the Board considers its recommendations
>>>    very seriously.
>>>
>>>    The issues raised by 2009-1 should be discussed here on this
>>>    list, at public policy meeting in San Antonio, and by the AC
>>>    in their deliberations.  The Board will need to weigh all of
>>>    these to determine if any policy changes are needed.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> /John
>>>
>> Wow..  That did a pretty good job of explaining the board's  
>> attitude.  Wow.
> 
> Kevin -
> 
>    For clarity, it's not practical for me to engage the entire
>    ARIN Board on a hours notice to review each email that I
>    send, so it's not safe to consider the above an official
>    statement of the Board.  I do think it reflects the Board's
>    view (or would have put a personal disclaimer on it), but
>    can't guarantee it, and hence you should consider it to be
>    "John's attitude" as opposed to "the board's attitude"...
> 
>    Meta-comment on pedigree of my email aside, I am curious
>    about your "Wow" comment.  This shouldn't actually be a
>    big surprise, as the Board is ultimately responsible for
>    the actions of organization, and with that comes the duty
>    to ensure fidelity to the mission.  While we have had the
>    benefit of excellent advice from the AC over the years
>    (and hope it to continue for many more to come :-), it is
>    indeed the ARIN Board's duty to ensure resource policy
>    which best meets the organization's mission.
> 


So, even though there is plenty of opposition to this policy, it doesn't
matter what anyone thinks and it's going to get adopted anyway. Someone
must have threatened to challenge ARIN's right to manage IP addresses
for this to be pushed through without a care in the world of what's best
for the community at large. That's why we're here, we're the community.
I personally don't care what's best for ARIN, only what best serves the
community.

The board may be entitled to do whatever they want, but breaking the
illusion that what we think matters is a dangerous road to go down.

~Seth


From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Apr  3 12:56:33 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:56:33 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <49D63A73.8000401@rollernet.us>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>
	<B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
	<49D63A73.8000401@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <CEEDFEC4-E823-4CE2-871E-456A6E216FB3@istaff.org>

On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> So, even though there is plenty of opposition to this policy, it  
> doesn't
> matter what anyone thinks and it's going to get adopted anyway.

Are you referring to 2008-6 or 2009-1?

> Someone must have threatened to challenge ARIN's right to manage IP  
> addresses
> for this to be pushed through without a care in the world of what's  
> best
> for the community at large. That's why we're here, we're the  
> community.
> I personally don't care what's best for ARIN, only what best serves  
> the
> community.

Actually, the exact opposite: the Board needs to worry precisely
about how to best serve the community via its mission.

> The board may be entitled to do whatever they want, but breaking the
> illusion that what we think matters is a dangerous road to go down.


The community is crucial to the process, as I noted:
>> ....
>>   The issues raised by 2009-1 should be discussed here on this
>>   list, at public policy meeting in San Antonio, and by the AC
>>   in their deliberations.  The Board will need to weigh all of
>>   these to determine if any policy changes are needed.

which is no different than has been done for the last 10 years
of ARIN's existence...

/John



From Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com  Fri Apr  3 13:06:00 2009
From: Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com (Wettling, Fred)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:06:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <49D63A73.8000401@rollernet.us>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail><B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
	<49D63A73.8000401@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F938BE2A@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>

Take a few deep breaths, Seth.  The ARIN Board of Trustees has a solid
history of acting in good faith based on input from the members and the
AC.  Remember 6 of the 7 people on the BoT are elected by the members...
Link: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html

Best regards - Fred Wettling

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:34 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] FW: Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
<SNIP>
So, even though there is plenty of opposition to this policy, it doesn't
matter what anyone thinks and it's going to get adopted anyway. Someone
must have threatened to challenge ARIN's right to manage IP addresses
for this to be pushed through without a care in the world of what's best
for the community at large. That's why we're here, we're the community.
I personally don't care what's best for ARIN, only what best serves the
community.

The board may be entitled to do whatever they want, but breaking the
illusion that what we think matters is a dangerous road to go down.

~Seth


From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Fri Apr  3 13:31:07 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:31:07 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BD@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

Hi Marla,

First off, I am opposed to 2009-1 because I'm opposed to any transfer policy that would allow resources, acquired from ARIN with justification for use, to be sold in a manner that clearly demonstrates the justification was false. I understand the desire to motivate people to free up IPs, but I can't support a policy that also encourages pre-exhaustion hoarding.

Furthermore, before I would support it I would require such a policy to mandate that a period of at least 3 years (the longer, the better) had passed since the organization passing on the space had received its last assignment. The intent of this is clearly to limit the benefit of hoarding between now and exhaustion for monetary gain. 

[QUOTE]
New Definition "Organization. ?An Organization is one or more legal entities under common control or ownership."
Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address space on a higher level. ?Currently one organization can own three or more companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address management. ?With this additional definition Company A could have allot of address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past. ?This would force address management up to the organizational level.
Alternate solution: Grandfather existing organizations.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think this con can be under stated. If existing organizations aren't grandfathered, it would be throwing a grenade at the routing table.

If a company has separate business and residential units, each with their own blocks of IP space on separated networks, a need for space in one unit will pretty much force them to start fracturing the remaining space for the other unit. Breaking it out like this will often mean many more and smaller advertised blocks in the DFZ. Separate organizations like this get into different application cycles (particularly with 12 month allocations), and so through no fault of the companies one unit will hit a point of justified need before the other.

Furthermore, it probably represents a legal quagmire of some kind to deny one business space due to another business, with such a vague and hard to demonstrate definition of "common control or ownership". In hindsight it would have been great if this were implemented years ago, but at this point it's too little too late and best left alone IMO.

Thanks,
Scott Beuker


From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri Apr  3 13:41:08 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:41:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <CEEDFEC4-E823-4CE2-871E-456A6E216FB3@istaff.org>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>
	<B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
	<49D63A73.8000401@rollernet.us>
	<CEEDFEC4-E823-4CE2-871E-456A6E216FB3@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <49D64A34.90001@rollernet.us>

John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> So, even though there is plenty of opposition to this policy, it doesn't
>> matter what anyone thinks and it's going to get adopted anyway.
> 
> Are you referring to 2008-6 or 2009-1?
> 

I'm only referring to 2009-1.

~Seth


From stephen at sprunk.org  Fri Apr  3 15:04:24 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:04:24 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
 review
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BD@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BD@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <49D65DB8.90901@sprunk.org>

Scott Beuker wrote:
> First off, I am opposed to 2009-1 because I'm opposed to any transfer policy that would allow resources, acquired from ARIN with justification for use, to be sold in a manner that clearly demonstrates the justification was false. I understand the desire to motivate people to free up IPs, but I can't support a policy that also encourages pre-exhaustion hoarding.
>   

I think you're missing a key point: there is a big gap between 
justification and minimum requirements.  For instance, an end-user org 
with PI space might have a /16 that is, in fact, justified under current 
policy, but they could also _choose_ to renumber into RFC 1918 space, 
use NAT in a /24 (or PA space), and sell that /16 to someone with a 
greater need.  Ditto for those mega-ISPs with more than a /8 of space: 
they _could_ NAT those tens of millions of eyeballs.

Is failing to return that _justified_ space to ARIN "hoarding"?  I don't 
think so.  I'm not "hoarding" my house, but if you offer me enough money 
for it, I'll agree to move; failing to donate my house to charity, just 
because I _could_ live elsewhere, is not hoarding.

> Furthermore, it probably represents a legal quagmire of some kind to deny one business space due to another business, with such a vague and hard to demonstrate definition of "common control or ownership". In hindsight it would have been great if this were implemented years ago, but at this point it's too little too late and best left alone IMO.
>   

I agree; even if we agree this change is a good idea, it's probably too 
late to implement it.

If we did decide to pursue it, it is such a significant change that it 
merits its own proposal, not being a rider on a transfer proposal or 
Emergency PDP action.  Riders like that on big must-pass bills are one 
of the main reasons US politics are so bad, and I'd hate to see us move 
in that direction...

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090403/168a2bfb/attachment.bin>

From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri Apr  3 15:26:08 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:26:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
 review
In-Reply-To: <49D65DB8.90901@sprunk.org>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BD@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<49D65DB8.90901@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <49D662D0.2080800@rollernet.us>

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Scott Beuker wrote:
>> First off, I am opposed to 2009-1 because I'm opposed to any transfer
>> policy that would allow resources, acquired from ARIN with
>> justification for use, to be sold in a manner that clearly
>> demonstrates the justification was false. I understand the desire to
>> motivate people to free up IPs, but I can't support a policy that also
>> encourages pre-exhaustion hoarding.
>>   
> 
> I think you're missing a key point: there is a big gap between
> justification and minimum requirements.  For instance, an end-user org
> with PI space might have a /16 that is, in fact, justified under current
> policy, but they could also _choose_ to renumber into RFC 1918 space,
> use NAT in a /24 (or PA space), and sell that /16 to someone with a
> greater need.  Ditto for those mega-ISPs with more than a /8 of space:
> they _could_ NAT those tens of millions of eyeballs.

Need and justification would never be part of the equation. You could
make a fortune selling a /16 to someone desperate enough to get more
IPv4 space. I certainly would if someone came my way offering millions
of dollars for me to transfer it over.

Wait a minute, this sounds familiar, kind of like domain name transfers.

~Seth


From matthew at matthew.at  Fri Apr  3 15:52:57 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:52:57 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
 review
In-Reply-To: <49D662D0.2080800@rollernet.us>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BD@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>	<49D65DB8.90901@sprunk.org>
	<49D662D0.2080800@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <49D66919.6060104@matthew.at>

Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Wait a minute, this sounds familiar, kind of like domain name transfers.
>   
As I remember, domain name transfers for huge sums of money caused 
Internet commerce to grind to a halt, followed by a collapse of the 
world economy *and* the sky falling to earth.

Or maybe it wasn't quite that bad.

Matthew Kaufman


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr  3 16:43:29 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:43:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
	2009-1	review
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904021545q3fd5f97cx1fb003c218bbb2aa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Acmz01mfgp1n3lz+Qkirfut2wOSAzQ==>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<3c3e3fca0904021545q3fd5f97cx1fb003c218bbb2aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> A policy establishing an address market is well out in front of
> anything we've done before. The odds of getting it right the first
> time are effectively nil. The sunset date assures up front that the
> mistakes we make here won't propagate indefinitely.
> 

Revisions and improvements of a transfer policy can be done without a sunset. Absent a sunset, there would have to be clear consensus that a problem existed and that proposed revisions solved those problems before any action was taken, which is good. A sunset simply invites the original opponents of the policy to reiterate their ideological opposition another 20 times after 3 years. No thanks. No sunset.



From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr  3 16:47:01 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:47:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of
	2009-1	review
In-Reply-To: <C5FAB4D9.2960%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <49D53867.6040101@matthew.at>
	<C5FAB4D9.2960%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10FF@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Matthew's analysis of the problem of conslidating org IDs. In fact the problem could be worse than he makes out, it could impose all kinds of structural changes on the IT management of large organizations who have decentralized arrangements.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>


It would be fatal to some of these businesses for their IP address
management to be lumped together simply because I am the majority owner
of more than one of these. Among other things, it would drastically
complicate things when I (as I often do) sell these entities to new
owners or investors. As an example, I recently sold a podcasting-related
entity shortly after I acquired a wireless ISP. Both used IP addresses,
but in vastly different ways. Both are separate legal entities, one a
California corporation which is now dissolved and whose assets are part
of the Texas corporation, the other a Delaware corporation. There should
be no reason why two different corporations should be required to share
management of their IP address space simply as a consequence of their
current ownership.

Ask any company doing private equity buyouts if they want to be managing
the IP address space for the various types of companies under their
control, as another example.

Matthew Kaufman
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090403/3bbf84b0/attachment.htm>

From bill at herrin.us  Fri Apr  3 16:55:56 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:55:56 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <B9CE7ACD-A88F-4098-8F91-C3F7DF20E136@istaff.org>
References: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904030617v5c199f3aif2d3d63d01ede5ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<B9CE7ACD-A88F-4098-8F91-C3F7DF20E136@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904031355x3397b59fpc937d596a3c78ed5@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:17 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>>> After the San Antonio meeting, ARIN Board will adopt any aspects of
>>> 2009-1 it feels are warranted.
>>
>> Are you just dead set on taking
>> action that's out of order under section 7 of the PDP?
>
> ? The Board ultimately carries the responsibility to determine
> ? the policies of the ARIN,


With all due respect John, the community and the membership bear the
responsibility to determine ARIN policy. Pains have been taken to
EXCLUDE the board from determining policy, such as by disqualifying
board members from submitting a normal policy proposal.

The board members are ARIN's conservators, charged with dotting the
i's, crossing the t's and, in exceptional cases, endeavoring to
prevent the community's will from being thwarted by errors in the
process.

John, you've served with distinction on the board for more than a
decade now. You were there at the beginning. You know better than
anyone that there's a reason ARIN has a board of trustees where ICANN
has a board of directors. Please recall *why* the board is designed to
be the guardian of the community's will.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr  3 16:56:40 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:56:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN quotes
 from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF94@mail>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com>
	<49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B2@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF94@mail>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA1100@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > Funny thing about the variables 'supply' and 'demand', if you
> > miscalculate them, your results can be quite off.
> > 
> > - Scott
> > 
> Agreed, my fear is not that the cost of IP addresses will go 
> up 100 times, I
> fear it will go up tens or hundreds of thousands of times..
> 
> Kevin

What brilliant comments. And if we don't allow transfers, then scarce IPv4 addresses become less scarce, and less expensive?  And it is costless to instantly migrate to IPv6? 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
  

From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Fri Apr  3 17:15:36 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:15:36 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN quotes
	from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA1100@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com><49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail><46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B2@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF94@mail>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA1100@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BF@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

> What brilliant comments.

Thank you, and might I say it's very classy of you to be able to discuss
things
like this without letting your emotions get the better of you. Your
civility is
refreshing.

> And if we don't allow transfers, then scarce
> IPv4 addresses become less scarce, and less expensive? 

Correct, I like to call this approach "dissuading hoarding", or if you
wish,
"not flailing about desperately and making things worse than they
already are".

> And it is
> costless to instantly migrate to IPv6?

Not for most, but that's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

> Milton Mueller

Scott Beuker



From tedm at ipinc.net  Fri Apr  3 17:44:31 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:44:31 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits
	of2009-1	review
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <Acmz01mfgp1n3lz+Qkirfut2wOSAzQ==><2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt><3c3e3fca0904021545q3fd5f97cx1fb003c218bbb2aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA10FE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <E16A47FB62E34CA6A5B10AFEA38EE61F@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: 'William Herrin'; Azinger, Marla
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con 
> merits of2009-1 review
> 

 
> A sunset simply invites the original opponents 
> of the policy to reiterate their ideological opposition 
> another 20 times after 3 years. 

In which case if the policy was good, then you would think
most of the original opponents would have become convinced
then, wouldn't you, and disappeared.

Of course, if the policy is bad, then the original opponents
would be joined by a lot of proponents who changed their mind
after watching the disaster.

A sunset gives both sides something.  It gives the proponents
the extra edge to get what they want passed.  It gives the
opponents assurance that if the change doesn't really help,
that it will get removed.  It is, in fact, one of the few
ways that a minority-that-is-almost-a-majority can give a
controversal change a "bump" to get it in place, and have a
shot at convincing the majority to come around to their way
of thinking.

Ted



From randy at psg.com  Fri Apr  3 17:59:19 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:59:19 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits
	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>
	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>
Message-ID: <m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>

> Our problem in this area is that there are NO upstream providers that
> route IPv6.

as a temp, get a tunnel.  that is what most of us did, kinda like
getting pa before pi.  it's bad, but not as bad as no packets.  if und
can/will not provision one, i can.  and i assume there are others with
automated brokers which can be used.

note that at my home here in ntt's home turf i have ntt 100/100 f/etth,
and have to tunnel ipv6 to iij.  ntt does not offer it, except on ppt.
talk is cheap.

and as i tried to do, document what you do, so the next bozo on the bus
has a leg up.

randy


From Lee at dilkie.com  Fri Apr  3 18:16:57 2009
From: Lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:16:57 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con
	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>
	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>



Randy Bush wrote:
>> Our problem in this area is that there are NO upstream providers that
>> route IPv6.
>>     
>
> as a temp, get a tunnel.  that is what most of us did, kinda like
> getting pa before pi.  it's bad, but not as bad as no packets.  if und
> can/will not provision one, i can.  and i assume there are others with
> automated brokers which can be used.
>
> note that at my home here in ntt's home turf i have ntt 100/100 f/etth,
> and have to tunnel ipv6 to iij.  ntt does not offer it, except on ppt.
> talk is cheap.
>
> and as i tried to do, document what you do, so the next bozo on the bus
> has a leg up.
>
> randy
>
>   
Randy,

Have you had good luck with tunnels? I've have ipv6 for a couple of
years now, I'm on my third tunnel broker, and I have to say... I love
ipv6 (and hate it too for some things), but I hate the reliability I've
had with tunnel brokers. Lots of times my tunnel is up but ipv6 isn't
being routed correctly )usually broken somewhere in the brokers
networks). I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas, none
to be found around here.

-lee


From owen at delong.com  Fri Apr  3 18:32:21 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:32:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con
	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>
	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com> <49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
Message-ID: <D531C273-0B33-4FA0-9BD8-324C4CE90EAB@delong.com>

>
>
> Have you had good luck with tunnels? I've have ipv6 for a couple of
> years now, I'm on my third tunnel broker, and I have to say... I love
> ipv6 (and hate it too for some things), but I hate the reliability  
> I've
> had with tunnel brokers. Lots of times my tunnel is up but ipv6 isn't
> being routed correctly )usually broken somewhere in the brokers
> networks). I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas,  
> none
> to be found around here.
>
> -lee

My experience is by no means defining or clear and scientific, but,
my use of IPv6 in a dual-stack environment at my home through a
Hurricane Electric Tunnel has been rock solid.

Owen




From randy at psg.com  Fri Apr  3 18:35:56 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 07:35:56 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con
	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>
	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>
	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com> <49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
Message-ID: <m2fxgpuzzn.wl%randy@psg.com>

> Have you had good luck with tunnels?

mediocre.  they suck.  worst problems is mtu issues and no pmtud.  but
they suck less than no connectivity.

randy


From joelja at bogus.com  Fri Apr  3 18:40:43 2009
From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:40:43 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and
	con	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
Message-ID: <49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com>

Lee Dilkie wrote:

> I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas, none
> to be found around here.

Wait, there are no commercial ISPs with a presence in Ottowa that will
provide ipv6? That beggars the imagination.

> -lee
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Lee at dilkie.com  Fri Apr  3 18:53:34 2009
From: Lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:53:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro
	and	con	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>	<49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
	<49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <49D6936E.2080907@dilkie.com>


Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
>   
>> I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas, none
>> to be found around here.
>>     
>
> Wait, there are no commercial ISPs with a presence in Ottowa that will
> provide ipv6? That beggars the imagination.
>
>   
Imagine that. And it not for lack of asking but either their upstreams
don't provide, or there's no demand, or, or ,or

As far as I can tell, everyone is waiting for the ball to drop. Even my
own company. I have had this project on my plate for 2 years now, ipv6
enable our applications (at least to the extent that we can claim
compliance and have a marketing bullet). I've waited and waited but
something "more important" always come along to bump it. Now, I can't
disagree, the "more important" project really is important but ipv6
programming is no small piece of work, I'm looking at several man-years
to address even one client-server link (requires protocol changes due to
embedded ip addresses in protocol). I'm concerned that when the ball
finally does "drop" and we need ipv6 "now", it's only going to signal
the start of the project and folks are going to be mighty disappointed
at the date of completion and *then* the fun begins. oh well, fun is fun.

-lee


From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Fri Apr  3 17:45:34 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:45:34 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
	review
In-Reply-To: <49D65DB8.90901@sprunk.org>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt><46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935BD@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<49D65DB8.90901@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935C0@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

> Is failing to return that _justified_ space to ARIN "hoarding"?  I don't
> think so.  I'm not "hoarding" my house, but if you offer me enough money
> for it, I'll agree to move; failing to donate my house to charity, just
> because I _could_ live elsewhere, is not hoarding.

In my eyes, no it's not, but that doesn't mean *real* hoarding wouldn't be
a consequence of a policy proposal like this, with no provisions to stop it.

It would be like the government offering a $5 refund for any returned car
hub caps for recycling. Sounds good when you think of it from the point of
view of a good honest citizen, but the negatives outweigh the positives
once you've factored in how it would affect those motivated by greed.

As I said:

>> I understand the desire to motivate people to free up IPs, but I can't
>> support a policy that also encourages pre-exhaustion hoarding.

What I mean by that is that I understand this is well intentioned, but if
it's not done properly it's going to do a lot more harm than good.

Maybe this is where we differ; I have no illusions that bringing a small
supply of IPv4 space back to market is going to accomplish anything
significant... supply will outstrip demand badly.

At best, this open market thing is all just a big distraction that eats
into my time better spent deploying IPv6 as I have to explain to my
organizations executives why a market won't save us. At worst, the
possibility of turning something that is free now into money later triggers
rampant hoarding and speculation that draws exhaustion artificially closer
and further cuts into the already limited time we have to push IPv6 into
ubiquitous use.

Don't make things worse than they already are with a poorly thought out
policy.

Thanks,
Scott Beuker


From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Apr  3 19:24:03 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:24:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?
Message-ID: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>

>From the Policy Development Process;

https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

---------
7. Special Policy Actions
7.1. Emergency PDP

The Board of Trustees may initiate the Emergency PDP by 
declaring an emergency and posting a draft policy to the PPML 
for discussion for a minimum of 10 business days. The 
Advisory Council will review the draft policy within 5 business 
days of the end of the discussion period and make a 
recommendation to the Board of Trustees. If the Board of 
Trustees adopts the policy, it will be presented at the next 
public policy meeting for reconsideration.
----------

The Board as has initiated 2009-1 through the Emergency 
PDP, the PDP gives them this ability, it specifically assigns a 
task to the Advisory Council.

"The Advisory Council will review the draft policy within 5 
business days of the end of the discussion period and make a 
recommendation to the Board of Trustees."

Personally, I think this as a very serious obligation, even more 
than normal, because most of the normal process will not be 
happening.

You may agree or disagree with the Board's decision to 
declare an Emergency and use the Emergency PDP, you are 
free to argue that point.  I will not because even if I argued it, I 
and the other AC members still have an obligation to make a 
recommendation to the Board.

As part of that obligation to make a recommendation to the 
Board, several AC members have tried to start threads 
analysing the language of the proposal in detail and requesting 
the thread remain for that purpose.  I believe we have received 
several helpful insights, through these threads.  But 
unfortunately the threads are very quickly dragged into 
discussion of diametrically opposing points of view, protests of 
the process, etc..., but not the language of the text.

No one is asking for you to with hold your points of view, we 
are simply asking that you allow one thread to focus on the text 
of the proposal.  If you feel the need to protest the process or 
reiterate your view of transfer policies, pro or con, for the 
umpteenth time.  PLEASE split it off the thread, trust me I'll still 
read it.

However, I personally feel about the process issues, I don't 
think the AC would be doing it's job if we only commented on 
the process issues, one why other the other.  Beyond the 
process issues I believe we are obligated to comment on the 
language and how to make the language better.  If the board 
proceedes with 2009-1, and the AC doesn't provide feed back 
in regard to the language too.  That would be classic "Cutting 
off the nose to spite the face" type of action.

If you feel I'm whining or bitching, I'm trying not to;  

I'm trying to ask;

The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?

Thank you



================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri Apr  3 19:33:06 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
 can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>

Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:

* IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
* Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.

Then I'll take another look.

~Seth


From sethm at rollernet.us  Fri Apr  3 19:43:05 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:43:05 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
Message-ID: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>

Here's a random idea I came up with (while making nachos, so I didn't
think about it too hard). Instead of arbitrarily transferring resources
how about:

1) Org A returns the resource to ARIN with the intent that org B will
use it.
2) ARIN places a hold (say, 60 days) on the resource.
3) Org B applies for the resource-in-holding through the normal "I need
more space" process.
4) If org B doesn't do their part or is unable to qualify within 60
days, the hold is lifted and it becomes just any other
reclaimed/returned resource.

Just a thought.

~Seth


From joelja at bogus.com  Fri Apr  3 19:50:22 2009
From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:50:22 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro
	and	con	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <49D6936E.2080907@dilkie.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>	<49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
	<49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com> <49D6936E.2080907@dilkie.com>
Message-ID: <49D6A0BE.2000204@bogus.com>

Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Lee Dilkie wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas, none
>>> to be found around here.
>>>     
>> Wait, there are no commercial ISPs with a presence in Ottowa that will
>> provide ipv6? That beggars the imagination.
>>
>>   
> Imagine that. And it not for lack of asking but either their upstreams
> don't provide, or there's no demand, or, or ,or

tata, global crossing, probably bell canada should be able to sell you a
circuit in ottowa with v4 and v6 on it. Heck there's v6 passing across
the ottix, so you could show up there and peer or look for a provider
that does, I retrieved their webpage over v6 (via canarie) in point of fact.

> As far as I can tell, everyone is waiting for the ball to drop. Even my
> own company. I have had this project on my plate for 2 years now, ipv6
> enable our applications (at least to the extent that we can claim
> compliance and have a marketing bullet). I've waited and waited but
> something "more important" always come along to bump it. Now, I can't
> disagree, the "more important" project really is important but ipv6
> programming is no small piece of work, I'm looking at several man-years
> to address even one client-server link (requires protocol changes due to
> embedded ip addresses in protocol). I'm concerned that when the ball
> finally does "drop" and we need ipv6 "now", it's only going to signal
> the start of the project and folks are going to be mighty disappointed
> at the date of completion and *then* the fun begins. oh well, fun is fun.
> 
> -lee
> 



From steve at ibctech.ca  Fri Apr  3 20:37:18 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:37:18 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <49D6ABBE.8030605@ibctech.ca>

Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Here's a random idea I came up with (while making nachos, so I didn't
> think about it too hard). Instead of arbitrarily transferring resources
> how about:
> 
> 1) Org A returns the resource to ARIN with the intent that org B will
> use it.
> 2) ARIN places a hold (say, 60 days) on the resource.
> 3) Org B applies for the resource-in-holding through the normal "I need
> more space" process.
> 4) If org B doesn't do their part or is unable to qualify within 60
> days, the hold is lifted and it becomes just any other
> reclaimed/returned resource.

5) If org A's IPv4 number resource is returned to ARIN's free pool, and
it is of size /NN or greater (whether org B complies with "their part"
or not), then org A receives a fee waiver for either: their next year
renewal of their IPv6 allocation (no matter the size), or if they don't
have one, their first year allocation fee.

For each /NN or greater, one year of IPv6 allocation fee be waived.

If anyone is going to profit from the IPv4 exhaustion, perhaps those who
have the 'community' at heart by returning those resources and are
working toward IPv6 adoption receive such a kickback.

Steve


From jhg at omsys.com  Fri Apr  3 19:57:40 2009
From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H.Griffith)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:57:40 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> 
wrote:

>Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>
>* IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>* Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
>reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.

+1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:

* Eliminate that absurd definition of an organization.

But even then, I'd still OPPOSE it for creating a market,
when I saw hardly any support for 2008-6 in that respect 
either, just lots of noise from the one or two who did
support making lots of money at everyone's expense.  And...

"The Advisory Council will review the draft policy within 5 
business days of the end of the discussion period and make a 
recommendation to the Board of Trustees."

I really hope that recommendation takes full account of the
nonsupport by the community of this entire policy hijacking.

Is there a petition process for recall of Trustees for cause?
And do the hypothetical "minutes" yet to be released identify
those voting for 2009-1 by name?  Just wondering.  ;-)

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>


From ocl at gih.com  Fri Apr  3 20:50:21 2009
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 02:50:21 +0200
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and
	conmerits	of	2009-1review
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail><m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
	<D531C273-0B33-4FA0-9BD8-324C4CE90EAB@delong.com>
Message-ID: <F4BF08BC6629466B86E9E1074F84C8BD@GIH.CO.UK>

"Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> My experience is by no means defining or clear and scientific, but,
> my use of IPv6 in a dual-stack environment at my home through a
> Hurricane Electric Tunnel has been rock solid.

+1 for us in London.
I am really pleased with the service & tunnelling has put my company 
on the v6 map until our upstream providers decide to get their act 
together.

O.

-- 
Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html 



From steve at ibctech.ca  Fri Apr  3 21:14:28 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:14:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and
	con	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <m2fxgpuzzn.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com> <m2fxgpuzzn.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <49D6B474.4030106@ibctech.ca>

Randy Bush wrote:
>> Have you had good luck with tunnels?
> 
> mediocre.  they suck.  worst problems is mtu issues and no pmtud.  but
> they suck less than no connectivity.

>From experience, I disagree with the general statement(s) that tunnels
are "mediocre" and that "they suck".

That said, I _know_ that I am a very fortunate person regarding my
setup. (I'll take this time to once again state my appreciation to those
involved).

I don't have v6 native either, but I've been advertising my v6 prefix
over tunnels for well over a year. The only problems I've had have been
my own (dropping out of the global routing table).

pMTUD and MTU in general has not been an issue, as I've been blessed
having been supplied my tunnels by highly intelligent engineers of their
respective companies directly.

I agree with Randy though that tunnels are better than nothing,
especially when you are a small *SP/shop that has no hope in hell of
their upstream even considering implementing IPv6.

Experience (including tunnels) is better than nothing, especially for
the small people.

Steve


From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Apr  3 21:29:03 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:29:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904031355x3397b59fpc937d596a3c78ed5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904030617v5c199f3aif2d3d63d01ede5ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<B9CE7ACD-A88F-4098-8F91-C3F7DF20E136@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904031355x3397b59fpc937d596a3c78ed5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B2FBC500-3A8D-4067-9EE4-70E1233E53EF@istaff.org>

On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> The board members are ARIN's conservators, charged with dotting the
> i's, crossing the t's and, in exceptional cases, endeavoring to
> prevent the community's will from being thwarted by errors in the
> process.

Implementation of 2008-6 verbatim would have represented
such a situation, as there was a significant legal issue in the
final proposed text.  In order to avoid a protracted delay, the
Board attempted to fix this expeditiously by exercising the
emergency policy process.

The result of the Board using the emergency PDP at all, when
combined with its making multiple changes rather than the
bare minimum necessary has resulted in a justifiably agitated
community.  It probably didn't help matters that many in the
community hadn't noticed that the AC had recommended 2008-6
to the Board for adoption and hence it appeared the emergency
process was being used by the Board to independently create
a transfer policy...

The extension of the 2009-1 discussion period to the Public Policy
meeting in San Antonio ensures that the changes can receive
appropriate consideration.

/John
John Curran
Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees



From bill at herrin.us  Fri Apr  3 22:08:27 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:08:27 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency
	Authority
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904031908i47a1f69r8dd91293af4e1f27@mail.gmail.com>

Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0

   1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency Authority
   2. Proposal Originator
         1. name: William Herrin
         2. email: herrin at dirtside.com
         3. telephone: 703-534-2652
         4. organization: self
   3. Proposal Version: 1.0
   4. Date: 4/3/2009
   5. Proposal type: modify
      new, modify, or delete.
   6. Policy term: permanent
      temporary, permanent, or renewable.
   7. Policy statement:

In the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) section 7.1, replace the sentence:

The Board of Trustees may initiate the Emergency PDP by declaring an
emergency and posting a draft policy to the PPML for discussion for a
minimum of 10 business days.

With the following text:

If faced with an extant problem for which a delay of six months is
reasonably expected to have grave consequences, the Board of Trustees
may initiate the Emergency PDP by declaring an emergency and drafting
a proposal constrained to preventing actions which the Number Resource
Policy Manual would otherwise allow. The draft policy must then be
posted to the PPML for discussion for a minimum of 10 business days.

   8. Rationale:

Section 1 of the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) wisely excludes
the Board of Trustees (BoT) from participating in the drafting of ARIN
policy for inclusion in the NRPM. Such participation would mean that
the same individuals both write and approve the organization's policy.
Historically, giving the same individuals  both the power to write
policy and the power to approve it has demonstrated itself to be ripe
for abuse.

Section 7 of the PDP exists so that if some mad genius comes up with a
technically correct way to requisition all the remaining IP addresses,
something can be done quickly enough to block it. It does not exist to
allow the BoT a convenient way to forge new policy in violation of the
section 1 proscriptions.

With emergency policy proposal 2009-1, the BoT exhibited an imperfect
understanding of the purpose of section 7. This proposal seeks to
clarify it.

   9. Timetable for implementation: immediate

END OF TEMPLATE

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 23:17:37 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:17:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <B2FBC500-3A8D-4067-9EE4-70E1233E53EF@istaff.org>
References: <94FB251A-7640-45C3-94EB-DAE647EA8366@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904030617v5c199f3aif2d3d63d01ede5ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<B9CE7ACD-A88F-4098-8F91-C3F7DF20E136@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904031355x3397b59fpc937d596a3c78ed5@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2FBC500-3A8D-4067-9EE4-70E1233E53EF@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904032017u1f6dc444hc4d928d402806e19@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 19:29, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:55 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>> The board members are ARIN's conservators, charged with dotting the
>> i's, crossing the t's and, in exceptional cases, endeavoring to
>> prevent the community's will from being thwarted by errors in the
>> process.
>

> Implementation of 2008-6 verbatim would have represented
> such a situation, as there was a significant legal issue in the
> final proposed text. ?In order to avoid a protracted delay, the
> Board attempted to fix this expeditiously by exercising the
> emergency policy process.

I can not say I have read every email on this subject yet but I have
read most and I have not seen any explanation of what this significant
legal issue is and why it could not have been pointed out at the
meeting in LA.  John, can you elaborate (at least on the first point)?

~Chris


> The result of the Board using the emergency PDP at all, when
> combined with its making multiple changes rather than the
> bare minimum necessary has resulted in a justifiably agitated
> community. ?It probably didn't help matters that many in the
> community hadn't noticed that the AC had recommended 2008-6
> to the Board for adoption and hence it appeared the emergency
> process was being used by the Board to independently create
> a transfer policy...
>
> The extension of the 2009-1 discussion period to the Public Policy
> meeting in San Antonio ensures that the changes can receive
> appropriate consideration.
>
> /John
> John Curran
> Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Apr  3 23:19:23 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:19:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Query regarding petition process
In-Reply-To: <gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <A5075C1F-B3C8-44CE-82F0-260036D84E60@istaff.org>

On Apr 3, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> Is there a petition process for recall of Trustees for cause?

The appropriate petition process is defined here:
<https://www.arin.net/about_us/boardguidelines.html#removal>

/John
John Curran
Interim President & CEO
ARIN



From mohler at graceland.edu  Sat Apr  4 04:49:16 2009
From: mohler at graceland.edu (Dave Mohler)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 03:49:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>

I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.

Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred from Org A to Org B?

It could be written to allow Org A to return addresses x/NN and ARIN reserves and eventually reassigns a different y/NN to Org B.  ARIN could use this technique if they develop some strategy to achieve (or just happen to stumble across) a situation where x/NN could be aggregated with adjacent space.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:43 PM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
>
> Here's a random idea I came up with (while making nachos, so I didn't
> think about it too hard). Instead of arbitrarily transferring resources
> how about:
>
> 1) Org A returns the resource to ARIN with the intent that org B will
> use it.
> 2) ARIN places a hold (say, 60 days) on the resource.
> 3) Org B applies for the resource-in-holding through the normal "I need
> more space" process.
> 4) If org B doesn't do their part or is unable to qualify within 60
> days, the hold is lifted and it becomes just any other
> reclaimed/returned resource.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> 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 bicknell at ufp.org  Sat Apr  4 09:12:04 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:12:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
Message-ID: <20090404131204.GA80654@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 03:49:16AM -0500, Dave Mohler wrote:
> It could be written to allow Org A to return addresses x/NN and
> ARIN reserves and eventually reassigns a different y/NN to Org B.
> ARIN could use this technique if they develop some strategy to
> achieve (or just happen to stumble across) a situation where x/NN
> could be aggregated with adjacent space.

You may be interested in proposal 2009-4.  While it is not exactly
as you describe, it is a different model for moving addresses from
where they are in surplus to where they are needed.  It does provides
the ability for ARIN to aggregate addresses, for instance.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090404/093c14b8/attachment.sig>

From spiffnolee at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:23:47 2009
From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 08:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] posting of Board minutes (was re: The AC has a
	job...)
In-Reply-To: <gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <846025.60959.qm@web63308.mail.re1.yahoo.com>






----- Original Message ----
> From: Jeremy H.Griffith <jhg at omsys.com>
> To: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2009 7:57:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?
>
> And do the hypothetical "minutes" yet to be released identify
> those voting for 2009-1 by name?  Just wondering.  ;-)

Yes, Board meeting minutes identify who was present at the meeting, and you'll
see notations like "The motion carried unanimously with no objections." or
"The motion carried, via roll call, with 4 in favor and 1 abstention (Lee Howard)."

You can see minutes for all Board meetings at https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html
Exception:  minutes are not posted until they have been reviewed per
the procedure at https://www.arin.net/about_us/boardguidelines.html#approval

Lee,
Secretary


      



From sethm at rollernet.us  Sat Apr  4 12:37:43 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:37:43 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
References: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
Message-ID: <49D78CD7.9090103@rollernet.us>

Dave Mohler wrote:
> I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
> 
> Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred from Org A to Org B?
> 

The only thing I can think of offhand is in a merger situation where
assets are simply being transferred in place to a new owner.

~Seth


From owen at delong.com  Sat Apr  4 14:04:58 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:04:58 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>


On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
> wrote:
>
>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>
>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where  
>> X is
>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year  
>> 3000.
>
> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>
While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably  
occur
somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would you
accept a 12/31/2013 date?

Thanks for your comments.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090404/8dee291f/attachment.p7s>

From owen at delong.com  Sat Apr  4 14:13:52 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:13:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49D78CD7.9090103@rollernet.us>
References: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
	<49D78CD7.9090103@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <1B58AC7E-06E9-4B88-9DDD-9122E61CC3CF@delong.com>


On Apr 4, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

> Dave Mohler wrote:
>> I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
>>
>> Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred  
>> from Org A to Org B?
>>
>
> The only thing I can think of offhand is in a merger situation where
> assets are simply being transferred in place to a new owner.
>
That could be handled under the existing M&A transfer policy without
need to go through any new process.

Owen

> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> 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/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090404/30f60208/attachment.p7s>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Sat Apr  4 17:17:16 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:17:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
Message-ID: <20090404211715.GA366@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:04:58AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
> I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably  
> occur
> somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would you
> accept a 12/31/2013 date?

I'm thinking outloud, so I'm not sure I'd support this myself, but
what about making the run-out date "3 years after IANA has handed
out the last /8"?

That way we don't have to guess at when we're out of space now with a
fixed date.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090404/36de076a/attachment.sig>

From jhg at omsys.com  Sat Apr  4 17:30:18 2009
From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H.Griffith)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:30:18 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
Message-ID: <chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:04:58 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>>
>>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where  
>>> X is
>>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year  
>>> 3000.
>>
>> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>>
>While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
>I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably  
>occur
>somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
>this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would you
>accept a 12/31/2013 date?

I think sooner is better.  One major benefit of the sunset clause
is that it puts a limit on speculation.  If someone "acquires" many
blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
that their inventory will shortly become unsalable.  That should
put a damper on price gouging.  It also protects ARIN against any
later lawsuits by people who had such inventory when it became of
no value.  If there were no sunset, they could claim that a reversal
of the policy was a "taking", and effectively keep it in place
forever by threatening to bankrupt ARIN if it changed.  I don't
want the community held hostage that way.  So the more we can put
an upfront limit on the duration of this policy, the better off
we are.

That said, how about setting it to *begin* at ARIN runout, and
*end* one year later?  That gives people a buffer, while making
clear that the real answer lies elsewhere (IPv6), and discouraging
speculators from entering a "market" that won't be there long.

>Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for yours!

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>


From sethm at rollernet.us  Sat Apr  4 17:35:14 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:35:14 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
 can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <49D7D292.3050404@rollernet.us>

Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> 
> I think sooner is better.  One major benefit of the sunset clause
> is that it puts a limit on speculation.  If someone "acquires" many
> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
> that their inventory will shortly become unsalable.  That should
> put a damper on price gouging.  It also protects ARIN against any
> later lawsuits by people who had such inventory when it became of
> no value.  If there were no sunset, they could claim that a reversal
> of the policy was a "taking", and effectively keep it in place
> forever by threatening to bankrupt ARIN if it changed.  I don't
> want the community held hostage that way.  So the more we can put
> an upfront limit on the duration of this policy, the better off
> we are.

Same. I'd like to see a limit of a year.


> That said, how about setting it to *begin* at ARIN runout, and
> *end* one year later?  That gives people a buffer, while making
> clear that the real answer lies elsewhere (IPv6), and discouraging
> speculators from entering a "market" that won't be there long.
> 

I like that, as long as "begins at runout" is explicit in such a way 
that there's no room to argue about it when it does take effect.

~Seth


From sethm at rollernet.us  Sat Apr  4 17:39:15 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:39:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <1B58AC7E-06E9-4B88-9DDD-9122E61CC3CF@delong.com>
References: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
	<49D78CD7.9090103@rollernet.us>
	<1B58AC7E-06E9-4B88-9DDD-9122E61CC3CF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <49D7D383.1080903@rollernet.us>

Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Apr 4, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 
>> Dave Mohler wrote:
>>> I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
>>>
>>> Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred 
>>> from Org A to Org B?
>>>
>>
>> The only thing I can think of offhand is in a merger situation where
>> assets are simply being transferred in place to a new owner.
>>
> That could be handled under the existing M&A transfer policy without
> need to go through any new process.
> 

This whole transfer thing gets argued into the ground to the point where 
it seems that *something* (I don't know what, precisely) is missing.

~Seth


From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 17:45:55 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:45:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <20090404211715.GA366@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<20090404211715.GA366@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <7A0D01B5-8A60-450F-B22E-2E1261907ACF@gmail.com>

That seems like a good way to restore the original sunset date, which  
would've been 3 years from IANA exhaustion if the Board hadn't found  
it necessary to implement 2008-6 beforehand.

-Scott

On Apr 4, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:04:58AM -0700, Owen  
> DeLong wrote:
>> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
>> I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably
>> occur
>> somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3  
>> years of
>> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would  
>> you
>> accept a 12/31/2013 date?
>
> I'm thinking outloud, so I'm not sure I'd support this myself, but
> what about making the run-out date "3 years after IANA has handed
> out the last /8"?
>
> That way we don't have to guess at when we're out of space now with a
> fixed date.
>
> -- 
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Sat Apr  4 18:36:09 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:36:09 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904041536k5d39bd43u4cdfea1cd34d6876@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Dave Mohler <mohler at graceland.edu> wrote:
> Is it important for a particular set of addresses
> to be transferred from Org A to Org B?

Hi Dave,

Yes it is. Address space that has previously been in use has a
reputation attached to it.

A spammer's space is less usable than, say, the space currently
employed by ARIN for its web site. It's heavily blacklisted and email
systems installed within it won't function properly for months or
years after the spammer vacates.

Similarly, a /24 within a /8 whose minimum allocation is published as
/24 is more likely to route correctly than a /24 within a /8 whose
minimum allocation is published as /22.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Apr  6 00:12:13 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:12:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I think sooner is better.  One major benefit of the sunset clause
> is that it puts a limit on speculation.  If someone "acquires" many
> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know

There is an obvious logic problem here. 

Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches speculation. 

Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much. Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them, "using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them. 

When addresses are scarce, hoarding is bad. Can we agree on that? Especially when it can serve as a barrier to entry. 

In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who need them enough to be willing to pay for them. 

Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression of his hostility to a transfer policy? 

Can we stop confusing the debate over a sunset clause with an opinion poll on whether you like transfer markets or not?

Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary. Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it comes two years after some disastrous failure. 

What we do know is that the moment the clock runs out we have to have this same stupid debate over again, regardless of its relevance. 

You don't need a sunset. If the policy causes known problems, modify it or repeal it, with the burden of proof falling on those who claim there is a problem. (Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)

If it doesn't cause known problems, leave it in place. 



From jhg at omsys.com  Mon Apr  6 04:48:53 2009
From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H.Griffith)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:48:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:12:13 -0400, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>[I said:]
>> I think sooner is better.  One major benefit of the sunset clause
>> is that it puts a limit on speculation.  If someone "acquires" many
>> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
>
>There is an obvious logic problem here.

Yes, there is.  But it isn't mine.  ;-)

>Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's 
>pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient 
>before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches 
>speculation. 

No, it doesn't.  All is does is qualify recipients who want to
use the space.  It does nothing to prevent others from acquiring
inventory to sell to those people by purchasing shaky companies 
that happen to have some.  There are lots of those now, and a
canny investor can buy them cheap, thereby becoming the "owner" 
of their RTU, then sell off the resource at a handsome profit.
Please don't tell me this possibility has not occurred to you.  ;-)

>Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much. 
>Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out 
>IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them, 
>"using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a 
>transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them. 

I don't assume any such thing.  They won't be *getting* the blocks
from ARIN, because ARIN **won't have any**.  Doh.  And they won't
be getting them from ARIN ahead of time, because they can't justify
them to ARIN.  So where do *you* think they will come from?

>When addresses are scarce, hoarding is bad. Can we agree on that? 
>Especially when it can serve as a barrier to entry. 

Of course.

>In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding 
>by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than 
>speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who 
>need them enough to be willing to pay for them. 

Again, the assumption is that the rich are more worthy than the
poor.  What if a nonprofit health research center needs some?
Absent a transfer policy, we might have something like ARIN 
posting a list of people waiting for addresses, that those with 
extra ("extra" being defined more narrowly as we go along) may
want to support by returning a block earmarked for a specific
worthy cause.  That's just off the top of my head; my point is 
that you assume that having money is the prime consideration
for allocation, and I don't.

>Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will 
>work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly 
>break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression 
>of his hostility to a transfer policy? 

Is this laughable line of argument any more than a ploy for
libertarian capitalism at any cost?  ;-)

Actually, I *do* think a transfer policy will skew the allocation
that is currently based on needs, and has been since the start,
in a negative way.  The immediate effect is that it would make
a company that was justified for its block under current rules,
but felt it could spare some of it for the good of the community,
*unable* to donate it back, because the stockholders could claim
it should have been sold instead.  I consider that disincentive
to compassion and generosity a bad idea.

>Can we stop confusing the debate over a sunset clause with an 
>opinion poll on whether you like transfer markets or not?

I don't believe that's confusing it.  It is just raising a point
you find difficult to deal with.  Sorry, you do *not* get to
frame this debate.  <g>

>Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary. 
>Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive 
>and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We 
>won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even 
>widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or 
>whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it 
>comes two years after some disastrous failure. 

That's exactly why I favor a short-term limit to try out this
radically new (for ARIN) policy that Milton Friedman would have 
loved.  Eliminate the uncertainty; it's just for a year, folks.  
Then as that time gets closer, we'll have experience on which to 
base a decision about renewing it, or not.

We re-elect US Representatives every two years.  Would it be 
better to put them in office permanently, like judges, and recall 
them if things got bad?  Of course not.  We have scheduled reviews,
called "elections".  This is not a difficult concept, eh?

>What we do know is that the moment the clock runs out we have 
>to have this same stupid debate over again, regardless of its 
>relevance. 

Not if one of us has learned from experience, we don't.

>You don't need a sunset. If the policy causes known problems, 
>modify it or repeal it, with the burden of proof falling on 
>those who claim there is a problem. 

And there you have it.  You want the burden of proof to fall
on those who disagree with you.  Simple.  And that reversal
of burden of proof is exactly why the community, and the AC, 
put the sunset into 2008-6 in the first place.

>(Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally 
>uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an 
>RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)

No, they won't.  But the guy who bought Failing Electronics,
Inc., to get its resources for resale sure will.  Ask *your*
legal department.  ;-)

>If it doesn't cause known problems, leave it in place. 

Since we don't have the experience yet to know the problems,
we need to have a short-term trial to determine what they are.

HTH!

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>


From info at arin.net  Mon Apr  6 08:54:53 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:54:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency
	Authority
Message-ID: <49D9FB9D.1050908@arin.net>

ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the 
Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy Development 
Process.

This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development Process. 
ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does 
not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal is to make sure that 
they understand the proposal and believe the community will as well. 
Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within 
10 days.

The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled 
meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is 
less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent 
regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the 
proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.

In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the 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 Policy Development Process can be found at:  
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Mailing list subscription information can be found 
at:https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

## * ##

Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0

  1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency Authority

  2. Proposal Originator: William Herrin  
  3. Proposal Version: 1.0

  4. Date: 4/3/2009

  5. Proposal type: modify    
  6. Policy term: permanent

  7. Policy statement:


In the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) section 7.1, replace the 
sentence:

The Board of Trustees may initiate the Emergency PDP by declaring an 
emergency and posting a draft policy to the PPML for discussion for a 
minimum of 10 business days.

With the following text:

If faced with an extant problem for which a delay of six months is 
reasonably expected to have grave consequences, the Board of Trustees 
may initiate the Emergency PDP by declaring an emergency and drafting a 
proposal constrained to preventing actions which the Number Resource 
Policy Manual would otherwise allow. The draft policy must then be 
posted to the PPML for discussion for a minimum of 10 business days.

  8. Rationale:

Section 1 of the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) wisely excludes 
the Board of Trustees (BoT) from participating in the drafting of ARIN 
policy for inclusion in the NRPM. Such participation would mean that the 
same individuals both write and approve the organization's policy.

Historically, giving the same individuals  both the power to write 
policy and the power to approve it has demonstrated itself to be ripe 
for abuse.

Section 7 of the PDP exists so that if some mad genius comes up with a 
technically correct way to requisition all the remaining IP addresses, 
something can be done quickly enough to block it. It does not exist to 
allow the BoT a convenient way to forge new policy in violation of the 
section 1 proscriptions.

With emergency policy proposal 2009-1, the BoT exhibited an imperfect 
understanding of the purpose of section 7. This proposal seeks to 
clarify it.

   9. Timetable for implementation: immediate



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 09:39:37 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:39:37 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	Draft	Policy2009-1:	TransferPolicy	(UsingtheEmergencyPDP)
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF2B@mail>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974584C7CED@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>	<49CBBA04.1000002@matthew.at>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF2B@mail>
Message-ID: <49DA0619.90009@chl.com>



Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> 
>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> I have two significant issues with people who are completely opposed to
>> a transfer policy:
>>
> Those of us who are diametrically opposed to a transfer policy have that
> position because it is just a bad idea. 


This issue is much simpler than some would make it appear.

A) Easily available green-field IPv4 will run out.

B) People most likely are still going to demand IPv4.

C) There is plenty of available IPv4 DEPENDING where you look for it and 
how hard you do so.

We can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

The solution is to create a workable process that will revisit the 
inefficiencies of the past.

The problem would be to prevent the inefficiencies of the past to be 
rectified.

Should the latter position be taken, our processes and institutions risk 
becoming irrelevant, by force majeure, by popular action or by fait 
accompli.

As things stand, I fear that the registries and their communities will 
be called upon to explain in the near future to all and sundry these 
difficult to defend issues.

- Inefficiencies and lack of incentive to remedy
- Legacy space
- Past and present liberal allocation policies
- Rationing
- obsolete IANA reservations

Most of us doubt that anybody is going to accept the answer of

"Get lost or get IPv6"

We can evidence from the recent posting of the CNN article with the 
pro-market solution that mainstreaming of the issue has already begun.

Joe


From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 09:39:44 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:39:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	Draft	Policy	2009-1:	TransferPolicy	(UsingtheEmergencyPDP)
In-Reply-To: <49CBEBD9.3030808@matthew.at>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458523F17@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<49CBEBD9.3030808@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <49DA0620.4000906@chl.com>



Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>  acquiring IPv4 space either via
> the proposed transfer policy or via existing transfer mechanisms (buying 
> existing holder entities).

This is a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is widespread outright 
hijacking and ISP's complicit in it. Or perhaps the worst case scenario 
is complete usurption of our registries into some other political body.


From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 09:40:48 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:40:48 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
 can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
Message-ID: <49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>



Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>>
>>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
>>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.
>>
>> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>>
> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
> I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably occur
> somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would you
> accept a 12/31/2013 date?
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> Owen

Owen,

The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.

A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not 
require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the 
BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late 
to the part anyway.

The real concern is hoarding and speculation in a market gone awry and 
uncontrollable. A sunset date could just be red flag waving in front of 
the capitalist bull.

To simply garner support is not a valid idea in my opinion, it is just a 
gimmick, one that has been successfully avoided up till this point.

As it stands, it would appear that a Sunset Clause is a poison pill.

Joe




From bill at herrin.us  Mon Apr  6 10:29:36 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:29:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please 	help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904060729v1e48cf4dv4701876cfd2893a6@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not
> require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the
> BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late
> to the part anyway.

Joe,

Once we've seen how 2008-6 works, prevailing opinion in this group
will fall into one of several ranges:

1. Consensus to continue the policy.
2. Consensus to change the policy.
3. Consensus to abandon the policy.
4. No consensus to take action.

Now, it's always harder to build a consensus for something than it is
to take no action. So for any random proposal the most probable result
is #4: no consensus.

With a sunset clause, the original policy goes away absent #1.
Without it, only #2 or #3 removes it, and then only with the AC's
recommendation and board's approval.


The transfer proposals before 2008-6 lacked a sunset clause. Folks
like myself sat on the sidelines and said, "Yeah, a transfer policy is
probably a good idea but this ain't it." And there weren't enough
folks favoring each transfer policy to achieve consensus.

The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
the top where the ones before had failed.

Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6 acceptable.

And the support for 2009-1 is markedly thin on the ground.


Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Apr  6 10:37:59 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:37:59 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please 	help?
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904060729v1e48cf4dv4701876cfd2893a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904060729v1e48cf4dv4701876cfd2893a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F20A6477-EFF1-4751-823E-EF46D0B0D363@istaff.org>

On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:29 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
> a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
> policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
> the top where the ones before had failed.
>
> Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6  
> acceptable.

Bill -

Do you see any potential that a unset clause will encourage well- 
informed
parties to act sooner in seeking address blocks via this policy,  
resulting
in much fewer idle IPv4 blocks available at the point in time when the
general industry experiences the need to obtain such?

/John




From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 11:15:43 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:15:43 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW:  Timeline for 2008-6 and 2009-1
In-Reply-To: <B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF99@mail>
	<B8EECE0C-C08D-4296-9E32-E4D38224986F@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF9F@mail>

> > On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >> [From: jcurran]
> >>    The Board ultimately carries the responsibility to determine
> >>    the policies of the ARIN, although this has to date always
> >>    been the result of ratifying the recommendation of the ARIN
> >>    Advisory Council.  The AC exists to advise the Board on policy
> >>    matters, and as such the Board considers its recommendations
> >>    very seriously.
> >>
> >>    The issues raised by 2009-1 should be discussed here on this
> >>    list, at public policy meeting in San Antonio, and by the AC
> >>    in their deliberations.  The Board will need to weigh all of
> >>    these to determine if any policy changes are needed.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> /John
> >>
> > Wow..  That did a pretty good job of explaining the board's
> > attitude.  Wow.
> 
> Kevin -
> 
>    For clarity, it's not practical for me to engage the entire
>    ARIN Board on a hours notice to review each email that I
>    send, so it's not safe to consider the above an official
>    statement of the Board.  I do think it reflects the Board's
>    view (or would have put a personal disclaimer on it), but
>    can't guarantee it, and hence you should consider it to be
>    "John's attitude" as opposed to "the board's attitude"...
> 
>    Meta-comment on pedigree of my email aside, I am curious
>    about your "Wow" comment.  This shouldn't actually be a
>    big surprise, as the Board is ultimately responsible for
>    the actions of organization, and with that comes the duty
>    to ensure fidelity to the mission.  While we have had the
>    benefit of excellent advice from the AC over the years
>    (and hope it to continue for many more to come :-), it is
>    indeed the ARIN Board's duty to ensure resource policy
>    which best meets the organization's mission.
> 
> /John

I guess the wow was mainly from seeing an actual strong statement.  Also
from what I read as an inference that the board would do what it wanted to
do regardless of community consensus.  

I agree that the board has thus far done an amazing job and amazing things
for the community and society.  I hope and trust that fear does not
undermine or change the basic focus of the board, which has in my
observation been to maintain a fluid and efficient shepherd without
excessive oversight.

I cannot stress enough my gratitude and admiration for the job ARIN has done
in the past.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/08f2245b/attachment.bin>

From heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com  Mon Apr  6 11:18:05 2009
From: heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com (Heather Schiller)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:18:05 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using
	the	Emergency PDP)
In-Reply-To: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net>
References: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49DA1D2D.6040503@verizonbusiness.com>


The addition of the definition of "Organization" to 2009-1 has the 
potential to significantly change current practices. The word 
"Organization" is used 106 times throughout the current NRPM.  There may 
be areas of the NRPM where the word "Organization" is used but a 
definition different from the one in the 2009-1 proposal is intended.

We are concerned that the ramifications of this change on the rest of 
the NRPM have not been fully evaluated and do not have enough time to be 
reviewed in the constrained time line given with the board's emergency 
policy action.  We would prefer to see the definition of "Organization" 
be submitted as a separate policy proposal using the regular PDP cycle 
with greater consideration given to how it affects the rest of the NRPM.

If that is not possible, I would suggest that the definition of 
organization as written in 2009-1 be removed from section 2 and 
constrained to the transfer section only.

  In the meantime we would appreciate hearing from the board further 
clarification on the full intention of this definition and whether the 
intent is to apply this definition to every instance of the word 
"Organization" in the NRPM.  Was consideration given to the 
ramifications on the rest of the NRPM?  We would also expect ARIN 
staff's "Clarity and Understanding" statement to include information 
about how they interpret this change and how they see it affecting other 
policies.


--Heather Schiller
      (on behalf of Verizon)

====================================================
  Heather Schiller	Verizon Business
  Customer Security	1.800.900.0241
  IP Address Management	help4u at verizonbusiness.com
=====================================================

Member Services wrote:
> Draft Policy 2009-1
> Transfer Policy
> 
> The ARIN Board of Trustees has declared a policy emergency and is making
> use of the Emergency PDP provision in the ARIN Policy Development
> Process to revise policy.
> 
> At their meeting on 6 February 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on
> the recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Council and noting that the
> Policy Development Process had been followed, adopted Draft Policy
> 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses.
> 
> Then at their meeting on 8 March 2009, the Board noted there is a gap in
> the transfer policy that limits the availability of IPv4 address space
> at a time when otherwise available IPv4 address space will become
> scarce, and declared this gap an emergency. The Board initiated the
> Emergency PDP of the Policy Development Process in order to revise the
> transfer policy (both the existing transfer policy and the policy just
> adopted).
> 
> Per the Emergency PDP, the draft policy below is being posted to the
> Public Policy Mailing List for 10 business days of discussion and review
> by the community. The emergency discussion period ends 7 April 2009.
> Within 5 business days of the end of discussion the Advisory Council
> will, having reviewed the comments on the list, review the draft policy
> and make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board may adopt
> or reject the draft policy. If the Board adopts the policy, it will be
> presented at the next public policy meeting for reconsideration.
> 
> We encourage you to discuss Draft Policy 2009-1 on the PPML. The
> discussion on the list will be used by the AC to determine the community
> consensus regarding adopting this as policy.
> 
> Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy is available below and at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> 
> Policy 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 
> Draft Policy 2009-1
> Transfer Policy
> 
> Originator: ARIN Board of Trustees (using the Emergency PDP provision in
> the ARIN Policy Development Process)
> 
> Date: 24 March 2009
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Insert into the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual as follows:
> 
> Add Section 2.8:
> 
> ?Organization. An Organization is one or more legal entities under
> common control or ownership.?
> 
> Replace Section 8 as follows:
> 
> 8. Transfers
> 
> 8.1. Principles
> Number resources are non-transferable and are not assignable to any
> other organization unless ARIN has expressly and in writing approved a
> request for transfer. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions on
> whether to approve the transfer of number resources.
> 
> It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under ARIN
> administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization
> for its exclusive use for the purpose stated in the request, provided
> the terms of the Registration Services Agreement continue to be met and
> the stated purpose for the number resources remains the same. Number
> resources are administered and assigned according to ARIN's published
> policies.
> 
> Number resources are issued, based on justified need, to organizations,
> not to individuals representing those organizations. Thus, if a company
> goes out of business, regardless of the reason, the point of contact
> (POC) listed for the number resource does not have the authority to
> sell, transfer, assign, or give the number resource to any other person
> or organization. The POC must notify ARIN if a business fails so the
> assigned number resources can be returned to the available pool of
> number resources if a transfer is not requested and justified.
> 
> 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions
> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the
> case of mergers and acquisitions upon receipt of evidence that the new
> entity has acquired the assets which had, as of the date of the
> acquisition or proposed reorganization, justified the current entity's
> use of the number resource. Examples of assets that justify use of the
> number resource include, but are not limited to:
> 
> ? Existing customer base
> ? Qualified hardware inventory
> ? Specific software requirements.
> 
> In evaluating a request for transfer, ARIN may require the requesting
> organization to provide any of the following documents, as applicable,
> plus any other documents deemed appropriate:
> 
> ? An authenticated copy of the instrument(s) affecting the transfer of
> assets, e.g., bill of sale, certificate of merger, contract, deed, or
> court decree.
> ? A detailed inventory of all assets utilized by the requesting party in
> maintaining and using the number resource.
> ? A list of the requesting party's customers using the number resource.
> 
> If further justification is required, the requesting party may be asked
> to provide any of the following, or other supporting documentation, as
> applicable:
> 
> ? A general listing of the assets or components acquired
> ? A specific description of acquisitions, including:
> 
> o Type and quantity of equipment
> o Customer base
> 
> ? A description of how number resources are being utilized
> ? Network engineering plans, including:
> 
> o Host counts
> o Subnet masking
> o Network diagrams
> o Reassignments to customers
> 
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> Number resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN for
> transfer to another specified organizational recipient, by any
> authorized resource holder within the ARIN region. Such transferred
> number resources may only be received by organizations that are within
> the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the
> exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
> 
> #####
> 
> Notes:
> 
> Most of the existing Section 8 is left unchanged. List of changes:
> 
> 2.8 New.
> 8.1 Changes from ?Transfers? to ?Principles.?
> 8.2 Changes from ?Transfer Requirements? to ?Mergers and Acquisitions.?
> 8.2 The word ?only? is removed.
> 8.3 Merged up into 8.2.
> 8.3 Edited version of the adopted 2008-6.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Apr  6 11:20:24 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:20:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please 	help?
In-Reply-To: <F20A6477-EFF1-4751-823E-EF46D0B0D363@istaff.org>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<3c3e3fca0904060729v1e48cf4dv4701876cfd2893a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<F20A6477-EFF1-4751-823E-EF46D0B0D363@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904060820i2a4c1bc0ha8893ee8fca68f50@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:29 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
>> a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
>> policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
>> the top where the ones before had failed.
>>
>> Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6 acceptable.
>
> Do you see any potential that a sunset clause will encourage well-informed
> parties to act sooner in seeking address blocks via this policy, resulting
> in much fewer idle IPv4 blocks available at the point in time when the
> general industry experiences the need to obtain such?

John,

Yes, I see that potential. I considered it back when I chose to support 2008-6.

Practically speaking, I think the hoarding is already in full swing.
Look what the big players are doing in their wireless arms. A globally
routable IP address for every cell phone? It makes little difference
which blocks get hoarded.

Until the free pool is actually exhausted, there's very little to gain
by exercising 2008-6. The registrant arriving has to demonstrate the
same need that they'd demonstrate for the same size block from the
free pool. You could acquire blocks that are potentially more
desirable than the dregs of the free pool (e.g. small blocks in the
swamp) but that strikes me as an expensive and chancy play...
especially if a sunset clause warns that you might not be able to sell
them later.

As for well-informed parties, I expect that word will get around
pretty fast once IANA gives out its last /8. We'll see, "Web runs out
of addresses," on the front page of at least a couple major US
newspapers. Until then, well, like I said the hoarding will neither
speed up nor slow down as a result of 2008-6.

With respect to idle blocks, I doubt there are many. I expect there to
be a huge number of undertasked blocks: address space dedicated to
functions that could be re-engineered to consume fewer addresses if
there was enough profit to be made in doing so. Public IPs for cell
phones, for example. But I expect the genuinely idle blocks to vanish
quickly regardless.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 11:26:17 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:26:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] "Could the Internet run out of space?" (CNN quotes
	from Ben Edelman)
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA1100@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <41990.1238678886@nsa.vix.com><49D4D145.1010407@usfamily.net><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF87@mail><46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935B2@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF94@mail>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BEA1100@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA0@mail>

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > Funny thing about the variables 'supply' and 'demand', if you
> > > miscalculate them, your results can be quite off.
> > >
> > > - Scott
> > >
> > Agreed, my fear is not that the cost of IP addresses will go
> > up 100 times, I
> > fear it will go up tens or hundreds of thousands of times..
> >
> > Kevin
> 
> What brilliant comments. And if we don't allow transfers, then scarce IPv4
> addresses become less scarce, and less expensive?  And it is costless to
> instantly migrate to IPv6?
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 

I didn't think I was being that hard to understand.  It is really pretty
simple.  With ARIN overseeing and administering the transfers costs to the
community will of course rise, but not to nearly the same level as they will
in an unregulated commodities market.

Another danger that will be minimized (not eliminated) when IP address
allocations are under ARIN oversight are unfair business practices by those
with the budget to control the market.  I feel it is imperative that IP
availability be fairly accessible to the entire community.  The ability to
channel and tunnel IP ownership by corporate policy is very dangerous.  IP's
need to be available to the community at large on a fair and level playing
field.  Allowing one corporation to dictate who gets IP's defeats that.

Where did you get the idea that "if we don't allow transfers, then scarce
IPv4 addresses become less scarce, and less expensive"?  Nobody said that.
Or are you saying that if there is a commodities market that IPv4 will be
less scarce and expensive?  There are not too many who would believe that.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/ff3f3d6c/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 13:09:21 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:09:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro
	andcon	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com><49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com>
	<49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA3@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:41 PM
> To: Lee Dilkie
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro andcon merits of 2009-
> 1review
> 
> Lee Dilkie wrote:
> 
> > I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas, none
> > to be found around here.
> 
> Wait, there are no commercial ISPs with a presence in Ottowa that will
> provide ipv6? That beggars the imagination.
> 
> > -lee
Ottowa?  I would love to live in Ottowa, are you offering me a job?  ;)

Our location is central North Dakota, USA.  

I have looked in to utilizing tunnel methods for IPv6, and actually have a
tunnel established, but I am very hesitant to start to transit production
traffic over a tunnel for a number of reasons, reliability being one, and
cost if I start to generate significant traffic being another.  

The no-cost experimental tunnel is a wonderful thing I am immensely grateful
for, but I do not want to abuse the privilege.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/add93756/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 13:15:46 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:15:46 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Dave Mohler
> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:49 AM
> To: 'Seth Mattinen'; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
> 
> Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred from
> Org A to Org B?
> 
While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of
merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be made
available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.  

If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic
broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit
status.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/eaa786d2/attachment.bin>

From stephen at sprunk.org  Mon Apr  6 13:27:07 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:27:07 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
Message-ID: <49DA3B6B.8000208@sprunk.org>

Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Dave Mohler
>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:49 AM
>> To: 'Seth Mattinen'; ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
>>
>> I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
>>
>> Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred from Org A to Org B?
>>     
> While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of merger/acquisition ...

Existing policy already adequately covers M&A transfers.  And, in that 
case, it _is_ important that a particular set of addresses be 
transferred since, in a legitimate M&A transfer, the addresses are being 
transferred along with the equipment (and customers, etc.) that 
justified them and are already in use, which should not be arbitrarily 
interrupted.

> ... it still holds that returned addresses need to be made available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
>   

That is your opinion, not fact, and calling it "piracy" is a 
disingenuous attempt to sway others for reasons that have nothing to do 
with the debate at hand.

> If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit status.
>   

A registry (like your county clerk for deed recordings) is not a 
"monopolistic broker".  Please leave the legal claims and 
interpretations to ARIN's counsel, who is paid to handle such issues for 
us and quite competent at it.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/594845b9/attachment.bin>

From ccaputo at alt.net  Mon Apr  6 13:22:35 2009
From: ccaputo at alt.net (Chris Caputo)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:22:35 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>
	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904061717030.3287@nacho.alt.net>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Dave Mohler
> > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:49 AM
> > To: 'Seth Mattinen'; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
> > 
> > Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred from
> > Org A to Org B?
> > 
> While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of 
> merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be 
> made available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
> 
> If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic 
> broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit 
> status.

What is the basis of belief for your last sentence?  I ask because I don't 
see how being a regional monopolistic broker violates not-for-profit or 
non-profit status.

Chris


From stephen at sprunk.org  Mon Apr  6 13:43:26 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:43:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>

Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:12:13 -0400, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches speculation. 
>>     
>
> No, it doesn't.  All is does is qualify recipients who want to use the space.  It does nothing to prevent others from acquiring inventory to sell to those people by purchasing shaky companies that happen to have some.  There are lots of those now, and a canny investor can buy them cheap, thereby becoming the "owner" of their RTU, then sell off the resource at a handsome profit.  Please don't tell me this possibility has not occurred to you.  ;-)
>   

That scenario is already possible today using M&A transfers, except that 
today the buyer _doesn't_ have to justify their "need" and it costs a 
lot more to have lawyers create the necessary shell company, sell it, 
etc.  If you consider this a serious risk, you should be proposing that 
M&A transfers be repealed -- it's not a problem specific to paid transfers.

>> Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much. 
>> Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out 
>> IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them, 
>> "using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a 
>> transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them. 
>>     
>
> I don't assume any such thing.  They won't be *getting* the blocks
> from ARIN, because ARIN **won't have any**.  Doh.  And they won't
> be getting them from ARIN ahead of time, because they can't justify
> them to ARIN.  So where do *you* think they will come from?
>   

He said "now", and ARIN does have addresses to give out today and for at 
least a couple more years.

>> In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding 
>> by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than 
>> speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who 
>> need them enough to be willing to pay for them. 
>>     
>
> Again, the assumption is that the rich are more worthy than the poor.

No, the assumption above is that it's better that _someone_ get the 
addresses than _nobody_, which is quite different.

> What if a nonprofit health research center needs some?  Absent a transfer policy, we might have something like ARIN posting a list of people waiting for addresses, that those with extra ("extra" being defined more narrowly as we go along) may want to support by returning a block earmarked for a specific worthy cause.

Corporations make charitable donations all the time.  The proposed 
transfer policy does not specify that one side must pay the other; it 
just says that the grantor is allowed to designate the grantee.  Having 
a market value for those addresses might also provide them tax benefits 
for making such a donation, if they wish.

> That's just off the top of my head; my point is that you assume that having money is the prime consideration for allocation, and I don't.
>   

It's the best mechanism we have available in a capitalist society.  
ARIN's done the communist thing for the last 10 years, and that's bought 
us rapidly approaching resource exhaustion -- just like it did in 
Russia, China, Cuba, etc.  Capitalism may not be ideal, but it's the 
least-bad system for managing scarce resources that humanity has yet 
discovered (see also: democracy).

>> Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will 
>> work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly 
>> break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression 
>> of his hostility to a transfer policy? 
>>     
>
> Is this laughable line of argument any more than a ploy for libertarian capitalism at any cost?  ;-)
>
> Actually, I *do* think a transfer policy will skew the allocation that is currently based on needs, and has been since the start, in a negative way.  The immediate effect is that it would make a company that was justified for its block under current rules, but felt it could spare some of it for the good of the community, *unable* to donate it back, because the stockholders could claim it should have been sold instead.  I consider that disincentive to compassion and generosity a bad idea.
>   

Corporations donate money and other assets all the time.  The right to 
use a particular set of numbers is just another asset, to be potentially 
donated like any other.

>> Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary. Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it comes two years after some disastrous failure. 
>>     
>
> That's exactly why I favor a short-term limit to try out this radically new (for ARIN) policy that Milton Friedman would have loved.  Eliminate the uncertainty; it's just for a year, folks.  Then as that time gets closer, we'll have experience on which to base a decision about renewing it, or not.
>   

Given the time and effort involved in an ARIN policy cycle, and the need 
for organizations to budget a year or more ahead of time, a single year 
"experiment" just isn't workable.  I thought even three years was on the 
short side...

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/553ee486/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 13:49:51 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:49:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904061717030.3287@nacho.alt.net>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us><6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0904061717030.3287@nacho.alt.net>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA7@mail>

> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Dave Mohler
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:49 AM
> > > To: 'Seth Mattinen'; ARIN PPML
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > >
> > > I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
> > >
> > > Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred
> from
> > > Org A to Org B?
> > >
> > While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of
> > merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be
> > made available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
> >
> > If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic
> > broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit
> > status.
> 
> What is the basis of belief for your last sentence?  I ask because I don't
> see how being a regional monopolistic broker violates not-for-profit or
> non-profit status.
> 
> Chris

Chris,

I made that statement because I do not see how a transaction that is wholly
designed for profit can be carried out by a not-for-profit entity.  Granted,
I need to think it out more.

I personally would rather see ARIN continue to provide the disbursement, but
brokerage tends to imply profit.  I am sure there are ways to arrange it
otherwise.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/42368995/attachment.bin>

From leo.vegoda at icann.org  Mon Apr  6 14:10:57 2009
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:10:57 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
Message-ID: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>

Kevin,

On 06/04/2009 10:15, "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:

[...]

> While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of
> merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be made
> available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
> 
> If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic
> broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit
> status.

Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the encouragement
of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
are:

- Best fit, i.e. prefixes aren't cut up to fill more requests
- Worthiness contest, e.g. one kind of service judged more important than
another 
- First come first served
- Widest distribution, i.e. get address space to as many networks as
possible at the cost of deaggregation

Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your alternative to the
proposal for a transfer policy?

Regards,

Leo



From owen at delong.com  Mon Apr  6 14:10:37 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:10:37 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49DA3B6B.8000208@sprunk.org>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<49DA3B6B.8000208@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <3025386D-7368-4925-BF49-FC8E9302A3E3@delong.com>

>
>> If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the  
>> monopolistic broker.  Of course that is not possible while  
>> maintaining not-for-profit status.
>>
>
> A registry (like your county clerk for deed recordings) is not a  
> "monopolistic broker".  Please leave the legal claims and  
> interpretations to ARIN's counsel, who is paid to handle such issues  
> for us and quite competent at it.

It could be argued that the term registry here is being confused/ 
loaded as well.

The county clerk for deed recordings is strictly a registry (recorder)  
and not
a steward of property rights.

ARIN, while it is often called a registry, has a broader role which  
includes
stewardship over the address space in addition to recording delegations
of that address space.

The strict recorder interpretation proposed by Geoff Huston and often
brought up in pro-market arguments tends to ignore this distinction and
disregard the stewardship role. IMHO, that is a mistake.

Owen



From sethm at rollernet.us  Mon Apr  6 14:33:13 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:33:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
References: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Kevin,
> 
> On 06/04/2009 10:15, "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of
>> merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be made
>> available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
>>
>> If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic
>> broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit
>> status.
> 
> Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the encouragement
> of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
> decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
> requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
> are:

IP addresses aren't the property of the holder, thus they should not be
able to sell or profit from the exchange of something that doesn't
belong to them in the first place.


> - Best fit, i.e. prefixes aren't cut up to fill more requests
> - Worthiness contest, e.g. one kind of service judged more important than
> another 
> - First come first served
> - Widest distribution, i.e. get address space to as many networks as
> possible at the cost of deaggregation
> 
> Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your alternative to the
> proposal for a transfer policy?
> 

How much space they already have? With all due respect to the large orgs
on this list, I'm not apt to shed a tear when you can't get another /8
to add to the collection when I just need to add a /22 or /21. For a
small org not getting that space (and unable to afford it from hoarders)
could be a death blow.

~Seth


From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 14:55:23 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:55:23 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:43 AM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can you please help?
> 

> 
> It's the best mechanism we have available in a capitalist society.  
> ARIN's done the communist thing for the last 10 years, and 
> that's bought 
> us rapidly approaching resource exhaustion -- just like it did in 
> Russia, China, Cuba, etc.  Capitalism may not be ideal, but it's the 
> least-bad system for managing scarce resources that humanity has yet 
> discovered (see also: democracy).
> 

Stephen,

The IPv4 "scarcity" is fake, it doesn't exist in reality - it is something
that was created when they decided to use 32-bit integers for IP numbers
and stuff both the network number and host number into the same number.

Somebody thought they were being clever with this little experimental
toy network they were playing with and whoops - it got away from them.

Basically your Paleocon analogy is false, it's like saying that a capitalist
market exists in drivers license numbers or social security numbers and
since
we aren't charging money for SS numbers, we are going to run out of them.
It's like arguing for air pollution so that we can develop a market
in selling oxygen to people.

The closest "scarcity" analogy to the IPv4 situation would be the
DeBeers control of the world's fine diamond supply. 
DeBeers deliberately sets up a scarcity in diamonds to manipulate
the price, then calls the diamond market a capitalist investment
market, when in reality it's a communist market - the only real
scarcity there is in diamonds is in the flawless blue white
investment grade - the DeBeers vaults are stuffed full of the
less-than-flawless stuff they miser out for use in wedding rings, etc.

BAD network design - such as the address translator - are a result
of this artifically created scarcity.

IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite supply
of integers.


Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 14:57:42 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:57:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the proandcon	merits	of	2009-1review
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA3@mail>
References: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D07001D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>	<CCCE744F-7079-4DC2-B2D8-6EF19631F1FA@delong.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF93@mail>	<m2fxgqy2bb.wl%randy@psg.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AF95@mail>	<m2skkpv1oo.wl%randy@psg.com><49D68AD9.5040805@dilkie.com><49D6906B.7050400@bogus.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA3@mail>
Message-ID: <52ABE633E4744172B8869CA33674166A@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:09 AM
> To: Joel Jaeggli; Lee Dilkie
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the proandcon merits 
> of 2009-1review
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> > On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli
> > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 5:41 PM
> > To: Lee Dilkie
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro andcon merits of 
> > 2009- 1review
> > 
> > Lee Dilkie wrote:
> > 
> > > I really wish I had an ISP that offered native but alas, 
> none to be 
> > > found around here.
> > 
> > Wait, there are no commercial ISPs with a presence in 
> Ottowa that will 
> > provide ipv6? That beggars the imagination.
> > 
> > > -lee
> Ottowa?  I would love to live in Ottowa, are you offering me 
> a job?  ;)
> 
> Our location is central North Dakota, USA.  
> 
> I have looked in to utilizing tunnel methods for IPv6, and 
> actually have a tunnel established, but I am very hesitant to 
> start to transit production traffic over a tunnel for a 
> number of reasons, reliability being one, and cost if I start 
> to generate significant traffic being another.  
> 
> The no-cost experimental tunnel is a wonderful thing I am 
> immensely grateful for, but I do not want to abuse the privilege.
> 

I feel compelled as well to point out that advocating tunnels
just gives upstream providers yet another excuse to avoid running
IPv6 natively.

Ted



From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Apr  6 15:02:41 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:02:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
Message-ID: <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>

On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:

> The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.
> 
> A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not 
> require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the 
> BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late 
> to the part anyway.

So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the 
sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.

But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a 
sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being presented, it 
isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy, 
but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset 
clause.

Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy 
Template?   If all policies should be Permanent, which is what 
people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from 
the Policy Template?

>From the Policy Template;

------
Policy term 

How long will the policy remain in effect? Is it intended to be 
temporary, permanent, or renewable?
------

This seems to imply to me that at least some policies are 
intended to have a term other than forever or until otherwised 
removed by another policy action.

And, Joe I don't mean to pick on you, your message just 
happened to be the most convenient.



================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 15:03:43 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:03:43 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 
> IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
> this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite supply
> of integers.
> 

How do you propose to force everyone to move to ipv6?

By denying them ipv4?

You really think thats going to work? When ARIN says there is no more 
ipv4, everyone is going to meekly accept that?






From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 15:11:52 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:11:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:03 PM
> To: Joe Maimon
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 
> 2009-1,can you please help?
> 
> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
> 
> > The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset 
> clause appeals.
> > 
> > A policy that works as intended should either obsolete 
> itself or not 
> > require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what 
> > the BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most 
> likely be too 
> > late to the part anyway.
> 
> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the 
> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
> 
> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy 
> with a sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being 
> presented, it isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a 
> Transfer policy, but a more philosophical opposition to any 
> policy with a sunset clause.
> 

David,

  I'm reading a lot of posts against a sunset clause, too.  But,
they are all from the same small handful of people.  That doesn't
qualify as "a lot of opposition".  In fact, the opposition to
removing the sunset clause seems to be much broader.

Ted



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 15:18:22 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:18:22 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>

I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful if folks  
who haven't already expressed an opinion could do so. And hopefully  
we'll get broader participation at San Antonio, too.

-Scott

On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:03 PM
>> To: Joe Maimon
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with
>> 2009-1,can you please help?
>>
>> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
>>
>>> The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset
>> clause appeals.
>>>
>>> A policy that works as intended should either obsolete
>> itself or not
>>> require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what
>>> the BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most
>> likely be too
>>> late to the part anyway.
>>
>> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the
>> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
>>
>> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy
>> with a sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being
>> presented, it isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a
>> Transfer policy, but a more philosophical opposition to any
>> policy with a sunset clause.
>>
>
> David,
>
>  I'm reading a lot of posts against a sunset clause, too.  But,
> they are all from the same small handful of people.  That doesn't
> qualify as "a lot of opposition".  In fact, the opposition to
> removing the sunset clause seems to be much broader.
>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org  Mon Apr  6 15:19:40 2009
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:19:40 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <C5FFA3DC.27527%leo.vegoda@icann.org>

On 06/04/2009 11:33, "Seth Mattinen" <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:

[...]

>> Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the encouragement
>> of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
>> decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
>> requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
>> are:
> 
> IP addresses aren't the property of the holder, thus they should not be
> able to sell or profit from the exchange of something that doesn't
> belong to them in the first place.

I'm not arguing for or against a market.

My comments were really aimed at asking the question below, about
alternative models. I think that it is important to plan for the likely
situation that there is more demand than supply. ARIN needs a way to handle
that situation, just in case it is what happens.

>> - Best fit, i.e. prefixes aren't cut up to fill more requests
>> - Worthiness contest, e.g. one kind of service judged more important than
>> another
>> - First come first served
>> - Widest distribution, i.e. get address space to as many networks as
>> possible at the cost of deaggregation
>> 
>> Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your alternative to the
>> proposal for a transfer policy?
> 
> How much space they already have? With all due respect to the large orgs
> on this list, I'm not apt to shed a tear when you can't get another /8
> to add to the collection when I just need to add a /22 or /21. For a
> small org not getting that space (and unable to afford it from hoarders)
> could be a death blow.

So, based on your comment, which option would you pick from my list or would
you choose something else?

I'm interested in people posting about which method should be used to
distribute whatever resources are available when demand exceeds supply. If
ARIN has to make a decision between competing claims, what mechanism should
it apply when doing so?

I'm asking because I don't think it is enough to oppose a policy proposal if
no workable alternative is offered. I want to know what the alternative is.

Regards,

Leo



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 15:23:15 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
 can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


> 
> But,
> they are all from the same small handful of people.  

That does seem to be the pattern here, no matter which thread.

I think we could use some mailing list analysis reports.

Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on 
this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of list 
posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.




From bill at herrin.us  Mon Apr  6 15:32:52 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:32:52 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>
References: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org> <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904061232ra8caa0cqe5c363e4bb6096f1@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>> Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the encouragement
>> of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
>> decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
>> requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
>> are:
>
> IP addresses aren't the property of the holder, thus they should not be
> able to sell or profit from the exchange of something that doesn't
> belong to them in the first place.

Seth,

Should it be legitimate to for me to compensate you for the cost of
re-engineering your network so that it consumes fewer IP addresses
than it used to? Thereby freeing up some IP addresses that I can use?

If not, why should you or I or anyone else undertake such an expensive effort?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 15:33:30 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:33:30 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
Message-ID: <255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:04 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can you please help?
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > 
> > IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to 
> IPv6 all this 
> > capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the 
> > nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite 
> > supply of integers.
> > 
> 
> How do you propose to force everyone to move to ipv6?
> 
> By denying them ipv4?
> 
> You really think thats going to work? When ARIN says there is 
> no more ipv4, everyone is going to meekly accept that?
> 

Joe, you have to get realistic.

Where are most of the assigned IPv4 numbers currently tied up?

North America, specifically the USA

Where's the most potential for further expansion of the Internet?

Everywhere ELSE than the USA.

We have a problem here in the US.  We develop things first, then
when we outgrow them we sit around arguing over the best way to
deny some people access to them, so that we don't have to spend the
money expanding them.

This is most obvious in transportation.  We have a growing population,
every year there are more cars on the road - thus to keep pace all
roads need to be periodically widened.  Yet, go into ANY community
with congestion and propose widening any road and you will get a
perfect storm of opposition.  People will passionately argue for
increased mass transit and busses and bicycling when in reality
they are thinking to themselves "if we put in more busses then
maybe everybody ELSE will get out of their cars and ride the bus
and leave the roads to ME"  The problem of course is every last man
in the room is thinking exactly the same thing.

This IPv4 argument is self-destructive.  When IPv4 is out, the idea that
the rest of the world is going to come to our doors and pay us
lots of money for our IPv4 is pure fiction.  The rest of the world
right now is sitting around waiting for the USA to get off its
ASS and start booting networks in the butt to get IPv6 deployed.
And we are making a poor display of acting like a responsible
adult.

ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out
ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE IF
WE DON'T.

You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of IPv6
in the rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this
foolishness.  Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post
runout.  Make it super easy.  Who cares if a few poor people get
tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens
behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring
another few years out of their IPv4 networks.  Who cares if the rest
of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the way,
make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.

The wars of the future world are going to be in ideas.  If the US
wants to isolate itself then in another half-century our Democratic
ideals along with our Constitution will be slid into the history books
under "ideas in government that self-imploded" and the prevaling
ideology of the world will be planned economies.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 15:38:29 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:38:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
	<F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: David Farmer; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, 
> can you please help?
> 
> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful 
> if folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do 
> so. 

That opinion is either:

1) I don't care.

2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
anything.


Ted



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 15:45:39 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:45:39 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>
References: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org> <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <49DA5BE3.8090001@chl.com>



Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On 06/04/2009 10:15, "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of
>>> merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be made
>>> available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
>>>
>>> If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic
>>> broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit
>>> status.
>> Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the encouragement
>> of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
>> decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
>> requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
>> are:
> 
> IP addresses aren't the property of the holder, thus they should not be
> able to sell or profit from the exchange of something that doesn't
> belong to them in the first place.
> 

IP addresses are 32 bit numbers and numbers have no owners.

The item of value is the registries grant of uniqueness, with the actual 
value determined only by the communities of users of this registry.

When ARIN says IP addresses (and all other integers) are not property, 
that is merely their opinion. When ARIN says that record of uniqueness 
does not equate to titular ownership, thats their prerogative, but has 
nothing to do with any other potential registry not bound by the same 
contracts.

If or when ARIN says that they will foster an ability for entities to 
trade and/or profit by exchanging ARIN grants of uniqueness, that is 
also ARIN's prerogative.

Imagine I operate a registry of 32 bit numbers on my web site. I make no 
representation of what they do or are good for. If communities X Y and Z 
decide that my registry will govern the use of their numbers, then it 
has value. Otherwise it does not.

That the IANA RIR record of uniqueness translates very well into network 
uniqueness is more than happy coincidence, but far less than unchanging 
law of physics.

Conduct a thought experiment of what it would take for a completely 
unrelated registry system to usurp the ones we have now.

Joe








From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 15:49:20 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:49:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
	<255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DA5CC0.7030205@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>  
>   
<snipped lots of good points well reasoned and argued>
>
> ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out
> ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE IF
> WE DON'T.
>   

My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy with IPv6 
and cease their demands for IPv4.

They will do what they decide they want to do.

We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and logical course 
of action.

We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in their 
pursuit for IPv4.

We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but that may 
simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.

> You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of IPv6
> in the rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this
> foolishness.  Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post
> runout.  Make it super easy.  Who cares if a few poor people get
> tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens
> behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring
> another few years out of their IPv4 networks.  Who cares if the rest
> of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the way,
> make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.
>   

Wouldnt all this provide the FORCE to IPv6 you are looking for?

I believe that we cannot afford to be an obstacle to peoples demands in 
this arena.

> Ted
>
>
>   


From jhg at omsys.com  Mon Apr  6 16:05:34 2009
From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H.Griffith)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:05:34 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
Message-ID: <00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

>Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on 
>this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of list 
>posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.

+1

I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>


From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 16:06:24 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:06:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
	<F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>
	<A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>

On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:38 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
>>
>> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful
>> if folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do
>> so.
>
> That opinion is either:
>
> 1) I don't care.
>
> 2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
> anything.

I think there's something else going on. We routinely get in-depth  
discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from a small group of  
active participants. We then have hundreds of attendees at the public  
policy meetings, where another group of active participants does most  
of the talking at the mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the  
silent attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments  
presented.

Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms to  
accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the current system  
works well enough.

Thoughts?

-Scott


From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 16:26:52 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:26:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
	policies?
In-Reply-To: <00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>

Jeremy, Joe, and others,

ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback 
from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only 
responds once).  We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I 
recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.

One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance 
of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing you're 
thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Thanks,
Scott

Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on 
>> this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of list 
>> posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>     
>
> +1
>
> I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>
> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mksmith at adhost.com  Mon Apr  6 16:32:39 2009
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:32:39 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
	draftpolicies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com><49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com><00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>

Hello Scott:

I think that's a great idea.  Perhaps we could have...

1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
	a) You don't support the emergency action
	b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
	c) Both (a) and (b)

Regards,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:27 PM
To: Jeremy H.Griffith
Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
draftpolicies?

Jeremy, Joe, and others,

ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback 
from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only 
responds once).  We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I 
recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.

One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance

of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing you're 
thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an opinion on
this?

Thanks,
Scott

Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com>
wrote:
>
>   
>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on

>> this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of
list 
>> posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>     
>
> +1
>
> I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>
> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 matthew at matthew.at  Mon Apr  6 16:35:52 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:35:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about
	all	draftpolicies?
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com><49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com><00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
	<17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <49DA67A8.3070204@matthew.at>

Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> Hello Scott:
>
> I think that's a great idea.  Perhaps we could have...
>
>   
0) Do you support the idea of a transfer policy above and beyond the 
existing system?
> 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
> 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
> 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
> 	a) You don't support the emergency action
> 	b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
> 	c) Both (a) and (b)
>
>   
Just my thought for how to calibrate the survey a little better.

Matthew Kaufman


From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 16:37:40 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:37:40 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49DA42B3.4050303@sprunk.org>
References: <49D69F09.5020606@rollernet.us>	<6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<49DA3B6B.8000208@sprunk.org>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA6@mail>
	<49DA42B3.4050303@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA9@mail>

> 
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >>
> >>> ... it still holds that returned addresses need to be made available
> to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
> >>>
> >> That is your opinion, not fact, and calling it "piracy" is a
> >> disingenuous attempt to sway others for reasons that have nothing to do
> >> with the debate at hand.
> >>
> >
> > I don't know what to call it other than that.  When resources are moved
> > without the community having access or being in fair competition for the
> > resources.
> >
> 
> Why should they?  I'm allowed to choose who I sell my house to; if I
> want to sell it to my sister for $1 (or donate it to charity), there is
> nothing forcing me to list it with a realtor and sell it to the highest
> bidder.  Such transactions happen all the time, and it is not called
> "piracy" because no theft is taking place.

Your house is your property, your IP address is not.  You have rights to
your house that you do not have to your IP address.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/781bf1f0/attachment.bin>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 16:38:19 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:38:19 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA5CC0.7030205@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
	<255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>
	<49DA5CC0.7030205@chl.com>
Message-ID: <93F83A46F3FA4D44A5D773A2B1FA779E@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:49 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can you please help?
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >  
> >   
> <snipped lots of good points well reasoned and argued>
> >
> > ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out 
> > ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST 
> TO LOSE IF 
> > WE DON'T.
> >   
> 
> My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy 
> with IPv6 and cease their demands for IPv4.
> 
> They will do what they decide they want to do.
> 

I may desperately want to paint myself purple and run down the
street naked singing the Free Software Song, but the cost (in
either jail time of physchological evalution time) may be higher
than what I would be willing to pay:

http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,2132593,00.htm

> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and 
> logical course of action.
> 
> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in 
> their pursuit for IPv4.
> 
> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but 
> that may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
> 

The question is, how much incentive?

Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants more IPv4
has to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to
get around the restriction.  Well, that's going to be weighed against
the cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.

It is likely going to be cheaper to proxy no matter what.  It
really is only in instances where the org needs IPv4 and it's
completely unavailable that they would resort to buying a few
legislators and using government regulation to force the issue.
But, in that case, if IPv4 is really unavailable, then what
does that accomplish?

One of the pro-transfer market arguments has been that a transfer
market allows moves to take place in a controlled manner rather
than forcing companies to engage in kludges.

However, if companies DON'T use kludges to increase IPv4 then
what incentive do they have EVER to convert to IPv6?

> > You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of 
> IPv6 in the 
> > rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this 
> > foolishness.  Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post 
> > runout.  Make it super easy.  Who cares if a few poor people get 
> > tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens 
> > behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring 
> > another few years out of their IPv4 networks.  Who cares if 
> the rest 
> > of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the 
> > way, make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.
> >   
> 
> Wouldnt all this provide the FORCE to IPv6 you are looking for?
>

US citizens by and large trust "their betters" to make the right
decisions FOR them on things they don't understand.  They trust their
car mechanic to tell them what is wrong with their car, they trust
their doctor to tell them what is wrong with them, they trust their
financial advisor at AIG to safeguard their 401K retirement funds
(which is why there's a lynch mob after AIG right now) and they
trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with IP addressing.

And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain right now
to get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term.  If we take the
easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty mad at us
later on.

Ted



From sethm at rollernet.us  Mon Apr  6 16:40:23 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:40:23 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904061232ra8caa0cqe5c363e4bb6096f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org> <49DA4AE9.70603@rollernet.us>
	<3c3e3fca0904061232ra8caa0cqe5c363e4bb6096f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49DA68B7.3050801@rollernet.us>

William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>>> Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the encouragement
>>> of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
>>> decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
>>> requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
>>> are:
>> IP addresses aren't the property of the holder, thus they should not be
>> able to sell or profit from the exchange of something that doesn't
>> belong to them in the first place.
> 
> Seth,
> 
> Should it be legitimate to for me to compensate you for the cost of
> re-engineering your network so that it consumes fewer IP addresses
> than it used to? Thereby freeing up some IP addresses that I can use?
> 

Give me a number high enough and I'd consider it. Make it large enough 
and I'll just retire and "transfer" it to you.

~Seth


From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 16:43:14 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:43:14 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
	policies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49DA6962.1010902@chl.com>

Scott,

A poll to accompany last call on the list for proposal discussion would 
probably be good idea. Not quite sure its a good idea as well to make it 
mandatory or binding.

I suppose a poll on the proposal for polls on proposal is in order.

Joe


Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
>
> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback 
> from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only 
> responds once).  We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I 
> recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
>
> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in 
> advance of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing 
> you're thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an 
> opinion on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof 
>>> on this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of 
>>> list posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>>     
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
>> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>>
>> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 16:48:05 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:48:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAB@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.vegoda at icann.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:11 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> On 06/04/2009 10:15, "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > While I wholeheartedly believe we should support transfers for reason of
> > merger/acquisition it still holds that returned addresses need to be
> made
> > available to the community and not pirated peer2peer for profit.
> >
> > If there were to be an IP market then ARIN should be the monopolistic
> > broker.  Of course that is not possible while maintaining not-for-profit
> > status.
> 
> Assuming that people agree to return space to ARIN without the
> encouragement
> of a chunk of cash that a transfer market might bring, how should ARIN
> decide which requests to grant and which to deny when there are more
> requests than space available? The options I see (in no particular order)
> are:
> 
> - Best fit, i.e. prefixes aren't cut up to fill more requests
> - Worthiness contest, e.g. one kind of service judged more important than
> another
> - First come first served
> - Widest distribution, i.e. get address space to as many networks as
> possible at the cost of deaggregation
> 
> Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your alternative to the
> proposal for a transfer policy?

There are a number of alternatives.  One that should not be dismissed is to
do nothing.  We have a working system.  If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Another alternative would be some system whereby ARIN makes available to the
public returned netblocks, through a public offering or drawing where the
receiver would reimburse the relinquisher (ok, I made that word up) the fees
paid to ARIN for the block to date.  That would establish a cap on the cost.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but that does not mean I should sit
idly by while dangerous or deadly actions are planned.

I do continue to suggest we look harder for alternatives that do not
establish an IP market.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leo

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/f4ef2837/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 16:51:42 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:51:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org><2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAC@mail>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:04 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
> help?
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> >
> > IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
> > this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> > nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite
> supply
> > of integers.
> >
> 
> How do you propose to force everyone to move to ipv6?

We don't need to force anyone to do anything.  They can either move to IPv6
which will work or stay with IPv4 which will work less and less as time goes
on.  This is their choice.
> 
> By denying them ipv4?
> 
> You really think thats going to work? When ARIN says there is no more
> ipv4, everyone is going to meekly accept that?
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/f307860b/attachment.bin>

From bill at herrin.us  Mon Apr  6 16:53:36 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:53:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
	policies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk> <49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904061353j3eec7d8seef54092eb48ee22@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance
> of each public policy meeting. ?Is that the kind of thing you're
> thinking would be a good idea? ?Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Scott,

I think that's a good idea, but there's risk.

First, I think the formal questions should be limited to: Do you
support, oppose or take no position on proposal X as written.

If you ask more specific questions, you'll bias the results with the
choice of questions. That bias is okay in a forum like this one where
folks can give a free-form answer, drive the discussion off towards
their own biases and pose their own questions. It'll foul the
statistical validity when the answers are pre-selected.

Second, you have the uneducated voter problem. The folks who've
offered opinions on the list have done so after becoming at least
somewhat familiar with the issues surrounding the proposal, not just
the text of the proposal itself. Some of the lurkers, perhaps many,
won't have done so.

I don't know the answer to that one... Maybe you also ask, "Have you
followed the discussion about this proposal: closely, somewhat, not at
all." Maybe you sort the answers into two lists: responses from those
who have posted to PPML in the past 6 months and responses from those
who have not.

Then too, there's gaming the system. It isn't particularly hard to
sign up 100 gmail accounts for PPML if someone expects you to issue a
poll. I don't know how you deal with that except to use the results
indirectly, as a tool to check the consensus you think you see on PPML
as opposed to a direct tool to measure the consensus.


Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 16:56:45 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:56:45 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:11 AM
> To: Kevin Kargel; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your alternative 
> to the proposal for a transfer policy?
> 

My alternative is as follows:

1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who
have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to renumber
or reduce their utilizations and return blocks.

2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused
IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.

3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who identifies
and provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block
is truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their
yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that ARIN
staff
would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)

4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
blocks they are already paying for.

Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to returning
IPv4.

5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 sources
such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates before reassignment.

I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer
market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and prove they
DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.

Ted



From jhg at omsys.com  Mon Apr  6 16:59:23 2009
From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H.Griffith)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:59:23 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
	policies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e5rkt4hgev34d3fejsee46apddivq6ikdq@4ax.com>

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:26:52 -0700, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 
wrote:

>One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance 
>of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing you're 
>thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Excellent, Scott!  Let's start using it regularly!  I'd love to 
see a reality check on the rhetoric.

In terms of the current issue, I like Mike Smith's response too.

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>


From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Apr  6 16:59:00 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:59:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about	 all draft
	policies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA67A8.3070204@matthew.at>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
	<17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
	<49DA67A8.3070204@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <D03D578B-2F85-4D69-848D-28A72AB5E310@istaff.org>

On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> ...
> 0) Do you support the idea of a transfer policy above and beyond the
> existing system?

Note that a very similar poll to this was taken during 2008-2; it might
be worth asking the exact same questions if the goal is to determine
how viewpoints have changed since then...
<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/surveys/pdfs/survey_summary_08242008.pdf 
 >

FYI,
/John



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 17:00:04 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:00:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
	policies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA6962.1010902@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>
	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com> <49DA6962.1010902@chl.com>
Message-ID: <49DA6D54.8030509@gmail.com>

Heh.  Perhaps we need a poll about whether to take a poll about taking 
polls.  :-)

I like the idea of having a single regularly scheduled poll, which 
contains questions about support for every draft policy, as well as any 
additional questions the AC decides would be useful for individual draft 
policies.  In any event, we'll discuss this at one of our upcoming AC 
calls, and I'm guessing will have something implemented for the next 
policy cycle.

Additional feedback on whether/how we should structure things is of 
course still welcome.

-Scott

Joe Maimon wrote:
> Scott,
>
> A poll to accompany last call on the list for proposal discussion 
> would probably be good idea. Not quite sure its a good idea as well to 
> make it mandatory or binding.
>
> I suppose a poll on the proposal for polls on proposal is in order.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
>>
>> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect 
>> feedback from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each 
>> subscriber only responds once).  We currently don't use it on a 
>> regular basis: If I recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
>>
>> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in 
>> advance of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing 
>> you're thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an 
>> opinion on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof 
>>>> on this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis 
>>>> of list posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
>>> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>>>
>>> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 17:04:41 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:04:41 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
	<F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>
	<A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>
	<776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B29A79142DEE4EF4B0E3E589C26548D4@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, 
> can you please help?
> 
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:38 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" 
> <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> >>
> >> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful if 
> >> folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do so.
> >
> > That opinion is either:
> >
> > 1) I don't care.
> >
> > 2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying 
> > anything.
> 
> I think there's something else going on. We routinely get 
> in-depth discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from 
> a small group of active participants. We then have hundreds 
> of attendees at the public policy meetings, where another 
> group of active participants does most of the talking at the 
> mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the silent 
> attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments presented.
> 
> Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms 
> to accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the 
> current system works well enough.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

The State of Oregon (where I live) is one of the few or only
states that introduced vote-by-mail a few years ago.  Today,
ALL elections, including the Presidential election we just had,
are vote-by-mail.  There are no longer any polling places.
(you can drop ballots off at any post office the day of the
election if you're a lazy ass and don't send it in on time)

During the campaign to go vote-by-mail there were some trial
balloons floated about online voting.  There is no doubt in my
mind that properly structured, online voting would work and
meet all the tests against fraud.  But, these balloons were
shot down instantly from people across the political spectrum for
an enormous number of baloney reasons.  I simply do not think
that people are ready to consider online poll results seriously,
no matter how well the poll is done.

Ted



From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 17:06:09 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:06:09 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:57 PM
> To: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:11 AM
> > To: Kevin Kargel; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> >
> >
> > Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your alternative
> > to the proposal for a transfer policy?
> >
> 
> My alternative is as follows:
> 
> 1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who
> have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to renumber
> or reduce their utilizations and return blocks.
> 
> 2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused
> IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.
> 
> 3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who identifies
> and provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block
> is truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their
> yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that ARIN
> staff
> would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)
> 
> 4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
> IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
> remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
> institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
> blocks they are already paying for.
> 
> Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
> amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to returning
> IPv4.
> 
> 5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 sources
> such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates before reassignment.
> 
> I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer
> market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and prove they
> DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> 
> Ted

Hooray for Ted!  Good solid suggestions that might even work!  I am not
being facetious or sarcastic, I really do think we should look in to his
suggestions as a step toward resolving the issues.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/5cc4af36/attachment.bin>

From steven.feldman at cnet.com  Mon Apr  6 16:57:18 2009
From: steven.feldman at cnet.com (Steve Feldman)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:57:18 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <7DB4AAB2-1718-46E9-A0CE-C1416043A6CA@cnet.com>

Here are my thoughts on 2009-1, using Marla's analysis as a framework:

0) 2008-6 has been adopted, though not yet implemented.  Thats a fact,  
not up for debate.

1) Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1):

I see the point of those who want to leave it in to force discussion  
in a few years.  But realistically, the discussion will happen anyways  
if the transfer policy doesn't turn out to be perfect.  I am neutral  
on this part of 2009-1.

2) Implementation Date Now and no wait time:

2008-1 leaves the implementation date to the Board's discretion.   
Since 2009-1 was proposed by the Board, that's effectively not a  
change.  I am neutral on this part of 2009-1.

3) New Definition ?Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal  
entities under common control or ownership.?:

As has been noted, this is a substantial change to existing policy,  
with the potential to cause problems for some classes of  
organizations.  I am against this part of 2009-1, and feel that it  
should be separated out into its own policy proposal so the  
implications can be discussed on their own merits.

Overall, I am against 2009-1 as written, and would oppose any version  
which includes the redefinition of an organization except as a  
standalone proposal.

	Steve



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 17:08:48 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:08:48 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>
Message-ID: <0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:06 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Leo Vegoda; ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:57 PM
> > To: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:11 AM
> > > To: Kevin Kargel; ARIN PPML
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe there are other options, too.  What is your 
> alternative to the 
> > > proposal for a transfer policy?
> > >
> > 
> > My alternative is as follows:
> > 
> > 1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who 
> > have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to 
> renumber or 
> > reduce their utilizations and return blocks.
> > 
> > 2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused 
> > IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.
> > 
> > 3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who 
> identifies and 
> > provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block is 
> > truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their 
> > yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that 
> > ARIN staff would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really 
> > abandoned)
> > 
> > 4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
> > IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in 
> other words, 
> > remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and 
> > institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return 
> > blocks they are already paying for.
> > 
> > Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least 
> > amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to 
> returning IPv4.
> > 
> > 5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 
> > sources such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates 
> before reassignment.
> > 
> > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer 
> > market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and prove they 
> > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > 
> > Ted
> 
> Hooray for Ted!  Good solid suggestions that might even work! 
>  I am not being facetious or sarcastic, I really do think we 
> should look in to his suggestions as a step toward resolving 
> the issues.
> 

Can we take this as an expression of support for 2008-7?   ;-)

Unfortunately, many of these are operational, not policy, issues.
Particularly the fee proposals, an issue near to my heart (as I
don't work at a large ISP who gets the "Costco discount" on IPv4)

Ted



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 17:10:10 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:10:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <93F83A46F3FA4D44A5D773A2B1FA779E@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
	<255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>
	<49DA5CC0.7030205@chl.com>
	<93F83A46F3FA4D44A5D773A2B1FA779E@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DA6FB2.8050607@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>  
>   
>>> ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST 
>>>       
>> TO LOSE IF 
>>     
>>> WE DON'T.
>>>   
>>>       
>> My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy 
>> with IPv6 and cease their demands for IPv4.
>>
>> They will do what they decide they want to do.
>>
>>     
>
> I may desperately want to paint myself purple and run down the
> street naked singing the Free Software Song, but the cost (in
> either jail time of physchological evalution time) may be higher
> than what I would be willing to pay:
>
> http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,2132593,00.htm
>   

Yes, IP address hijackers land up in jail all the time. Especially the 
ones who blatantly disrupt others businesses.

>   
>> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and 
>> logical course of action.
>>
>> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in 
>> their pursuit for IPv4.
>>
>> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but 
>> that may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
>>
>>     
>
> The question is, how much incentive?
>   

Any avoidable is too much. There are organizations waiting for the excuse.

I could do it right now. Simply grab a bunch of /8's from IANA reserved 
or legacy allocations that arent advertised and set up shop.

Get enough patrons and before you know it, ISP's will route ARIN 
registrations and JOE registrations with equal credibility.

ARIN registrations come with no guarantee of usability and neither do 
JOE's, so whats the difference?

> Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants more IPv4
> has to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to
> get around the restriction.  Well, that's going to be weighed against
> the cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.
>   
Leaving aside the details of the current policy approved method of 
transferring registry acknowledged IP addresses which is likely a lot 
easier than you think, thats not their only option.

They can just participate in black market with either exists or is near 
certain to emerge. Or outright hijacking (same thing different 
perspective). Bringing them into direct confrontation with ARIN and 
other registries.

Confrontations have losers. You are implicitly gambling that it wont 
ever be ARIN.

> they
> trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with IP addressing.
>   

It only appears that way because things seem to be working. If and when 
that changes, they will be trusting their talking heads, who may very 
well be saying that us geeks have done a horrible job and should be the 
ones being lynched.

Even were they to be geeks, what makes you think that its going to be 
Geeks you agree with?
> And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain right now
> to get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term.  If we take the
> easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty mad at us
> later on.
>   

Even geeks dont agree on that. I may or may not be a geek, but I 
certainly dont.

I believe it a false dichotomy.

The choice I see is between large amounts of long term pain or small to 
medium amounts of  medium to long term pain.

The optomists who have trumpeted the timely arrival and conversion to 
ipv6 are few and far between these days. It would be a pleasant surprise 
were that vision to come to fruition, but I am not holding my breath.

> Ted
>
>
>   


From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 17:17:49 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:17:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>  

> I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer
> market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and prove they
> DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.

The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.

A transfer system could avoid all that.

Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are inevitable in one 
shape or another.


From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 17:17:54 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:17:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAC@mail>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org><2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAC@mail>
Message-ID: <49DA7182.9040005@chl.com>



Kevin Kargel wrote:
> We don't need to force anyone to do anything.  They can either move to IPv6
> which will work or stay with IPv4 which will work less and less as time goes
> on.  This is their choice.
>   

Even those willing to inflict that kind of pain on the population they 
serve, this is still a false dichotomy.

IPv6 currently adds no benefit to the network.

IPv4 will work just fine so long as above is true.

IPv4 is STILL AVAILABLE after free pool runout, just NOT FROM ARIN.






From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 17:39:18 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:39:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>
	<0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAE@mail>

> >
> > Hooray for Ted!  Good solid suggestions that might even work!
> >  I am not being facetious or sarcastic, I really do think we
> > should look in to his suggestions as a step toward resolving
> > the issues.
> >
> 
> Can we take this as an expression of support for 2008-7?   ;-)
> 
> Unfortunately, many of these are operational, not policy, issues.
> Particularly the fee proposals, an issue near to my heart (as I
> don't work at a large ISP who gets the "Costco discount" on IPv4)
> 
> Ted

I have and continue to think that some form of 2008-7 is a good idea.  I
will support it.  

I do think that any POC activity should be considered sufficient to refresh,
whether that activity is to update a record, respond to a poll or just ask a
question.

Kevin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/091143ec/attachment.bin>

From matthew at matthew.at  Mon Apr  6 17:40:32 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:40:32 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAB@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAB@mail>
Message-ID: <49DA76D0.7060607@matthew.at>

Kevin Kargel wrote:
>
> There are a number of alternatives.  One that should not be dismissed is to
> do nothing.  We have a working system.  If it ain't broke don't fix it.
>   
Ah yes. The status quo option. And this continues without modification 
after ARIN runs through the very last IPv4 block IANA gives them how 
exactly?

Your argument is related to why I never get gas for my car... after all, 
a few hundred miles ago it was running just fine, and so there's no 
reason to believe that I will need to change my behavior, even after I 
coast to a stop on the side of the highway.

Matthew Kaufman


From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 17:44:55 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:44:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA6FB2.8050607@chl.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
	<255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>
	<49DA5CC0.7030205@chl.com>
	<93F83A46F3FA4D44A5D773A2B1FA779E@tedsdesk>
	<49DA6FB2.8050607@chl.com>
Message-ID: <09B6C264A19E41849B2D64E2502CD30D@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:10 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can you please help?
> 
> 
>   
> 
> Yes, IP address hijackers land up in jail all the time. 
> Especially the ones who blatantly disrupt others businesses.
> 

An address hijack is an offence against the proper user of the
block, not against ARIN.  ARIN has no power to file charges, the
hijackee does.  Just because most of them are too ignorant/lazy/
misinformed to get the FBI involved and press charges or file a
lawsuit against the offender doesn't mean it's OK.

People steal millions of bucks by stealing $20 a time from 
hundreds of thousands of victims - just because our current
generation of D.A.s are too stupid to file charges doesn't
mean that eventually a younger and Internet-savvy group won't
start doing it.

They didn't use to prosecute polluters when they caught 'em.
Times change.

> >   
> >> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and logical 
> >> course of action.
> >>
> >> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in their 
> >> pursuit for IPv4.
> >>
> >> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but that 
> >> may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > The question is, how much incentive?
> >   
> 
> Any avoidable is too much. There are organizations waiting 
> for the excuse.
> 
> I could do it right now. Simply grab a bunch of /8's from 
> IANA reserved or legacy allocations that arent advertised and 
> set up shop.
> 

Which is why I and others proposed 2008-7.  Are you for it or
against it? The reason you probably could "get away" with it
right now is because ARIN has no power to identify that your
even doing it - thus the need for 2008-7.

Lots of homeless people nowadays are squatting in abandoned
homes that are bank foreclosures.  Because there's such a surplus
of these properties, they aren't being thrown out.  What they
are doing is illegal as all get out, but there's little police
enforcement:

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/03/city-foreclosures-open-space-squatters

and there won't be until the housing market heats up and these
homes have value again.

Until IPv4 runout, don't expect to see much effort on enforcement
actions against IPv4 squatters.

> Get enough patrons and before you know it, ISP's will route 
> ARIN registrations and JOE registrations with equal credibility.
> 
> ARIN registrations come with no guarantee of usability and 
> neither do JOE's, so whats the difference?
> 

When ARIN executes 2008-7 there will be some guarantee of
verifiability.

> > Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants 
> more IPv4 has 
> > to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to get 
> > around the restriction.  Well, that's going to be weighed 
> against the 
> > cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.
> >   
> Leaving aside the details of the current policy approved 
> method of transferring registry acknowledged IP addresses 
> which is likely a lot easier than you think, thats not their 
> only option.
> 
> They can just participate in black market with either exists 
> or is near certain to emerge. Or outright hijacking (same 
> thing different perspective). Bringing them into direct 
> confrontation with ARIN and other registries.
> 
> Confrontations have losers. You are implicitly gambling that 
> it wont ever be ARIN.
> 

Correct.  Because if it was ARIN then we still win.

Say for the sake of argument that some deep-pocket forces the
issue and strips ARIN of it's authority to regulate IPv4.  I
think that the result would be pretty much all legitimate ISP's
would just abandon public intercourse in IPv4 all the faster
since they would all regard the IPv4 address space as damaged.

Also, such authority would ONLY exist in a given nation.  US
laws don't apply to Canada, thus a lawsuit in the US that stripped
ARIN would not be recognized in Canada.  For an ISP in the US
that has a network that is both in Canada and the US, they will
as a practical matter still have to follow what Canada is
doing.

It would take action by US appealing to the UN to make anything
serious happen on a regulatory front, and by then, we would
have figured out and executed a defensive strategy with ARIN.
Not to mention that it's almost certain China would block it,
as they are going full speed into IPv6.

Basically, any attempt to disrupt ARIN over the IPv4 issue
just makes IPv6 come faster.

> > they
> > trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with 
> IP addressing.
> >   
> 
> It only appears that way because things seem to be working. 
> If and when that changes, they will be trusting their talking 
> heads, who may very well be saying that us geeks have done a 
> horrible job and should be the ones being lynched.
> 
> Even were they to be geeks, what makes you think that its 
> going to be Geeks you agree with?

Because, any attempt to disrupt ARIN over the IPv4 issue
is just going to make IPv6 come faster.

If transfer proponents could really and truly exist without
ARIN they would not be spending effort trying to get ARIN to
bless a transfer scheme to begin with.  The reason they are
is that there's some smart people who see that if they can
get ARIN to bless what they want to do, they will have the
opportunity to make a big pile of money.  But, they know that
their fortunes are dependent on ARIN.

> > And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain 
> right now to 
> > get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term.  If we take the 
> > easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty 
> mad at us 
> > later on.
> >   
> 
> Even geeks dont agree on that. I may or may not be a geek, 
> but I certainly dont.
> 

If your subscribed to this list you're a geek.

> I believe it a false dichotomy.
> 
> The choice I see is between large amounts of long term pain 
> or small to medium amounts of  medium to long term pain.
> 
> The optomists who have trumpeted the timely arrival and conversion to
> ipv6 are few and far between these days. It would be a 
> pleasant surprise were that vision to come to fruition, but I 
> am not holding my breath.
> 

Catch-22

Not enough people are using IPv6 because people are arguing that it's not
ready, and it's not ready because not enough people are using IPv6.

There's only one way to break a catch-22 and that's by force.
 
Ted



From bjohnson at drtel.com  Mon Apr  6 17:35:35 2009
From: bjohnson at drtel.com (Brian Johnson)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:35:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>
	<0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:09 PM
> To: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'Leo Vegoda'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
<snip>
> 
> Unfortunately, many of these are operational, not policy, issues.
> Particularly the fee proposals, an issue near to my heart (as I
> don't work at a large ISP who gets the "Costco discount" on IPv4)
> 
> Ted

I'm not sure what you mean by Costco discount. If you mean that there
should be a direct cost per IP address that should remain consistent
across total assignment sizes, then I understand your point.

I always find these types of comments to be a bit grating and tend to
diminish the dialog instead of promote discussion. There is no place in
the policy that gives anyone a discount. If you have more assignments,
you pay more than others who have fewer assignments. This is not a
discount.

If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs (ISPs generally
speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long standing
policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get consensus.
Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.

- Brian



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 17:59:55 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:59:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>
	<0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
	<29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <374EBC11-98E4-42C4-8C13-59BF603E4983@gmail.com>

Process note: since fees are not subject to the PDP, you'll need to  
make any fee change suggestions to the Board, either directly or  
possibly through the ASCP.

-Scott

On Apr 6, 2009, at 2:35 PM, "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
>> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:09 PM
>> To: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'Leo Vegoda'; 'ARIN PPML'
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
>>
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Unfortunately, many of these are operational, not policy, issues.
>> Particularly the fee proposals, an issue near to my heart (as I
>> don't work at a large ISP who gets the "Costco discount" on IPv4)
>>
>> Ted
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by Costco discount. If you mean that there
> should be a direct cost per IP address that should remain consistent
> across total assignment sizes, then I understand your point.
>
> I always find these types of comments to be a bit grating and tend to
> diminish the dialog instead of promote discussion. There is no place  
> in
> the policy that gives anyone a discount. If you have more assignments,
> you pay more than others who have fewer assignments. This is not a
> discount.
>
> If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs (ISPs generally
> speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long standing
> policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get consensus.
> Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
>
> - Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org  Mon Apr  6 18:07:24 2009
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:07:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <C5FFCB2C.2757F%leo.vegoda@icann.org>

Ted,

On 06/04/2009 1:56, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

[...]

> My alternative is as follows:
> 
> 1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who
> have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to renumber
> or reduce their utilizations and return blocks.
> 
> 2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused
> IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.
> 
> 3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who identifies
> and provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block
> is truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their
> yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that ARIN
> staff
> would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)
> 
> 4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
> IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
> remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
> institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
> blocks they are already paying for.
> 
> Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
> amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to returning
> IPv4.
> 
> 5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 sources
> such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates before reassignment.

These aren't actually proposals, though. They are just statements of intent.

A proposal would define a decision making process, so that there was a
mechanism for deciding which of the competing requests for a block of
address space should receive it. That is unless by "ARIN continue to apply
good stewardship" you mean it should continue with a first come first served
process.

Regards,

Leo



From spiffnolee at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 18:08:53 2009
From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Fee proposal (was Re: Alternative to arbitrary
	transfers)
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail>
	<0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
	<29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <120225.67700.qm@web63304.mail.re1.yahoo.com>






----- Original Message ----
> From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com>
>
> If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs (ISPs generally
> speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long standing
> policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal and get consensus.
> Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.

Probably suggestion process, not policy process.  The suggestion doesn't
have to be for a specific fee structure; rather, you[1] want to change the
principle by which fees are set: instead of setting fees based on ARIN's
cost, you want to set fees based on a per-address cost.
https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/

Probably requires member consensus.  Probably belongs on arin-discuss.

Lee

[1] Maybe not *you*, but you = "s/he who desires change"



      



From JOHN at egh.com  Mon Apr  6 20:03:53 2009
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:03:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <1090406185222.7109D-100000@Ives.egh.com>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, David Farmer wrote:

> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
> 
> > The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.
> > 
> > A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not 
> > require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the 
> > BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late 
> > to the part anyway.
> 
> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the 
> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
> 
> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a 
> sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being presented, it 
> isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy, 
> but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset 
> clause.

I'm seeing a lot of posts, but most are from a small number of
people.  All the opposition seems to come from people in favor of
a transfer policy without a sunset.

I'm not hearing any opposition to a sunset clause from those who
oppose a transfer policy.  You would think at least some in hard
opposition would also not want a transfer clause because it would
make a transfer policy more palatable to those on the fence.

I personally support a sunset clause on something this controversial.

Are people sitting on the fence likely to *oppose* continuation
of the policy if it works well?  (If so, they weren't truly on
the fence.)  If it works well, there should be no problem gaining
a consensus to continue it when it comes up for review.


> 
> Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy 
> Template?   If all policies should be Permanent, which is what 
> people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from 
> the Policy Template?
> 
> >From the Policy Template;
> 
> ------
> Policy term 
> 
> How long will the policy remain in effect? Is it intended to be 
> temporary, permanent, or renewable?
> ------
> 
> This seems to imply to me that at least some policies are 
> intended to have a term other than forever or until otherwised 
> removed by another policy action.

Agreed.  No one in favor of a transfer policy but opposed to a
sunset clause has explained why they think sunset clauses are
a good think in principle but would be a monkey wrench in IP
transfers.



> 
> And, Joe I don't mean to pick on you, your message just 
> happened to be the most convenient.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 18:40:04 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:40:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail><C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFAD@mail><0ECD06D3D32F46B28E698845088050D3@tedsdesk>
	<29A54911243620478FF59F00EBB12F470165A480@ex01.drtel.lan>
Message-ID: <804137FAE8BD45F083EC7EA5CC2A3146@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
> > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:09 PM
> > To: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'Leo Vegoda'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> <snip>
> > 
> > Unfortunately, many of these are operational, not policy, issues.
> > Particularly the fee proposals, an issue near to my heart 
> (as I don't 
> > work at a large ISP who gets the "Costco discount" on IPv4)
> > 
> > Ted
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by Costco discount. 

Costco is a retailer known for it's practice of selling
large quantities of items at a cheaper per-unit price.

You don't go to Costco to buy a loaf of bread for $2.  They will
sell you 6 loaves for $9 though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco

> If you mean 
> that there should be a direct cost per IP address that should 
> remain consistent across total assignment sizes, then I 
> understand your point.
> 

Yes.

> I always find these types of comments to be a bit grating and 
> tend to diminish the dialog instead of promote discussion. 
> There is no place in the policy that gives anyone a discount. 
> If you have more assignments, you pay more than others who 
> have fewer assignments. This is not a discount.
> 

Yes it is.  If you get more IPv4 assigned you pay less per IP.
This is a volume discount in every possible interpretation of the
phrase.

> If viewed by cost/IP, then the cost/IP for larger orgs (ISPs generally
> speaking) is less than for smaller orgs. This has been long 
> standing policy. If you want to change this. Make a proposal 
> and get consensus.
> Don't degrade one group to make yourself feel better.
> 

Volume discounts are a legitimate business practice and are not degrading!

In business they are used to do several things, protect the dealer
networks, protect the retail networks, and as an acknowledgement
that it's cheaper for the manufacturer to sell the same amount to 1 customer
than 100 customers

ARIN IP number discounts exist for many of the same reasons,
it protects ISPs  (do you really want all of your customers with
their own portable /29's) and because it is cheaper for ARIN to track
a SINGLE org that has a LARGE
assignment than MANY orgs that have SMALL assignments.  It is ALSO
CHEAPER for the REST of the Internet to route FEWER advertisements
from LARGER orgs than MANY assignments from SMALLER orgs.

My point here which I'm spelling out is that post-IPv4 runout, we
now have an IPv4->IPv6 conversion cost that must be bourne by
all networks.

Thus a large reason for the multiple-IP discount - that it's cheaper
to have larger orgs advertising fewer prefixes - is now counterbalanced
by the increased cost to switch to IPv6.  In other words, if we can
push off the IPv4 runout date by getting IPv4-heavy orgs to shed
some IPv4, that it will allow existing IPv4 orgs to stretch their old
equipment for a longer lifespan, thus saving the entire Internet money.

Plus, if we push-out the IPv4 runout date, then when runout happens
there will be a much more rapid "snap" to IPv6 - as conversion then will
be an absolute necessity because then no IPv4 will be available for
love or money.

This reduces the time that the entire Internet must dual-stack to
keep the laggards happy, and saves even more money for everyone.
It also drops the amount of data ARIN has to track, decreasing
their costs and allowing fees to drop.

It's pretty clear to me that cost/IP adjustments are a part of
any end-game IPv4 runout policy.  Of course, I do realize that
IP costs would have to be raised to obscene levels before the large
orgs would be motivated to shed IPv4 - but I also recognize that
the cost structure right now is seriously out of wack and very
unfair to the smaller players.  ARIN is also mandated to collect
enough fees to maintain it's operation - and having ARIN go on
fishing trips to pull dusty old IPv4 out of corners is going to
increase their expenses which will have to be paid somehow.  The
same exact thing would happen for the pro-transfer market proponents
too - having ARIN referee a bunch of paid transfers is also going
to increase their expenses.

And, who do you think will be the main beneficiaries of IPv4 that
is returned?  It won't be the small orgs who send in requests
once in a blue moon - it will be the large orgs who are chewing
up the IPv4 at a huge rate.

I may have personal dogs in this hunt, but I didn't bring this
issue up for myself.  After all, I don't own my employer - I
don't pay the yearly registration renewal fees myself.

Ted



From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 18:46:40 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:46:40 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
	help?
In-Reply-To: <2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>
	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904061546u7d43867bm5d2bf7e3887f46ea@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:55, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:43 AM
>> To: Jeremy H.Griffith
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
>> can you please help?
>>
>
>>
>> It's the best mechanism we have available in a capitalist society.
>> ARIN's done the communist thing for the last 10 years, and
>> that's bought
>> us rapidly approaching resource exhaustion -- just like it did in
>> Russia, China, Cuba, etc. ?Capitalism may not be ideal, but it's the
>> least-bad system for managing scarce resources that humanity has yet
>> discovered (see also: democracy).
>>
>
> Stephen,
>
> The IPv4 "scarcity" is fake, it doesn't exist in reality - it is something
> that was created when they decided to use 32-bit integers for IP numbers
> and stuff both the network number and host number into the same number.
>
> Somebody thought they were being clever with this little experimental
> toy network they were playing with and whoops - it got away from them.
>
> Basically your Paleocon analogy is false, it's like saying that a capitalist
> market exists in drivers license numbers or social security numbers and
> since
> we aren't charging money for SS numbers, we are going to run out of them.
> It's like arguing for air pollution so that we can develop a market
> in selling oxygen to people.
>
> The closest "scarcity" analogy to the IPv4 situation would be the
> DeBeers control of the world's fine diamond supply.
> DeBeers deliberately sets up a scarcity in diamonds to manipulate
> the price, then calls the diamond market a capitalist investment
> market, when in reality it's a communist market - the only real
> scarcity there is in diamonds is in the flawless blue white
> investment grade - the DeBeers vaults are stuffed full of the
> less-than-flawless stuff they miser out for use in wedding rings, etc.
>
> BAD network design - such as the address translator - are a result
> of this artifically created scarcity.
>
> IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
> this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite supply
> of integers.

Unfortunately IPv6 is _not_ an effectively infinite supply as
currently proposed/implemented.
http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
~Chris

>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Mon Apr  6 19:23:47 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:23:47 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu><411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk><F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com><A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>
	<776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935CB@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

As someone who struggles to find the time to read all of the PPML,
I've longed for a while now for some kind of system that rewards
brevity. I generally find participation pointless because a small,
very vocal group tend to force their opinions with sheer quantity.
By the time I've caught up to the backlog, the list has moved on to
the next topic.

It might seem stringent at first, but I think a measure to limit the
number of posts anyone can make to x posts per y hours would be
beneficial to the larger base of participants. I'd favour a limit
on the length of messages, too. Force people to think about what
they write a little harder, increase the signal and limit the noise.
Exceptions of course for the Board/AC.

I know before I send it that this probably won't be a very popular
suggestion, but if you want me to keep up with discussion and provide
more timely feedback on policies and ideas, this is how to do it.

- Scott


> I think there's something else going on. We routinely get in-depth
> discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from a small group of
> active participants. We then have hundreds of attendees at the public
> policy meetings, where another group of active participants does most
> of the talking at the mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the
> silent attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments
> presented.
> 
> Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms to
> accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the current system
> works well enough.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -Scott



From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr  6 19:29:55 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:29:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
	<49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> 
> > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer
> > market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and prove they
> > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> 
> The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> 
> A transfer system could avoid all that.
> 
> Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are inevitable in one
> shape or another.

OK, brainstorming more here..  

How about if:

1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's and would like
some remuneration..  holder "A"  contacts ARIN with a Letter of Intent and
commits to relinquish the block with ARIN acting as Escrow Agent for funds.

2. [ARIN publicly publishes the offer of an anonymous NetBlock of size /xx,
aggregating if possible..  
{or}
ARIN matches requestors to offerers and skip to step 4 ]

3. Entity "B" decides it wants IP's and makes an offer to ARIN committing to
pay some years (3 to ten?) of registration fees for the first year
registration of the block if awarded.  At this time Entity "B" goes through
the process to be pre-qualified per current policy for the size of block it
is requesting.

4. ARIN then proxies the anonymized offer to holder "A" and if accepted
brokers the transaction collecting a small fee from both parties to cover
expenses.

5. The excess fees collected from "B" are transmitted to "A" or held in
account on "A"'s behalf.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/27b22b81/attachment.bin>

From JOHN at egh.com  Mon Apr  6 21:40:24 2009
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:40:24 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
	draftpolicies?
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <1090406203040.7109F-100000@Ives.egh.com>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:

> Hello Scott:
> 
> I think that's a great idea.  Perhaps we could have...
> 
> 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
> 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
> 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
> 	a) You don't support the emergency action
> 	b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
> 	c) Both (a) and (b)

	d) You don't support the re-definition of "organization"
	e) You don't support the extention of the policy to IPv6
	f) You don't support the extention of the policy to other ARIN
		number resources.  (I can't remember what the magic
		network number is called, and the ARIN web site is dead
		in the water.  What a waste of time!  #$(*#$*((!)

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:27 PM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
> draftpolicies?
> 
> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
> 
> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback 
> from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only 
> responds once).  We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I 
> recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
> 
> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance
> 
> of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing you're 
> thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an opinion on
> this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 
> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on
> 
> >> this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of
> list 
> >> posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
> >>     
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
> > sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
> >
> > --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



From Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Mon Apr  6 20:01:23 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:01:23 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about
	alldraftpolicies?
In-Reply-To: <1090406203040.7109F-100000@Ives.egh.com>
References: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
	<1090406203040.7109F-100000@Ives.egh.com>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935CC@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

g) You don't support a policy that would allow for the transfer of
   space which was only acquired less than <n> years ago

Here's an alternative to all this... ask if the voter supports a
given policy proposal as written, and if they answer anything other
than yes (no, haven't decided, I don't care), allow them to
express their reason in 250 characters or less.

When the results are disseminated, make the various comments
available for those who wish to read them.

With complicated and controversial policy proposals like we're
seeing lately, you're never going to be able to nail down all the
reasons people might not support them.

- Scott

> > 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
> > 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
> > 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
> > 	a) You don't support the emergency action
> > 	b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
> > 	c) Both (a) and (b)
> 
> 	d) You don't support the re-definition of "organization"
> 	e) You don't support the extention of the policy to IPv6
> 	f) You don't support the extention of the policy to other ARIN
> 		number resources.  (I can't remember what the magic
> 		network number is called, and the ARIN web site is dead
> 		in the water.  What a waste of time!  #$(*#$*((!)
> 



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr  6 20:06:28 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:06:28 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
Message-ID: <CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:30 PM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer 
> > > market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> > > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and 
> prove they 
> > > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > 
> > The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> > 
> > A transfer system could avoid all that.
> > 
> > Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are 
> inevitable in 
> > one shape or another.
> 
> OK, brainstorming more here..  
> 
> How about if:
> 
> 1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's and 
> would like some remuneration..

Right here is the problem.

Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting the
numbers on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were
never "his" to give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like
you would rent a car.  We all would like renumeration for returning
our rental cars, but that's not what we agreed to when we rented
the car.

Further, the org does
not have the power to determine that he can continue to use the
numbers - only ARIN does.  If ARIN decides for whatever reason -
maybe they got tipped off by a signed deposition from a former
employee of Holder A that the original basis of obtaining the
numbers was a lie - then ARIN should have the authority to
pull the numbering.  By giving IP Holder A the
power to determine that it can relinquish IP allocations on
any other basis than what they were originally obtained on - ie:
need - your creating a very slipperly slope that is just
encouraging lawsuits that would pry away at more of ARIN's
authority.

Even the credit from ARIN is a slippery slope and personally I
don't like it - but I'm willing to suggest it as a bone to the
pro-transfer people.

Ted



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Apr  6 20:18:51 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:18:51 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
 help?
In-Reply-To: <09B6C264A19E41849B2D64E2502CD30D@tedsdesk>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>	<49DA3F3E.7030108@sprunk.org>
	<2ED3EB1F8E3C46199AFE2F18FD512D2A@tedsdesk>
	<49DA520F.6000901@chl.com>
	<255D1CAAC2D14A3A80D3DF9AFE58A6D1@tedsdesk>
	<49DA5CC0.7030205@chl.com>
	<93F83A46F3FA4D44A5D773A2B1FA779E@tedsdesk>
	<49DA6FB2.8050607@chl.com>
	<09B6C264A19E41849B2D64E2502CD30D@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DA9BEB.6040003@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> An address hijack is an offence against the proper user of the
> block, not against ARIN.  ARIN has no power to file charges, the
> hijackee does. 

What would you do as Business X if Business Y starts BGP advertising an 
IP prefix that you have received an registration from ARIN for?

You would appeal to the ISP's of Business Y and potentially the courts 
as a civil suit. You might try to appeal to the LEO's by calling it some 
kind of hacking.

Why would the ISP's choose to assist you rather than their customer?

Under what statute does the use of a range of integers become 
potentially criminal behavior?

As far as I know there is no law on the books that defines "proper usage 
of the block" and I wouldnt want any to exist either.

Joe


From micah at riseup.net  Mon Apr  6 20:51:04 2009
From: micah at riseup.net (Micah Anderson)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:51:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please	help?
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935CB@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935CB@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <20090407005104.GV16983@pond.riseup.net>

* Scott Beuker <Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca> [2009-04-06 19:24-0400]:
> As someone who struggles to find the time to read all of the PPML,
> I've longed for a while now for some kind of system that rewards
> brevity. I generally find participation pointless because a small,
> very vocal group tend to force their opinions with sheer quantity.
> By the time I've caught up to the backlog, the list has moved on to
> the next topic.

I couldn't agree more. There have been so many posts to this list lately
that I've been forced to ignore most of them, and I fear that doing so I
am tacitly giving some kind of passive consensus to something that I
might not otherwise support.

I can't handle a digest either, but perhaps a periodic summary of
postitions and arguments would be helpful before any major decision was
made? 

micah
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/d0178386/attachment.sig>

From JOHN at egh.com  Tue Apr  7 00:09:35 2009
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:09:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <1090406230414.7109A-100000@Ives.egh.com>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:30 PM
> > To: ARIN PPML
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > >
> > > 
> > > > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer 
> > > > market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> > > > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and 
> > prove they 
> > > > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > > 
> > > The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> > > 
> > > A transfer system could avoid all that.
> > > 
> > > Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are 
> > inevitable in 
> > > one shape or another.
> > 
> > OK, brainstorming more here..  
> > 
> > How about if:
> > 
> > 1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's and 
> > would like some remuneration..
> 
> Right here is the problem.
> 
> Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting the
> numbers on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were
> never "his" to give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like
> you would rent a car.  We all would like renumeration for returning
> our rental cars, but that's not what we agreed to when we rented
> the car.
> 
> Further, the org does
> not have the power to determine that he can continue to use the
> numbers - only ARIN does.  If ARIN decides for whatever reason -
> maybe they got tipped off by a signed deposition from a former
> employee of Holder A that the original basis of obtaining the
> numbers was a lie - then ARIN should have the authority to

It wasn't necessarily a lie.  It could have been completely
legit at the time.  May A is cutting back and has closed a bunch
of facilities.  Maybe A has acquired X, Y and Z and has renumbered
or consolidated so it only needs one or two of the original 4.
Maybe A is using RFC1988 or IPv6 internally and no longer needs
all its original allocation.

> pull the numbering.  By giving IP Holder A the
> power to determine that it can relinquish IP allocations on
> any other basis than what they were originally obtained on - ie:
> need - your creating a very slipperly slope that is just
> encouraging lawsuits that would pry away at more of ARIN's
> authority.
> 
> Even the credit from ARIN is a slippery slope and personally I
> don't like it - but I'm willing to suggest it as a bone to the
> pro-transfer people.
> 
> Ted

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Apr  6 22:13:27 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:13:27 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>, <49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>,
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <49DA7077.8108.7CC43F@farmer.umn.edu>

On 6 Apr 2009 David Farmer wrote:

> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
> 
> > The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.
> > 
> > A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not 
> > require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the 
> > BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late 
> > to the part anyway.
> 
> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the 
> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
> 
> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a 
> sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being presented, it 
> isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy, 
> but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset 
> clause.
> 
> Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy 
> Template?   If all policies should be Permanent, which is what 
> people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from 
> the Policy Template?
> 
> >From the Policy Template;
> 
> ------
> Policy term 
> 
> How long will the policy remain in effect? Is it intended to be 
> temporary, permanent, or renewable?
> ------
> 
> This seems to imply to me that at least some policies are 
> intended to have a term other than forever or until otherwised 
> removed by another policy action.

I did some analysis using the ARIN policy proposal archive, found at; 

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/policy_proposal_archive.html

My analysis, on Google Docs

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pMNgPs6H0qPX5y3F0TEOBeA

So, Most policies have a Policy Term: Permanent, with an Timetable for 
implementation: Immediate, which you would probably expect.  

There are 8 policies with other Policy Terms; 3 have been Adopted, 1 is 
under discussion, and 4 have been Abandoned or Withdrawn  

The other 78 Policies with a Permanent Policy Term; 26 have been Adopted, 
11 is under discussion, and 41 have been Abandoned or Withdrawn

This gives Policies with a non-Permanent Policy Term a slightly better 
adoption rate than Policies with a Permanent Policy Term.  

So, while Policies with a non-Permanent Policy Term are rare, about 10% of 
the Policy Proposals.  All Policies seem to have about the same rate of 
adoption, about 1/3, regardless of the Policy Term.

So I don't see any evidence that Temporary or Renewable Policies are some 
how bad on their face.



=======================================================
David Farmer				     Email:	farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-1818
=======================================================



From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Mon Apr  6 22:12:30 2009
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:12:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu><411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk><F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>
	<A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC0403114EF1@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>

or perhaps it is:
 
Why would I want to subject myself to the ridicule of some of the people on this list?
 
I'm just saying.....

________________________________

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Mon 4/6/2009 3:38 PM
To: 'Scott Leibrand'
Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,can you please help?






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: David Farmer; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
> can you please help?
>
> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful
> if folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do
> so.

That opinion is either:

1) I don't care.

2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
anything.


Ted

_______________________________________________
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.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.



From JOHN at egh.com  Tue Apr  7 00:17:12 2009
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:17:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <1090406230414.7109A-100000@Ives.egh.com>
Message-ID: <1090406231530.7109B-100000@Ives.egh.com>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, John Santos wrote:

> Maybe A is using RFC1988 or IPv6 internally and no longer needs
> all its original allocation.
> 

Oops typo, meant RFC 1918 (Address Allocation for Private Internets),
of course.


-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



From stephen at sprunk.org  Mon Apr  6 23:15:05 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:15:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DAC539.6030606@sprunk.org>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting the numbers on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were never "his" to give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like you would rent a car.  We all would like renumeration for returning our rental cars, but that's not what we agreed to when we rented the car.

OTOH, AmEx is reportedly paying some of its customers hundreds of 
dollars to turn in their cards, and I doubt that was in the original 
contract...

> If ARIN decides for whatever reason - maybe they got tipped off by a signed deposition from a former employee of Holder A that the original basis of obtaining the numbers was a lie - then ARIN should have the authority to pull the numbering.

ARIN already has the power to revoke resources that were obtained 
fraudulently or are no longer justified; see NRPM section 12.

Do not confuse lack of justification with lack of need; we have already 
addressed the former, so a liberalized transfer policy only addresses 
the latter.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/52c5aa1d/attachment.bin>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Apr  6 23:25:55 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:25:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board Statement on Transfer Policy Status and
	Timing
Message-ID: <9B315578-29E1-4AA4-8F16-E399AEB6D4F3@istaff.org>

The ARIN Board offers this statement to clarify the Board's sense
of urgency regarding present Transfer Policy discussions, and the
reasons for the Board's approach towards resolution via policy
proposal 2009-1.

/John

John Curran
Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ARIN Transfer Policy Statement.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 90704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/b8a75e31/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------





From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  7 00:36:14 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:36:14 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you
	please	help?
In-Reply-To: <2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Jeremy:
Like a few others, you are dead set against any market transfer policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and please, no need for the smileys)

Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary exchanges in address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, that this debate is about a sunset date? 

> That's exactly why I favor a short-term limit to try out this
> radically new (for ARIN) policy that Milton Friedman would have
> loved.  Eliminate the uncertainty; it's just for a year, folks.
> Then as that time gets closer, we'll have experience on which to
> base a decision about renewing it, or not.

Such a short date would magnify the incentive to speculate and hoard. If you don't know whether the opportunity is even going to exist a year down the road, you'd better act quickly and with the shortest-term approach and hoard while you can. 

> >(Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally
> >uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an
> >RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)
> 
> No, they won't.  But the guy who bought Failing Electronics,
> Inc., to get its resources for resale sure will.  Ask *your*
> legal department.  ;-)

By your logic this guy will also sue ARIN when the sunset date expires, won't he? 

And even if he and others don't sue or lose, won't they go to the black/gray market when a poorly timed sunset pulls the rug out from under him? 

I have to conclude that those who propose a sunset date, especially short ones, are simply people who would like to sabotage a transfer policy that they hate but can't stop. 

> No, it doesn't.  All is does is qualify recipients who want to
> use the space.  It does nothing to prevent others from acquiring
> inventory to sell to those people by purchasing shaky companies
> that happen to have some.  There are lots of those now, and a
> canny investor can buy them cheap, thereby becoming the "owner"
> of their RTU, then sell off the resource at a handsome profit.
> Please don't tell me this possibility has not occurred to you.  ;-)

Your position is that IPv4 address space is so valuable that a transfer market will trigger a M&A wave as speculators will spend unlimited sums on failing companies, or companies of any sort, to get tradable blocks. 

But wait: you don't need a transfer market for this to happen, do you? You can already acquire blocks via acquisitions now. 

So if I understand your position, it is that it is ok for incumbent ISPs to hoard IPv4 address space via acquisitions, but not OK for "speculators" to acquire addresses in the same way and transfer them (at a profit) to people who really need them. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that anti-liberals starved people in order to save them from the depredations of the market. 





From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  7 00:41:02 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:41:02 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
	draft	policies?
In-Reply-To: <49DA6D54.8030509@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>	<49DA56A3.7030908@chl.com>
	<00okt41v8g3ck8a077dvh420cq9h4s2e2f@4ax.com>	<49DA658C.7080006@gmail.com>
	<49DA6962.1010902@chl.com> <49DA6D54.8030509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

A regular schedule with multiple issues would diminish (but not eliminate) listserv electioneering....good idea.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:00 PM
> To: Joe Maimon
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
> policies?
> 
> Heh.  Perhaps we need a poll about whether to take a poll about taking
> polls.  :-)
> 
> I like the idea of having a single regularly scheduled poll, which
> contains questions about support for every draft policy, as well as any
> additional questions the AC decides would be useful for individual draft
> policies.  In any event, we'll discuss this at one of our upcoming AC
> calls, and I'm guessing will have something implemented for the next
> policy cycle.
> 
> Additional feedback on whether/how we should structure things is of
> course still welcome.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Joe Maimon wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > A poll to accompany last call on the list for proposal discussion
> > would probably be good idea. Not quite sure its a good idea as well to
> > make it mandatory or binding.
> >
> > I suppose a poll on the proposal for polls on proposal is in order.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > Scott Leibrand wrote:
> >> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
> >>
> >> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect
> >> feedback from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each
> >> subscriber only responds once).  We currently don't use it on a
> >> regular basis: If I recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
> >>
> >> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in
> >> advance of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing
> >> you're thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an
> >> opinion on this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof
> >>>> on this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis
> >>>> of list posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I like that idea.  Maybe something like SurveyMonkey?  Or the
> >>> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
> >>>
> >>> --JHG <jhg at omsys.com>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  7 00:54:11 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:54:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
 can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <49DA7077.8108.7CC43F@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>,	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49DA7077.8108.7CC43F@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

David:
Another way of interpreting your useful research on policy term is that, in most cases, policies are immediate in effect and unlimited in duration. 

> > But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
> > sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being presented, it
> > isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
> > but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
> > clause.

What you're hearing from me is not a general opposition to having sunsets; they can be appropriate in certain circumstances. 

But a sunset on a transfer policy is disastrous. You are dealing with economic incentives fundamental to the operation of the industry and in a very sensitive transitional period; operators have to know what the ground rules are with respect to their ability to acquire and dispose of addresses during the migration/transitional period. The date for a sunset cannot be anything but utterly arbitrary, since we don't know how long this transition will take. The idea of lurching from one system to another and possibly back again based on an arbitrary, pre-specified date doesn't make any sense to me. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy
> > Template?   If all policies should be Permanent, which is what
> > people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from
> > the Policy Template?
> >
> > >From the Policy Template;
> >
> > ------
> > Policy term
> >
> > How long will the policy remain in effect? Is it intended to be
> > temporary, permanent, or renewable?
> > ------
> >
> > This seems to imply to me that at least some policies are
> > intended to have a term other than forever or until otherwised
> > removed by another policy action.
> 
> I did some analysis using the ARIN policy proposal archive, found at;
> 
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/policy_proposal_archive.html
> 
> My analysis, on Google Docs
> 
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pMNgPs6H0qPX5y3F0TEOBeA
> 
> So, Most policies have a Policy Term: Permanent, with an Timetable for
> implementation: Immediate, which you would probably expect.
> 
> There are 8 policies with other Policy Terms; 3 have been Adopted, 1 is
> under discussion, and 4 have been Abandoned or Withdrawn
> 
> The other 78 Policies with a Permanent Policy Term; 26 have been Adopted,
> 11 is under discussion, and 41 have been Abandoned or Withdrawn
> 
> This gives Policies with a non-Permanent Policy Term a slightly better
> adoption rate than Policies with a Permanent Policy Term.
> 
> So, while Policies with a non-Permanent Policy Term are rare, about 10% of
> the Policy Proposals.  All Policies seem to have about the same rate of
> adoption, about 1/3, regardless of the Policy Term.
> 
> So I don't see any evidence that Temporary or Renewable Policies are some
> how bad on their face.
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> David Farmer				     Email:	farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> Networking & Telecomunication Services
> University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-0815
> 2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-1818
> =======================================================
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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  Tue Apr  7 00:55:11 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:55:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board Statement on Transfer Policy Status and
	Timing
In-Reply-To: <9B315578-29E1-4AA4-8F16-E399AEB6D4F3@istaff.org>
References: <9B315578-29E1-4AA4-8F16-E399AEB6D4F3@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904062155j59b8b389y4feb775a59e12c53@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> The differences between policy proposal 2009-1
> and policy 2008-6 are:
> 1) Policy proposal 2009-1 does not have the
> delayed timetable for implementation;

As proposed in 2009-1 I am opposed. Were it offered in the scope of a
normal policy proposal, I would likely be neutral.

I observe that a number of the supporters of 2008-6 expressed a desire
to delay implementation until the free pool was exhausted or nearly
so. They found the activation requirement  addressed their concern
enough that they could support the proposal.

> 2) It makes explicit that resources are
> returned to ARIN before being redistributed to
> the designated recipient;

This was adequately addressed in 2008-6 and did not need additional
wordsmithing. As proposed in 2009-1 I am opposed. Were it offered as a
normal policy proposal, I would not object to an adequately vetted
tightening of the language.

> 3) It eliminates the sunset clause, which,
> if retained, would introduce unpredictability
> in network planning;

Because defying the community and instigating a policy fight
introduces no uncertainty at all.

I am opposed and I believe the community lacks consensus for any
specific transfer proposal absent the sunset clause. I want to see how
it works out before it becomes a permanent part of the process, and
I'm not the only one.

> 4) It explicitly limits use of the policy to parties
> in the ARIN region, clearly ruling put interregional
> transfers, since those are an easily-separable matter
> of great additional controversy;

Nothing about the policy text in 2008-6 suggested permission for
interregional transfers. As proposed in 2009-1 I am opposed. Were it
offered as a normal policy proposal, I would not object to an
adequately vetted tightening of the language.

> 5) It refers to "number resources" rather than
> specifically IPv4 addresses, in an effort to retain
> simplicity and policy uniformity within the Number
> Resource Policy Manual; and

As proposed in 2009-1 I am opposed. Were it offered in the scope of a
normal policy proposal, I would likely be neutral.

I observe that a number of the supporters of 2008-6 listed the
restriction to IPv4 resources among the criteria that made it possible
for them to support the proposal.


> 6) It clarifies the NRPM definition of
> "organization" in a way that the Board
> considers should prevent gaming of the
> transfer policy by malefactors, a matter
> the community had expressed significant
> concern about in the discussion of policy
> proposal 2008-6.

This is not germane to a transfer policy proposal and has no business
being there. I am opposed to its presence in 2009-1. I would be
opposed to its presence in any other transfer proposal.

I question its enforceability. More often than not, information about
the ownership and control of a legal entity is privately held and
would be unavailable to ARIN absent substantial additional paperwork.
It's generally a bad idea to introduce regulation that can't be
readily enforced. It encourages scofflawism.

Before I could support a standalone proposal with this change, I would
want to see adequate plans for fairly enforcing such a policy change
without creating lots of new documentation work.


> 2) "IPv4 address resources in the
> ARIN Region reach a threshold of scarcity
>  recognized by the ARIN Board of Trustees as
> requiring this policy implementation."
> It is the judgment of the Board that the second
> criterion has already been satisfied, in light of
> a number of unfortunate conditions: the
> looming scarcity of IPv4 addresses and the
> consequent possibility of an accelerating "run
> on the bank," and the decaying accuracy of
> the WHOIS contact database as the probable
> number of unacknowledged transfers accumulate.

This is a particularly specious bit of argument.

First, neither of the listed indicators evidence a scarcity of IPv4
addresses, as the policy requires the board to find.

Second, the run on the bank is well underway and no part of proposals
2008-6 or 2009-1 promises to change that. To slow the run on the bank,
you'd need to do much more analysis of need and you'd have to
disqualify a needs that are obvious candidates for NAT. Good luck with
that. The members who attend the meetings and vote are the ones
running the bank.

Third, ARIN has long accepted properly formed update requests for
every part of the resource record except the org name. There's little
chance of the transfer proposals having more than a miniscule effect
on any part of the whois records other than the org name. Legacy
holders are going to sign an RSA just so they can fix their org names?
Now that's wishful thinking.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From randy at psg.com  Tue Apr  7 01:55:49 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:55:49 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board Statement on Transfer Policy Status
	and	Timing
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0904062155j59b8b389y4feb775a59e12c53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9B315578-29E1-4AA4-8F16-E399AEB6D4F3@istaff.org>
	<3c3e3fca0904062155j59b8b389y4feb775a59e12c53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <m2ljqdm2hm.wl%randy@psg.com>

[ not picking on your personally, but you make a good example ]

> As proposed in 2009-1 I am opposed.

really?  from your 4,932 messages in opposition, i never would have
guessed.

those few mounting dos attacks on this list in opposition (or support)
to whatever should realize that they make the opposite of their likely
intended point to the vast majority of watchers/readers.  if you have to
say it 4,932 times, then it is probably bs.  so we hit delete and move
along, looking for some sane posting to try to better understand the
subject.

marla's post was read thoroughly.  it was one well-considered post and
not just another brick in the wall.

randy


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  7 00:39:31 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:39:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
 can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>,
	<49DA0660.5050803@chl.com> <49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<411529EFE0AA476EB3E29C91D296CE22@tedsdesk>
	<F7BADD29-B943-4CDE-9C84-47686BCE6EE2@gmail.com>
	<A385F5F818BC4AFCAA405CC119CD60FC@tedsdesk>
	<776B862E-F8EE-4746-938E-D08F39671EC9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

Online polling mechanisms are worth a try, as long as they have the status of straw polls with no binding effect. Keep in mind that such voting takes time out of busy people's day, and the same highly motivated people who dominate discussions on the list are also the most likely to spend that time. But at least you would have a raw number indicating how many people voted, and what proportion that was of the total list participants. 

> -----Original Message-----
> I think there's something else going on. We routinely get in-depth
> discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from a small group of
> active participants. We then have hundreds of attendees at the public
> policy meetings, where another group of active participants does most
> of the talking at the mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the
> silent attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments
> presented.
> 
> Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms to
> accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the current system
> works well enough.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -Scott


From owen at delong.com  Tue Apr  7 02:49:21 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:49:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
	can you please help?
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>, <49DA0660.5050803@chl.com>,
	<49DA0B81.25798.E751710@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49DA7077.8108.7CC43F@farmer.umn.edu>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C9E53A0F-D34C-4D6F-A1B7-596090882D3E@delong.com>


On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> David:
> Another way of interpreting your useful research on policy term is  
> that, in most cases, policies are immediate in effect and unlimited  
> in duration.
>
>>> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
>>> sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being presented, it
>>> isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
>>> but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
>>> clause.
>
> What you're hearing from me is not a general opposition to having  
> sunsets; they can be appropriate in certain circumstances.
>
> But a sunset on a transfer policy is disastrous. You are dealing  
> with economic incentives fundamental to the operation of the  
> industry and in a very sensitive transitional period; operators have  
> to know what the ground rules are with respect to their ability to  
> acquire and dispose of addresses during the migration/transitional  
> period. The date for a sunset cannot be anything but utterly  
> arbitrary, since we don't know how long this transition will take.  
> The idea of lurching from one system to another and possibly back  
> again based on an arbitrary, pre-specified date doesn't make any  
> sense to me.
>
Re-evaluating this in 3 years is a perfectly reasonable protection to
build in in this case. In 2 years, if it looks like another year isn't  
long
enough and the transfer policy is doing what it needs to do, it should
not be difficult at all to get consensus around extending or eliminating
the sunset.

As such, given that absent a sunset, the community seems nearly
50/50 divided on whether a liberalized transfer policy should exist
at all, I really don't see that a sunset is harmful in this case. I  
would
think that the pro-transfer group would welcome it as a compromise
which creates a much greater level of community support to try this
policy.

On the other hand, looking at it from the anti-transfer group's
perspective, given that the community is very nearly 50/50, it
will be just as hard to abandon a potentially failed transfer policy
(after all, there is no reason to believe that the definition of failed
is universal in this case) as it was to get consensus around
creating it in the first place.

These opinions are strictly my own and I am sure there are
many on the AC who do not agree with me.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/a0b616d1/attachment.p7s>

From tvest at pch.net  Tue Apr  7 05:16:00 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:16:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you
	please	help?
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <208AEFCA-0937-4B0D-972F-C79807A94245@pch.net>



On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Jeremy:
> Like a few others, you are dead set against any market transfer  
> policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and please, no need for  
> the smileys)

You first Milton.

Having reviewed the last 30 years of your career, from your very  
principled writings on political strategy for various anarcho- 
capitalist/proto-libertarian movement zines in the 1970s, to your  
principled defense of the AT&T monopoly but aggressive advocacy for  
maximum privatization and competition for everything else that you  
ever wrote about (spectrum in the 1980s, telecom in the 1990s, root  
DNS and the tyranny of "industry self-regulation" earlier this decade,  
etc., etc.), primarily for beacons of neutral scholarship like the  
Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, it's clear that  
you are dead set against anything and everything *other* than "pure"  
market mechanisms guided solely by subjective value (i.e., "whatever  
the market will bear," regardless of circumstances) in every context.  
Right? Never mind whether situations vary, never mind whether the  
maximalist position might make more sense in some contexts but less in  
others -- your position has been unwavering, right? A simple yes or no  
will do.

As I've said before, everyone has a right to their own personal  
guiding principles -- but YOU don't have the right to hide yours while  
impugning those of others.

And by the way, thanks once again for clarifying what is and is not  
"ad hominem." I guess I always know I'm safe on that count if I just  
follow your example...

TV


From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr  7 08:36:14 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:36:14 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:06 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:30 PM
> > To: ARIN PPML
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer
> > > > market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
> > > > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and
> > prove they
> > > > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > >
> > > The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> > >
> > > A transfer system could avoid all that.
> > >
> > > Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are
> > inevitable in
> > > one shape or another.
> >
> > OK, brainstorming more here..
> >
> > How about if:
> >
> > 1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's and
> > would like some remuneration..
> 
> Right here is the problem.
> 
> Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting the
> numbers on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were
> never "his" to give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like
> you would rent a car.  We all would like renumeration for returning
> our rental cars, but that's not what we agreed to when we rented
> the car.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it pertains to
legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car, but someone gave them the
care to use for as long as they wanted free of charge.

> 
> Further, the org does
> not have the power to determine that he can continue to use the
> numbers - only ARIN does.  If ARIN decides for whatever reason -
> maybe they got tipped off by a signed deposition from a former
> employee of Holder A that the original basis of obtaining the
> numbers was a lie - then ARIN should have the authority to
> pull the numbering.  By giving IP Holder A the
> power to determine that it can relinquish IP allocations on
> any other basis than what they were originally obtained on - ie:
> need - your creating a very slipperly slope that is just
> encouraging lawsuits that would pry away at more of ARIN's
> authority.

Hmm..  more lawsuits..  which court would this be in?  US law?  Canadian
law? Mexican law? Maybe ARIN needs to move offshore.

> 
> Even the credit from ARIN is a slippery slope and personally I
> don't like it - but I'm willing to suggest it as a bone to the
> pro-transfer people.
> 
> Ted

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090407/101730e5/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr  7 08:38:47 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:38:47 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <02871076-1830-4187-BBCB-6E8D795DE91A@delong.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
	<49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<02871076-1830-4187-BBCB-6E8D795DE91A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB4@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:57 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> Does this significantly differ from Leo Bicknell's proposal?
> 
> Owen
> 
Perhaps in anonymity, to preclude side deals.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090407/6ed19f5f/attachment.bin>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Apr  7 08:48:04 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:48:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB4@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
	<49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<02871076-1830-4187-BBCB-6E8D795DE91A@delong.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB4@mail>
Message-ID: <20090407124804.GA23547@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 07:38:47AM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:57 PM
> > To: Kevin Kargel
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > Does this significantly differ from Leo Bicknell's proposal?
> > 
> > Owen
> > 
> Perhaps in anonymity, to preclude side deals.

As a clarification, while I may have played a significant role in
authoring the draft, under the new PDP the policy is now owned by
the AC.

Kevin, I don't understand your statement.  Could you expand on that
a bit so the AC could consider any concerns you have as they work
with 2009-4?

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090407/eec7ddca/attachment.sig>

From info at arin.net  Tue Apr  7 09:58:29 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:58:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revision to Policy Proposal: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on
	schedule
Message-ID: <49DB5C05.7090207@arin.net>

Policy Proposal 85: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule

The proposal originator submitted a revised version of the proposal.

The AC will review this proposal at their next regularly scheduled 
meeting and decide how to utilize the proposal. Their decision will be 
announced to 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 Policy Development Process can be found at: 
http://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.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: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule
Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong
Proposal Version: 2.0
Date: 06-April-2009

Proposal type: delete
Policy term: permanent

Policy statement:  The changes made to the NRPM by proposals 2008-6 and 
2009-1 are removed effective Dec. 31, 2012.

Policy Rationale:  Part of the policy that the community developed 
consensus for in 2008-6  included a sunset clause.  The ARIN Board in an 
unprecedented action
chose to discard this clause while approving the remainder of the 
policy. This proposal is intended to restore the will of the community 
and ensure
that this policy remains temporary as intended.

Timetable for implementation: December 31, 2012

< END>


From schnizlein at isoc.org  Tue Apr  7 12:06:13 2009
From: schnizlein at isoc.org (John Schnizlein)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:06:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revision to Policy Proposal: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1
	on schedule
In-Reply-To: <49DB5C05.7090207@arin.net>
References: <49DB5C05.7090207@arin.net>
Message-ID: <5AC2D3E7-ECD1-4F3F-B457-45DB3FF4B18E@isoc.org>

I fear that some revisionist history (at least different from what I  
saw) has crept into the discussion.

The long discussion of Policy Proposal 2008-2 IPv4 Transfer Policy  
came to an end October when it did not reach consensus in the room in  
LA.  While there were several sources of its failure, one that I heard  
from many people was that it was too complicated.  That this  
complication spelled its doom might have been clear from the results  
of the survey taken in advance of the meeting.  Although that survey  
indicated strong support for a transfer policy (86.7% to 13.3%  
question 11) the question was conditioned "consistent with your  
answers above", and others on which there was contention.   
Requirements for signing an RSA (57.1% to 42.9% in favor), pre- 
qualification of the donor (51% to 49% in favor), and pre- 
qualification of the recipient (71.9% to 28.1% in favor) indicated  
divided opinion on complicating terms.

On the subject of sunset (expiration of the policy) there was  
contention with 44.5% in favor and 55.5% against.

The simple alternative Policy Proposal 2008-6 Emergency Transfer  
Policy was introduced as a fall-back waiting in the shadow of the  
complicated 2008-2, and won at the end of vigorous discussion in LA.   
Emergency Transfer has been argued, mostly by those who oppose any  
transfer policy, as safer than a policy without a sunset because it is  
made deliberately provisional.  Partly taking back the transfer policy  
might appeal to those who oppose it, and reasonable arguments have  
been put forward that the specified end of transfers undermines the  
intent of the transfer policy.

Now that RIPE and APNIC have transfer policies (at different stages of  
completion), the argument for similar policies among regions works  
against "restoring" a clause in the Emergency Transfer policy that was  
not strongly supported in the poll.  Re-surveying with the same  
questions as last year (possibly with more clarity about who is  
required to pre-qualify in questions 5 &6) might indicate if the  
balance of views has actually changed.

John

On 2009Apr7, at 9:58 AM, Member Services wrote:

> Policy Proposal Name: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule
>
> Policy Rationale:  Part of the policy that the community developed  
> consensus
> for in 2008-6  included a sunset clause.  The ARIN Board in an  
> unprecedented
> action chose to discard this clause while approving the remainder of  
> the
> remainder of the policy. This proposal is intended to restore the  
> will of the
> community and ensure that this policy remains temporary as intended.



From andrew.dul at quark.net  Tue Apr  7 12:02:06 2009
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:02:06 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
	=?iso-8859-1?q?ARIN_Board_Statement_on_Transfer_Polic?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?y_Status_and=09Timing?=
Message-ID: <20090407160206.26263.qmail@hoster908.com>

John & Board, et al.,

Thank you for providing a written response regarding the thoughts of the Board regarding the proposal of 2009-1.  

Here are my comments strictly on the substance of the proposed policy.

> 5) It refers to "number resources" rather than specifically IPv4 addresses, in an effort
> to retain simplicity and policy uniformity within the Number Resource Policy
> Manual; and

While the "number resources" language may be more consistent with the rest of the NRPM.  I do not believe a relaxed transfer policy is necessary nor is it desired for IPv6 or ASNs.  All of the discussions over the past couple of years have strictly been focused on a relaxed transfer policy for IPv4.  

> 6) It clarifies the NRPM definition of "organization" in a way that the Board
> considers should prevent gaming of the transfer policy by malefactors, a matter
> the community had expressed significant concern about in the discussion of
> policy proposal 2008-6.

"Organization" has been used very loosely by those of us who have crafted the policies in the NRPM over the past years.  While a strict definition may be appropriate for a relaxed transfer policy I do not feel that the rest of the NRPM should automatically be subject to the new definition.  There maybe cases where this new definition changes current ARIN staff practice with regard to assignments and allocations that are currently being made.  Specifically as this policy proposal is discussed further comment from ARIN staff with regard to this change would be extremely valuable.

Thanks,
Andrew





From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr  7 13:06:38 2009
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:06:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you
	please	help?
In-Reply-To: <208AEFCA-0937-4B0D-972F-C79807A94245@pch.net>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com>
	<EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com>
	<chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<208AEFCA-0937-4B0D-972F-C79807A94245@pch.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866ED@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net]
> principled defense of the AT&T monopoly 

Whaaaa? Tom, I really think you've lost it. 


From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 13:31:53 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:31:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <1090406230414.7109A-100000@Ives.egh.com>
References: <CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
	<1090406230414.7109A-100000@Ives.egh.com>
Message-ID: <ACA05E73046E4AB2B4B098C9F338D534@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:10 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> It wasn't necessarily a lie.  It could have been completely 
> legit at the time.  May A is cutting back and has closed a 
> bunch of facilities.  Maybe A has acquired X, Y and Z and has 
> renumbered or consolidated so it only needs one or two of the 
> original 4.
> Maybe A is using RFC1988 or IPv6 internally and no longer 
> needs all its original allocation.
> 

That wasn't the kind of thing I was talking about.  In those cases
the org that requested did so in accordance with the contract.

It's the orgs that supply totally bogus information in an
attempt to obtain numbers purely for speculatory purposes that
are in violation.  A transfer market will encourage this
kind of behavior immensely IMHO.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 13:41:14 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:41:14 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
Message-ID: <2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:36 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:06 PM
> > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:30 PM
> > > To: ARIN PPML
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> > > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > > Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating 
> a transfer 
> > > > > market - yet I see them as being able to generate 
> reusable IPv4.
> > > > > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and
> > > prove they
> > > > > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > > >
> > > > The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> > > >
> > > > A transfer system could avoid all that.
> > > >
> > > > Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are
> > > inevitable in
> > > > one shape or another.
> > >
> > > OK, brainstorming more here..
> > >
> > > How about if:
> > >
> > > 1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's 
> and would 
> > > like some remuneration..
> > 
> > Right here is the problem.
> > 
> > Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting 
> the numbers 
> > on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were 
> never "his" to 
> > give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like you would 
> rent a car.  
> > We all would like renumeration for returning our rental cars, but 
> > that's not what we agreed to when we rented the car.
> 
> I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it 
> pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car, 
> but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they 
> wanted free of charge.
> 

By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
the basis of need.  

Ted



From JOHN at egh.com  Tue Apr  7 15:45:41 2009
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:45:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <ACA05E73046E4AB2B4B098C9F338D534@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <1090407143516.42519A-100000@Ives.egh.com>

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:10 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > It wasn't necessarily a lie.  It could have been completely 
> > legit at the time.  May A is cutting back and has closed a 
> > bunch of facilities.  Maybe A has acquired X, Y and Z and has 
> > renumbered or consolidated so it only needs one or two of the 
> > original 4.
> > Maybe A is using RFC1988 or IPv6 internally and no longer 
> > needs all its original allocation.
> > 
> 
> That wasn't the kind of thing I was talking about.  In those cases
> the org that requested did so in accordance with the contract.
> 
> It's the orgs that supply totally bogus information in an
> attempt to obtain numbers purely for speculatory purposes that
> are in violation.  A transfer market will encourage this
> kind of behavior immensely IMHO.
> 
> Ted

What ever policy is adopted should distinguish legitimate players
from cheaters, and not just tar them all with the same brush.

You seemed to be claiming that anyone in A's position lied on
their original request for an allocation.  I agree that liars
shouldn't be able to benefit from their lies, but you need
more than this to distinguish them.

I'm just trying to tighten up the arguments so we aren't fighting
over straw men here.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr  7 13:49:52 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:49:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
	<2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DB9240.1020904@gmail.com>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
> the basis of need.  
>   

That is incorrect.  I wasn't around at the time, but I know that the 
RFCs defining need-based allocation pre-dated the RIR system, and that a 
number of legacy holders received space on the basis of need.  It is 
also true, however, that prior to CIDR, the definition of need was much 
different, resulting in some legacy /16 and /8 holders receiving more 
address space than they would qualify for under today's rules.

-Scott


From schnizlein at isoc.org  Tue Apr  7 13:55:33 2009
From: schnizlein at isoc.org (John Schnizlein)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:55:33 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
	<2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <C39C1D1B-4A47-4586-A8CE-E8EDC8DAD2C1@isoc.org>

Not to interfere with the back and forth, but fact-check below:

On 2009Apr7, at 1:41 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>> From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com]
>>>
>>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
>>> ...
>>> Right here is the problem.
>>>
>>> Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting the numbers
>>> the numbers on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were
>>> never "his" to give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like  
>>> you would
>>> rent a car. We all would like renumeration for returning our  
>>> rental cars,
>>> but that's not what we agreed to when we rented the car.
>>
>> I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it
>> pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car,
>> but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they
>> wanted free of charge.
>
> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
> the basis of need.

Not true in my experience.  On behalf of two different employers, in  
the late 1980s and early 1990s I requested several class-B network  
numbers using an email form that requested information on current and  
planned number of hosts and subnets for the purpose of determining  
what number and class of address prefixes would be allocated.

John


From JOHN at egh.com  Tue Apr  7 15:56:18 2009
From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:56:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <1090407144818.42519A-100000@Ives.egh.com>

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:36 AM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:06 PM
> > > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:30 PM
> > > > To: ARIN PPML
> > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> > > > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > > > Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating 
> > a transfer 
> > > > > > market - yet I see them as being able to generate 
> > reusable IPv4.
> > > > > > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and
> > > > prove they
> > > > > > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > > > >
> > > > > The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A transfer system could avoid all that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are
> > > > inevitable in
> > > > > one shape or another.
> > > >
> > > > OK, brainstorming more here..
> > > >
> > > > How about if:
> > > >
> > > > 1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's 
> > and would 
> > > > like some remuneration..
> > > 
> > > Right here is the problem.
> > > 
> > > Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting 
> > the numbers 
> > > on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were 
> > never "his" to 
> > > give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like you would 
> > rent a car.  
> > > We all would like renumeration for returning our rental cars, but 
> > > that's not what we agreed to when we rented the car.
> > 
> > I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it 
> > pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car, 
> > but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they 
> > wanted free of charge.
> > 
> 
> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
> the basis of need.  
> 
> Ted
> 

Not true.  The definition of "need" may have been less formalized,
and we didn't get them from ARIN, but we definitely needed to tell
Network Solutions how many hosts we had and our growth projections
for the next 5 years.

Also, Section 7 of the form said "Unless a strong and convincing
reason is presented, the network (if it qualifies at all) will
be assigned a Class C network number."

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 14:01:56 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:01:56 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can
	youplease	help?
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <49D65443.12966.6B022E2@farmer.umn.edu><49D69CB2.70408@rollernet.us>	<gq7dt49lhpsumihotpq2jqssjsif81m0t2@4ax.com><EF57DC8E-997D-49D9-91E7-55026537E1B7@delong.com><chjft4d1vkapgi72ohrh1dr62tmt0n9m4a@4ax.com><75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D76BE55761@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu><2vdjt4ps1rrloa300foqodcev9nquqt5uj@4ax.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7704866C1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5A681A48A3AC41168CC2B6DF8F3A0695@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can youplease help?
> 
> Jeremy:
> Like a few others, you are dead set against any market 
> transfer policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and 
> please, no need for the smileys)
> 
> Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary 
> exchanges in address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, 
> that this debate is about a sunset date? 
> 

You are addressing Jeremy and maybe he is dead-set against a
transfer policy and as a result, is looking at the sunset
clause as a way of killing it.

But a great many other people, such as myself, are dead-set
against a transfer policy BUT we are willing to give you 
pro-transfer policy advocates a 1 year chance to run out and fall
flat on your face because we are already convinced that a
transfer policy will be an extreme mess with many bad side
effects.

When you have children, you can tell them a dozen
times that if they stick their fingers on a hot stove that
they are going to get burned - but you know perfectly well
that your just eventually going to have to let them go ahead
and do it, and get their fingers burned, because they are
just too thick-headed to believe you until it happens to them.

Of course, you also know as a parent, that even though they
do end up burning their fingers, they will pretend that they
didn't, since they would die first before admitting to you that
you were right.  Of course, you will notice that from that
point on they will stop attempting to stick their fingers on
the hot stove.

That is the situation from MY point of view with a transfer
policy.  You and the other pro-transfer advocates are arguing
from a theoretical point, not a practical point of view.  You
desperately want the reality to match the ideal.  I am not
saying that your ideal is bad.  It's flaw is in application to
the reality of things.  I've learned over time that when people
argue from their ideal they will refuse to give it up even when
proven wrong.

For an obvious example, even though in the US the Republicans
economic philosophy of deregulation of monopolies and loose
control of the financial system has now been thoroughly discredited
for the SECOND time (the first was back in 1930) the die-hard
Republicans are, amazingly enough, STILL arguing in favor of it.
They will go to their graves believing they were right and it
was never their fault.

Similarly with the transfer policy, I expect that in 3 years the
mess it made will be obvious to everyone - but YOU personally will
STILL be arguing in favor of it, and be dismissing all the bad
side-effects as not the fault of the idea.

Thus, I'm willing to give you a 1 year chance because I think you will
merely succeed at proving to all the undecided people out there
what a bad idea it is.  That is why I'm only in favor of this
if the sunset clause is retained.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 14:06:28 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:06:28 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board Statement on Transfer Policy
	Statusand	Timing
In-Reply-To: <m2ljqdm2hm.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <9B315578-29E1-4AA4-8F16-E399AEB6D4F3@istaff.org><3c3e3fca0904062155j59b8b389y4feb775a59e12c53@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2ljqdm2hm.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <5DE897CDB32941B2A16BDCC9E5ABDC6E@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:56 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Board Statement on Transfer 
> Policy Statusand Timing
> 
> [ not picking on your personally, but you make a good example ]
> 
> > As proposed in 2009-1 I am opposed.
> 
> really?  from your 4,932 messages in opposition, i never 
> would have guessed.
> 
> those few mounting dos attacks on this list in opposition (or 
> support) to whatever should realize that they make the 
> opposite of their likely intended point to the vast majority 
> of watchers/readers.  if you have to say it 4,932 times, then 
> it is probably bs.  so we hit delete and move along, looking 
> for some sane posting to try to better understand the subject.
> 

Uh Huh.  And if that is really true then since both sides
are doing it, we have an effective stalemate.

Thus, the undecideds will still have to make up their own
mind.

How sad that the opportunity to decide against an issue based on
a cascade of postings in favor of it, is being denied to 
those who are still trying to understand the subject.

Ted



From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Tue Apr  7 14:13:18 2009
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:13:18 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
	canyouplease	help?
Message-ID: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC04044B359B@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>

Thank you for your generosity, so are you for or against a transfer policy? With or without a sunset clause?


P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
To: 'Milton L Mueller' <mueller at syr.edu>; 'Jeremy H.Griffith' <jhg at omsys.com>; 'ARIN PPML' <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tue Apr 07 14:01:56 2009
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 canyouplease	help?


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> can youplease help?
> 
> Jeremy:
> Like a few others, you are dead set against any market 
> transfer policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and 
> please, no need for the smileys)
> 
> Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary 
> exchanges in address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, 
> that this debate is about a sunset date? 
> 

You are addressing Jeremy and maybe he is dead-set against a
transfer policy and as a result, is looking at the sunset
clause as a way of killing it.

But a great many other people, such as myself, are dead-set
against a transfer policy BUT we are willing to give you 
pro-transfer policy advocates a 1 year chance to run out and fall
flat on your face because we are already convinced that a
transfer policy will be an extreme mess with many bad side
effects.

When you have children, you can tell them a dozen
times that if they stick their fingers on a hot stove that
they are going to get burned - but you know perfectly well
that your just eventually going to have to let them go ahead
and do it, and get their fingers burned, because they are
just too thick-headed to believe you until it happens to them.

Of course, you also know as a parent, that even though they
do end up burning their fingers, they will pretend that they
didn't, since they would die first before admitting to you that
you were right.  Of course, you will notice that from that
point on they will stop attempting to stick their fingers on
the hot stove.

That is the situation from MY point of view with a transfer
policy.  You and the other pro-transfer advocates are arguing
from a theoretical point, not a practical point of view.  You
desperately want the reality to match the ideal.  I am not
saying that your ideal is bad.  It's flaw is in application to
the reality of things.  I've learned over time that when people
argue from their ideal they will refuse to give it up even when
proven wrong.

For an obvious example, even though in the US the Republicans
economic philosophy of deregulation of monopolies and loose
control of the financial system has now been thoroughly discredited
for the SECOND time (the first was back in 1930) the die-hard
Republicans are, amazingly enough, STILL arguing in favor of it.
They will go to their graves believing they were right and it
was never their fault.

Similarly with the transfer policy, I expect that in 3 years the
mess it made will be obvious to everyone - but YOU personally will
STILL be arguing in favor of it, and be dismissing all the bad
side-effects as not the fault of the idea.

Thus, I'm willing to give you a 1 year chance because I think you will
merely succeed at proving to all the undecided people out there
what a bad idea it is.  That is why I'm only in favor of this
if the sunset clause is retained.

Ted

_______________________________________________
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.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.

From owen at delong.com  Tue Apr  7 14:32:12 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:32:12 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org><22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk><49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
	<2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <EA4B4E5F-D1EE-41C4-9295-8000EA5126DA@delong.com>

>>
>> I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it
>> pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car,
>> but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they
>> wanted free of charge.
>>
>
> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
> the basis of need.

As a legacy holder, I can tell you that is simply not true. Most, if  
not all
legacy requests were based on need. The amount given
relative to need has changed, and, the definition of qualified need
has evolved over time, but, for as long as I can remember (which
goes back a fair distance, but, not quite to 8 bit addressing and
the days prior to IP) requests were based on need.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090407/dfbb67c2/attachment.p7s>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 15:11:48 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:11:48 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <1090407143516.42519A-100000@Ives.egh.com>
References: <ACA05E73046E4AB2B4B098C9F338D534@tedsdesk>
	<1090407143516.42519A-100000@Ives.egh.com>
Message-ID: <2E5185FB1AF54D5B8BCD6A24CA8F42D3@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:46 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Santos [mailto:JOHN at egh.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:10 PM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > Cc: 'Kevin Kargel'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It wasn't necessarily a lie.  It could have been 
> completely legit at 
> > > the time.  May A is cutting back and has closed a bunch of 
> > > facilities.  Maybe A has acquired X, Y and Z and has 
> renumbered or 
> > > consolidated so it only needs one or two of the original 4.
> > > Maybe A is using RFC1988 or IPv6 internally and no longer 
> needs all 
> > > its original allocation.
> > > 
> > 
> > That wasn't the kind of thing I was talking about.  In 
> those cases the 
> > org that requested did so in accordance with the contract.
> > 
> > It's the orgs that supply totally bogus information in an 
> attempt to 
> > obtain numbers purely for speculatory purposes that are in 
> violation.  
> > A transfer market will encourage this kind of behavior 
> immensely IMHO.
> > 
> > Ted
> 
> What ever policy is adopted should distinguish legitimate 
> players from cheaters, and not just tar them all with the same brush.
> 
> You seemed to be claiming that anyone in A's position lied on 
> their original request for an allocation. 

Sorry you interpreted it that way but I did clarify the sentence with
the statement:

"...By giving IP Holder A the power to determine that it can relinquish IP
allocations on any other basis than what they were originally obtained on -
ie:
need.." 

> I agree that liars 
> shouldn't be able to benefit from their lies, but you need 
> more than this to distinguish them.
> 
> I'm just trying to tighten up the arguments so we aren't 
> fighting over straw men here.
>

Any discussion of a transfer proposal is going to create straw men.  We have
never done it before and we can only draw inferences on what will happen
by analogies to other markets that may or may not be similar.  And so
far, nobody including me has been able to find an analogous situation that
matches exactly.


Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr  7 15:21:51 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:21:51 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
	canyouplease	help?
In-Reply-To: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC04044B359B@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>
References: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC04044B359B@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>
Message-ID: <D8E85F0F7C8B4DB98A333EC1F9D3B5ED@tedsdesk>


I'm not for it no matter what but I will not oppose a
transfer policy with a sunset clause.

If your not for something and your not going to oppose
it then from everyone else's point of view, your neutral.

Unfortunately, it seems that the people opposed to
sunset clauses are not satisfied with merely being 
ignored by the neutrals.  They seem to
think that if your for a sunset clause that your
against them.  There is no room in their world view
for people like myself, or for people who are in favor of
a transfer policy but are neutral on the issue of having
a sunset clause.  Their attitude seems to be that if I
can't have my transfer policy without a sunset clause,
then I'm going to take my policy and go home.


Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:john.sweeting at twcable.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: tedm at ipinc.net; mueller at syr.edu; jhg at omsys.com; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> canyouplease help?
> 
> Thank you for your generosity, so are you for or against a 
> transfer policy? With or without a sunset clause?
> 
> 
> P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you 
> for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> To: 'Milton L Mueller' <mueller at syr.edu>; 'Jeremy H.Griffith' 
> <jhg at omsys.com>; 'ARIN PPML' <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tue Apr 07 14:01:56 2009
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> canyouplease	help?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:36 PM
> > To: Jeremy H.Griffith; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can 
> > youplease help?
> > 
> > Jeremy:
> > Like a few others, you are dead set against any market transfer 
> > policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and please, no need for 
> > the smileys)
> > 
> > Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary 
> exchanges in 
> > address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, that this 
> debate is 
> > about a sunset date?
> > 
> 
> You are addressing Jeremy and maybe he is dead-set against a
> transfer policy and as a result, is looking at the sunset
> clause as a way of killing it.
> 
> But a great many other people, such as myself, are dead-set
> against a transfer policy BUT we are willing to give you 
> pro-transfer policy advocates a 1 year chance to run out and fall
> flat on your face because we are already convinced that a
> transfer policy will be an extreme mess with many bad side
> effects.
> 
> When you have children, you can tell them a dozen
> times that if they stick their fingers on a hot stove that
> they are going to get burned - but you know perfectly well
> that your just eventually going to have to let them go ahead
> and do it, and get their fingers burned, because they are
> just too thick-headed to believe you until it happens to them.
> 
> Of course, you also know as a parent, that even though they
> do end up burning their fingers, they will pretend that they
> didn't, since they would die first before admitting to you that
> you were right.  Of course, you will notice that from that
> point on they will stop attempting to stick their fingers on
> the hot stove.
> 
> That is the situation from MY point of view with a transfer
> policy.  You and the other pro-transfer advocates are arguing
> from a theoretical point, not a practical point of view.  You
> desperately want the reality to match the ideal.  I am not
> saying that your ideal is bad.  It's flaw is in application to
> the reality of things.  I've learned over time that when people
> argue from their ideal they will refuse to give it up even when
> proven wrong.
> 
> For an obvious example, even though in the US the Republicans
> economic philosophy of deregulation of monopolies and loose
> control of the financial system has now been thoroughly discredited
> for the SECOND time (the first was back in 1930) the die-hard
> Republicans are, amazingly enough, STILL arguing in favor of it.
> They will go to their graves believing they were right and it
> was never their fault.
> 
> Similarly with the transfer policy, I expect that in 3 years the
> mess it made will be obvious to everyone - but YOU personally will
> STILL be arguing in favor of it, and be dismissing all the bad
> side-effects as not the fault of the idea.
> 
> Thus, I'm willing to give you a 1 year chance because I think you will
> merely succeed at proving to all the undecided people out there
> what a bad idea it is.  That is why I'm only in favor of this
> if the sunset clause is retained.
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
> Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
> or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
> is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
> of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> 
> 



From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Tue Apr  7 15:37:08 2009
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:37:08 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
	canyouplease	help?
Message-ID: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC04044B35A6@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>

I would venture to say that most people do not take things that personal. I would expect that they value and respect your right to your position and opinion as I do. I would hope that is mutual.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
To: Sweeting, John; mueller at syr.edu <mueller at syr.edu>; jhg at omsys.com <jhg at omsys.com>; ppml at arin.net <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tue Apr 07 15:21:51 2009
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 canyouplease	help?


I'm not for it no matter what but I will not oppose a
transfer policy with a sunset clause.

If your not for something and your not going to oppose
it then from everyone else's point of view, your neutral.

Unfortunately, it seems that the people opposed to
sunset clauses are not satisfied with merely being 
ignored by the neutrals.  They seem to
think that if your for a sunset clause that your
against them.  There is no room in their world view
for people like myself, or for people who are in favor of
a transfer policy but are neutral on the issue of having
a sunset clause.  Their attitude seems to be that if I
can't have my transfer policy without a sunset clause,
then I'm going to take my policy and go home.


Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:john.sweeting at twcable.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: tedm at ipinc.net; mueller at syr.edu; jhg at omsys.com; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> canyouplease help?
> 
> Thank you for your generosity, so are you for or against a 
> transfer policy? With or without a sunset clause?
> 
> 
> P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you 
> for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> To: 'Milton L Mueller' <mueller at syr.edu>; 'Jeremy H.Griffith' 
> <jhg at omsys.com>; 'ARIN PPML' <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tue Apr 07 14:01:56 2009
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 
> canyouplease	help?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:36 PM
> > To: Jeremy H.Griffith; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can 
> > youplease help?
> > 
> > Jeremy:
> > Like a few others, you are dead set against any market transfer 
> > policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and please, no need for 
> > the smileys)
> > 
> > Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary 
> exchanges in 
> > address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, that this 
> debate is 
> > about a sunset date?
> > 
> 
> You are addressing Jeremy and maybe he is dead-set against a
> transfer policy and as a result, is looking at the sunset
> clause as a way of killing it.
> 
> But a great many other people, such as myself, are dead-set
> against a transfer policy BUT we are willing to give you 
> pro-transfer policy advocates a 1 year chance to run out and fall
> flat on your face because we are already convinced that a
> transfer policy will be an extreme mess with many bad side
> effects.
> 
> When you have children, you can tell them a dozen
> times that if they stick their fingers on a hot stove that
> they are going to get burned - but you know perfectly well
> that your just eventually going to have to let them go ahead
> and do it, and get their fingers burned, because they are
> just too thick-headed to believe you until it happens to them.
> 
> Of course, you also know as a parent, that even though they
> do end up burning their fingers, they will pretend that they
> didn't, since they would die first before admitting to you that
> you were right.  Of course, you will notice that from that
> point on they will stop attempting to stick their fingers on
> the hot stove.
> 
> That is the situation from MY point of view with a transfer
> policy.  You and the other pro-transfer advocates are arguing
> from a theoretical point, not a practical point of view.  You
> desperately want the reality to match the ideal.  I am not
> saying that your ideal is bad.  It's flaw is in application to
> the reality of things.  I've learned over time that when people
> argue from their ideal they will refuse to give it up even when
> proven wrong.
> 
> For an obvious example, even though in the US the Republicans
> economic philosophy of deregulation of monopolies and loose
> control of the financial system has now been thoroughly discredited
> for the SECOND time (the first was back in 1930) the die-hard
> Republicans are, amazingly enough, STILL arguing in favor of it.
> They will go to their graves believing they were right and it
> was never their fault.
> 
> Similarly with the transfer policy, I expect that in 3 years the
> mess it made will be obvious to everyone - but YOU personally will
> STILL be arguing in favor of it, and be dismissing all the bad
> side-effects as not the fault of the idea.
> 
> Thus, I'm willing to give you a 1 year chance because I think you will
> merely succeed at proving to all the undecided people out there
> what a bad idea it is.  That is why I'm only in favor of this
> if the sunset clause is retained.
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
> Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
> or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
> is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
> of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> 
> 

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.

From jay at impulse.net  Tue Apr  7 15:44:11 2009
From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:44:11 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with
	2009-1	canyouplease	help?
In-Reply-To: <D8E85F0F7C8B4DB98A333EC1F9D3B5ED@tedsdesk>
References: <58174FA985B92A42B9E3142C4DD2CC04044B359B@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com>
	<D8E85F0F7C8B4DB98A333EC1F9D3B5ED@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49DBAD0B.9040405@impulse.net>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I'm not for it no matter what but I will not oppose a
> transfer policy with a sunset clause.

I am not in favor of it either.  A (short) sunset clause makes it only 
slightly more palatable.

The proposal of creating a market is a pig.  The sunset clause and other 
revisions are lipstick and voice lessons.  The removal of the limitation 
to IPv4 only and including all number resources is just plain wrong. 
Any way you dress it up and try to teach it to sing, it's still a pig.

Do nothing.  The rest of the world is far ahead of ARIN in moving to 
IPv6.  This proposal only prolongs the agony, encourages hoarding, and 
enriches the undeserving.

-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV


From jay at impulse.net  Tue Apr  7 17:11:49 2009
From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:11:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <C5FFCB2C.2757F%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
References: <C5FFCB2C.2757F%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <49DBC195.5060505@impulse.net>

Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 06/04/2009 1:56, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> My alternative is as follows:
>>
>> 1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who
>> have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to renumber
>> or reduce their utilizations and return blocks.
>>
>> 2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused
>> IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.
>>
>> 3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who identifies
>> and provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block
>> is truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their
>> yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that ARIN
>> staff
>> would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)
>>
>> 4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
>> IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
>> remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
>> institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
>> blocks they are already paying for.
>>
>> Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
>> amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to returning
>> IPv4.
>>
>> 5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 sources
>> such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates before reassignment.
> 
> These aren't actually proposals, though. They are just statements of intent.
> 
> A proposal would define a decision making process, so that there was a
> mechanism for deciding which of the competing requests for a block of
> address space should receive it. That is unless by "ARIN continue to apply
> good stewardship" you mean it should continue with a first come first served
> process.

Items 1 and 2 aren't formal proposals, but good ideas.

Item 3 is a proposal, which I would almost certainly support depending 
on wording.

Item 4 is a proposal, which I support in principle.  I don't think it 
should be a completely flat rate per address as there is a cost involved 
in the administration per organization and netblock, but it could be 
made more equitable for the "little guys" and would tend to encourage 
those with excess space to return that which isn't needed, especially if 
pricing is tied to each CIDR power-of-2.  Return half of your space for 
slightly less than a 50% reduction in fees.

Item 5 isn't a proposal, but it's more than first come first served. 
The justification on need would still be in place, perhaps with more 
scrutiny.

All in all, I like it.


-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV


From steve at ibctech.ca  Tue Apr  7 19:20:36 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:20:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <49D7D383.1080903@rollernet.us>
References: <6D7A71EBCD2F3F49BB90628D2969F54210D27DC99B@owlery.graceland.edu>	<49D78CD7.9090103@rollernet.us>	<1B58AC7E-06E9-4B88-9DDD-9122E61CC3CF@delong.com>
	<49D7D383.1080903@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <49DBDFC4.8050308@ibctech.ca>

Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Mohler wrote:
>>>> I'm attracted to some aspects of this approach.
>>>>
>>>> Is it important for a particular set of addresses to be transferred 
>>>> from Org A to Org B?
>>>>
>>> The only thing I can think of offhand is in a merger situation where
>>> assets are simply being transferred in place to a new owner.
>>>
>> That could be handled under the existing M&A transfer policy without
>> need to go through any new process.
>>
> 
> This whole transfer thing gets argued into the ground to the point where 
> it seems that *something* (I don't know what, precisely) is missing.

Where do the profits go?

Steve


From jhg at omsys.com  Tue Apr  7 20:41:59 2009
From: jhg at omsys.com (Jeremy H.Griffith)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:41:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <otqnt4pv27nruq3u1mu48mufffqf7bv3ct@4ax.com>

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:56:45 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> 
wrote:

>My alternative is as follows:

This is a breath of fresh air.  Well done, Ted!

>1) ARIN continue to use moral persuasion on the legacy holders who
>have excessive assignments but are not paying anything to renumber
>or reduce their utilizations and return blocks.

Back in The Day, you got a Class A /8 if you were IBM, MIT,
or Sun.  There weren't many of those given out.

You got a Class B /16 if you were an ISP or an enterprise
that used many systems (more than 256).  This should be a 
very good area to focus on.  A lot of those who got /16s
would have been happy with /21s, but those weren't available 
then.

You got a Class C /24 if you had a pulse and knew what an
IP address was.  ;-)  There were many more of those out,
but recovery of them should be a last resort, considering
the routing table explosion that would happen if they were
all routed in BGP.

>2) ARIN embark on a project to identify abandoned and stale unused
>IPv4, and return it to the assignment pool for reassignment.

If it's legacy space, see above.  If it's RSA space where
nobody is paying fees any more, doesn't ARIN already do
this?  I would hope so... at least for /21 and shorter.

>3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who identifies
>and provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 block
>is truly abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their
>yearly bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that ARIN
>staff would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)

Maybe, but it sounds like outsourcing a job that ARIN
is well equipped to do itself.  I certainly think there
should be a very easy way for "whistleblowers" to tell
ARIN about fraud, but paying them for it is dicey, IMHO.

>4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
>IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
>remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
>institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
>blocks they are already paying for.
>
>Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
>amount of money per IPv4 address.  Big disincentive to returning
>IPv4.

Yes.  This is a good one, probably enough to put runout
off by ten years all by itself.  ;-)  Of course, many
ARIN members work for the companies that would pay more, 
don't they?  But I'm sure that won't influence them...
if it's for the good of the community... right?  (I'm
not being sarcastic here, just a little nervous.)

>5) ARIN continue to apply good stewardship to IPv4 from these 4 sources
>such as combining small blocks to larger aggregates before reassignment.

Yes again.  If people do give them legacy Class C's back,
they'd have to have eight adjacent ones to make up a /21,
and that seems unlikely.  But they might get /23s and /22s.

>I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating a transfer
>market - yet I see them as being able to generate reusable IPv4.
>I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and prove they
>DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.

Agreed.  These are all good ideas.  Thank you for putting 
to rest the tiresome neocon argument that it's their way or
the world ends.  The only thing that baffles me is why ARIN
staff, and the AC, didn't come up with these options already...

I'd add one more, that ARIN reduce the minimum allocation
size from /21, based on an estimate of routing impact vs.
longer availability to small users, possibly in steps
down to a /24 minimum.

Thanks again for coming up with some positive alternatives!

--JHG <jhg at omsys.com>


From michael.dillon at bt.com  Wed Apr  8 03:44:01 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:44:01 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <otqnt4pv27nruq3u1mu48mufffqf7bv3ct@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745887D4DF@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>


> >3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who 
> identifies and 
> >provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4 
> block is truly 
> >abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their yearly 
> >bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that 
> ARIN staff 
> >would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)

> Thanks again for coming up with some positive alternatives!

I wouldn't exactly call turning ARIN into a private police force
to be a positive alternative.

Let's face it, this will never happen. ARIN's members will never
agree to this type of thing, and it may indeed be prohibited
by ARIN's charter. In addition, it cannot be submitted through
the PPML because it involves fees, which are set only by ARIN
members themselves.

Just because it is possible to make new policies, rules and
processes, doesn't mean that we should. Perhaps the best action
is to do nothing other than make sure that ARIN is never a 
barrier to IPv6 deployment, and then let the cards fall where 
they may. We cannot engineer the industry nor do we have a right
to do so.

--Michael Dillon


From info at arin.net  Wed Apr  8 14:49:29 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:49:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN XXIII Open Policy Hour
Message-ID: <49DCF1B9.1040509@arin.net>

Sign up today to present your ideas at the ARIN XXIII Open Policy Hour, 
Sunday, 26 April, from 4:45-5:45 PM (CDT).

The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for new policy ideas, and we 
want to hear from you. Sign up before Friday, 24 April to guarantee your 
chance at the microphone. Send an e-mail to policy at arin.net with your 
name, organization, and a general description of the policy subject you 
wish to present. Everyone is invited to attend the session and raise 
ideas and suggestions. You do not need to have a formal presentation in 
order to participate. Signing up in advance allows us to confirm your 
turn to present your policy idea.

Details available at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/oph.html

If you won?t be with us in San Antonio, we are offering remote 
participation during the Open Policy Hour, and throughout the Public 
Policy and Members Meeting. Get all the details and register as a remote 
participant at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/remote.html

We look forward to your participation in ARIN XXIII.

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

Regards,

Member Services Department
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr  8 16:36:18 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:36:18 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745887D4DF@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <otqnt4pv27nruq3u1mu48mufffqf7bv3ct@4ax.com>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745887D4DF@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <E96C2CB2DCAF47EC8FAA1636AECBED57@tedsdesk>

 

> -----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, April 08, 2009 12:44 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> 
> 
> > >3) ARIN institute a "bounty" program where someone who
> > identifies and
> > >provides supporting paperwork to "prove" a specific IPv4
> > block is truly
> > >abandoned OR is in use ILLEGALLY is given a credit on their yearly 
> > >bill. (ie: the person here is basically doing the work that
> > ARIN staff
> > >would have to do to certify an abandoned block is really abandoned)
> 
> > Thanks again for coming up with some positive alternatives!
> 
> I wouldn't exactly call turning ARIN into a private police force
> to be a positive alternative.
> 

I think your blowing this out of porportion.

Any IP block reciever when they obtain a block, signs a contract
where among other things they agree to NOT lie when reporting
their utilization.

If it is later discovered after the requestor obtains their block
that they were lying through their teeth, then if your going to
advocate that ARIN merely IGNORES this, and CONTINUES to list the
requestor as the authorized user of the block in WHOIS then please
explain why this is not a GIANT SLAP IN THE FACE to all requestors
out there who spend hours of time carefully documenting their requests
and making sure they are accurate.

> Let's face it, this will never happen. ARIN's members will never
> agree to this type of thing,

Oh, really?

Ted



From rlc at usfamily.net  Wed Apr  8 18:35:58 2009
From: rlc at usfamily.net (Ron Cleven)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:35:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
Message-ID: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>

We have two backbone providers, Cogent and Level3.  In response to our 
recent inquiries, Cogent indicated they planned to begin routing IPv6 
"later this year" and Level3 indicated they were able to route it now.

What I found more interesting was Level3's reaction to our inquiry. 
Level3 has one of the largest IP networks on our continent and across 
the pond.  They were modestly surprised to get an inquiry of this type. 
  Specifically, the engineer assigned to our account said he hasn't 
deployed a single IPv6 connection in 5 years of being with the company. 
  He personally knew of no one other than a few government entities even 
doing any testing.

Anecdotally, it sounds like the IPv6 transition is moving right along.

Ron Cleven


From rob at raser.com  Wed Apr  8 18:53:16 2009
From: rob at raser.com (rob servis)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:53:16 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
Message-ID: <001f01c9b89c$cdf9a9f0$800101df@kahuna>

> We have two backbone providers, Cogent and Level3.  In response to our
> recent inquiries, Cogent indicated they planned to begin routing IPv6
> "later this year" and Level3 indicated they were able to route it now.
>
> What I found more interesting was Level3's reaction to our inquiry.
> Level3 has one of the largest IP networks on our continent and across
> the pond.  They were modestly surprised to get an inquiry of this type.
>   Specifically, the engineer assigned to our account said he hasn't
> deployed a single IPv6 connection in 5 years of being with the company.
>   He personally knew of no one other than a few government entities even
> doing any testing.
>
> Anecdotally, it sounds like the IPv6 transition is moving right along.
>

When I asked AT&T -- I got two 3-page PDF's dated 2005, revised November
2007 that seemed, well, more marketing focused.  Bottom line they aren't
doing anything and haven't done anything except what has been 'mandated' by
the government.  This was one of the really precious lines:

"AT&T's global network architecture is based on MPLS and thus is IP-version
independent This core architecture has been designed to support IPv6 from
its early design phases."

It'll be fun to watch the millions of IPV4 users on SBC Yahoo DSL magically
transition to IPV6 with no serious work needed by ATT.

Rob Servis
RASER, Inc.



From ptimmins at clearrate.com  Wed Apr  8 19:37:09 2009
From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul G. Timmins)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:37:09 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
Message-ID: <B98837F93D40A74D8656EAE7C1F57C5663888E@EXCHANGE1.corp.clearrate.net>

UUnet had no problem provisioning ours, once I found someone to prove to
them it existed. Now if they'd only fix the problem with the tunneling
on their junipers, I wouldn't have pMTU issues that make it nearly
unusable.

-Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On
> Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 6:36 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
> 
> We have two backbone providers, Cogent and Level3.  In response to our
> recent inquiries, Cogent indicated they planned to begin routing IPv6
> "later this year" and Level3 indicated they were able to route it now.
> 
> What I found more interesting was Level3's reaction to our inquiry.
> Level3 has one of the largest IP networks on our continent and across
> the pond.  They were modestly surprised to get an inquiry of this
type.
>   Specifically, the engineer assigned to our account said he hasn't
> deployed a single IPv6 connection in 5 years of being with the
company.
>   He personally knew of no one other than a few government entities
> even
> doing any testing.
> 
> Anecdotally, it sounds like the IPv6 transition is moving right along.
> 
> Ron Cleven
> _______________________________________________
> 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 joelja at bogus.com  Wed Apr  8 19:44:27 2009
From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:44:27 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <001f01c9b89c$cdf9a9f0$800101df@kahuna>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
	<001f01c9b89c$cdf9a9f0$800101df@kahuna>
Message-ID: <49DD36DB.2050204@bogus.com>

rob servis wrote:
> When I asked AT&T -- I got two 3-page PDF's dated 2005, revised November
> 2007 that seemed, well, more marketing focused.  Bottom line they aren't
> doing anything and haven't done anything except what has been 'mandated' by
> the government.  This was one of the really precious lines:
> 
> "AT&T's global network architecture is based on MPLS and thus is IP-version
> independent This core architecture has been designed to support IPv6 from
> its early design phases."

AT&T  (as 7018) can and does provide ipv6 transit service to customers
that need it. mpls or otherwise they can provide the service, albeit
sometimes in a somewhat less than optimal fashion.

Note that any material dated before Nov 18, 2005 is from a different
company also called at&t.

> It'll be fun to watch the millions of IPV4 users on SBC Yahoo DSL magically
> transition to IPV6 with no serious work needed by ATT.



From bill at herrin.us  Wed Apr  8 20:24:50 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 20:24:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904081724k8173dd1uf339856b939a50b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 4) ARIN modify pricing schedules to more closely bring prices of
> IPv4 addressing in alignment across ALL allocations - in other words,
> remove the discount for ISP's with large quantities of IPv4 - and
> institute a temporary "credit" program to those ISP's who return
> blocks they are already paying for.
>
> Check the current price list - the largest holders pay the least
> amount of money per IPv4 address. ?Big disincentive to returning
> IPv4.

Ted,

If we ignore the elephant in the room (big orgs vote), there are
subtle problems with this idea that you may not have considered.

When you flat-tax the cost per address, do you just collect more money
from the big orgs? Or do you keep ARIN's budget the same and lower the
cost to the small orgs?

As anyone familiar with bureaucracies will tell you, they expand to
fit the budget. If you grow ARIN's budget then ARIN grows as a
regulatory bureaucracy. This is not a good thing.  In order for the
new staff to justify their presence, they add details to the
compliance process. When all is said and done, every dollar you add to
a bureaucracy adds ten dollars in indirect costs borne by the
customers (by which I mean you), auditing systems and preparing
documentation, usually far past the point of diminishing returns.

If you shrink the small org's payments, you shrink them a lot. A whole
lot. As in a /22 is in the same cost ballpark as a domain name. For
individuals, squatting addresses is a chancy long play. You have to
invest now while addresses are available, you have to hold them until
there's someone willing to buy them and you have to hope that no
policy change in between doesn't leave you stranded. You're unlikely
to chance $1250 on it and you certainly won't do so more than once.

At $50 for a /22, the odds look very different. Another $50 to
register a company and a couple ISP friends to write you no-dollar
no-service contracts which look good on paper and you're in the game.
Better, each of those shell companies is transferable under the
existing policy and will almost certainly remain so.

You could cause precisely the problem that you're trying to prevent.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From matthew at matthew.at  Wed Apr  8 20:59:36 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:59:36 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
Message-ID: <49DD4878.5010306@matthew.at>

Ron Cleven wrote:
> Anecdotally, it sounds like the IPv6 transition is moving right along.
>   
We have transit from AboveNet. I asked in August of 2008 and the answer 
was "we do not have an IPv6 offering at this time... don't have any sort 
of timeline". I asked again in March of 2009 and the answer was 
"planning the design... more on this in a few months".

Of course I have too many NPE-200 and NPE-300 on 7200-series routers in 
my network, too, so it isn't like it would be cost-free even if I could 
upgrade without switching transit providers.

The tunnels I have at home work pretty well, at least.

Matthew Kaufman


From dwhite at olp.net  Wed Apr  8 21:23:58 2009
From: dwhite at olp.net (Dan White)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:23:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
Message-ID: <49DD4E2E.9050603@olp.net>

Ron Cleven wrote:
> We have two backbone providers, Cogent and Level3.  In response to our 
> recent inquiries, Cogent indicated they planned to begin routing IPv6 
> "later this year" and Level3 indicated they were able to route it now.
>
> What I found more interesting was Level3's reaction to our inquiry. 
> Level3 has one of the largest IP networks on our continent and across 
> the pond.  They were modestly surprised to get an inquiry of this type. 
>   Specifically, the engineer assigned to our account said he hasn't 
> deployed a single IPv6 connection in 5 years of being with the company. 
>   He personally knew of no one other than a few government entities even 
> doing any testing.
>   

I wouldn't look too much in to that response. I've also pressed both of 
those vendors for IPv6 transit.

Level 3 will take your request seriously, and give you a tunnel which is 
pretty good latency wise (much better than my Sprint tunnel). You should 
get a form to fill out to submit to their IPv6 group. I've been very 
pleased with the Level 3 response, except for the fact that it's not native.

The fact that you got a blank stare from an engineer is probably because 
what he engineers doesn't have much to do with the IPv6 tunnels that get 
provisioned - he won't be provisioning them on the router that directly 
faces you.

Cogent gave me a "No we don't support it" blanket response. If you've 
got a contact at Cogent that has a different response, I'd appreciate if 
you could pass me their contact information.

- Dan


From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr  8 22:56:03 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:56:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <EA4B4E5F-D1EE-41C4-9295-8000EA5126DA@delong.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk> <49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
	<2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
	<EA4B4E5F-D1EE-41C4-9295-8000EA5126DA@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904081956s61b801b0u113fa59fc0eb7171@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>>> I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it
>>> pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car,
>>> but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they
>>> wanted free of charge.
>>>
>>>
>> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
>> the basis of need.
>>
>
> As a legacy holder, I can tell you that is simply not true. Most, if not
> all
> legacy requests were based on need. The amount given
> relative to need has changed, and, the definition of qualified need
> has evolved over time, but, for as long as I can remember (which
> goes back a fair distance, but, not quite to 8 bit addressing and
> the days prior to IP) requests were based on need.



Have you signed the LRSA?

Best,

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090408/726323a5/attachment.htm>

From vixie at isc.org  Thu Apr  9 00:06:17 2009
From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:06:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49DD4E2E.9050603@olp.net> (Dan White's message of "Wed\,
	08 Apr 2009 20\:23\:58 -0500")
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net> <49DD4E2E.9050603@olp.net>
Message-ID: <g31vs2lbd2.fsf@nsa.vix.com>

ISC's IPv6 transit comes from Hurricane Electric and Tata (Teleglobe).  Both
appear to be native (no tunnels, no MTU problems.)  IPv6 looks ok to me.
-- 
Paul Vixie


From kloch at kl.net  Thu Apr  9 00:49:39 2009
From: kloch at kl.net (Kevin Loch)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:49:39 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <g31vs2lbd2.fsf@nsa.vix.com>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net> <49DD4E2E.9050603@olp.net>
	<g31vs2lbd2.fsf@nsa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <49DD7E63.5070803@kl.net>

Paul Vixie wrote:
> ISC's IPv6 transit comes from Hurricane Electric and Tata (Teleglobe).  Both
> appear to be native (no tunnels, no MTU problems.)  IPv6 looks ok to me.

Highwinds and Tiscali were eager to turn up native IPv6 when asked.  The
existence of a non-US based engineer at ${provider} seems to be a good
indicator of success.  For non-US based networks we peer with turning
up IPv6 sessions at the same time as IPv4 has never been a problem.
It's as normal as breathing for them.  Sometimes I wonder how surprised
they are that a US based company provided an IPv6 address for peering.

As mentioned Hurricane Electric provides excellent native service and
there are many other "non tier1" US based ISP's and hosting providers 
that can provide native service.

I haven't asked our US-based "tier 1" transit providers yet because from
what I had heard many of them are using tunnels at least partially.
I have no need for that (or any mtu issues).

- Kevin


From info at arin.net  Thu Apr  9 13:33:27 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:33:27 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund
Message-ID: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>

Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund has been revised. This 
proposal is open for discussion on this mailing list and
will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.

The current policy proposal text is provided below and is also available
at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_4.html


Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##

2009 -4: IPv4 Recovery Fund

Date: 9 April 2009

Proposal type: New

Policy term:  Permanent

Policy statement:

(Create new section in section 4, represented by "4.X".)

4.X IPv4 Recovery Fund

4.X.1 Implementation Timing

      ARIN shall begin offering financial incentives for the return
      of IPv4 number resources as specified in section 4.X when
      IANA announces that the last full /8's in the IANA free pool
      have been allocated to RIR(s).

  4.X.2 Recovery of IPv4 Resources

      Organizations should voluntarily return unused and/or unneeded
      number resources to ARIN based on ARIN's current utilization
      guidelines.  ARIN will provide instructions on how to
      voluntarily return number resources on the ARIN web site.

      After the conditions in section 4.x.1 are met, ARIN will
      offer financial incentives for the return of IPv4 number
      resources to ARIN and relinquishment of any future claims
      to those resources.  ARIN will use the bids from section
      4.X.3 to determine the value of returned resources.

4.X.3 Allocation of Recovered IPv4 Resources

      After a requester has been approved for IPv4 number resources
      via any policy in section 4 or section 11 of the NRPM, ARIN
      will ask the requester to specify a binding bid of how much
      they are willing to pay for reclamation of number resources
      to satisfy their request.  The requester may make a higher
      bid at any time, which is treated as a brand new bid replacing
      their old bid.

       Requesters may choose to bid $0, in which case they would
      only be eligible for number resources that were voluntarily
      returned to ARIN.

       IPv4 number resources recovered by ARIN under section 4.X.2
      will be offered to those who have been waiting the longest
      with bids high enough to cover ARIN's cost to recover the
      resource.  If ARIN offers IPv4 number resources at or below
      the requesters bid the requester will be required to take
      the space at the offered price.

4.X.4 Management of Recovered IPv4 Resources

      ARIN may not fill a request with multiple smaller blocks.
      ARIN must offer recovered number resources in the largest
      possible contiguous blocks.  Recovered IPv4 number resources
      should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
      bidders for the larger sized blocks, and ARIN believes there
      are unlikely to be bidders for the larger sized block in the
      next 30 days.  When sub-diving the block ARIN shall divide it
      into as few pieces as possible to satisfy existing bids.

      ARIN should take all practical steps to aggregate returned
      address blocks.

4.X.5 Transparency

       ARIN must post statistics updated as frequently as practical
      but not less than monthly on the ARIN web site regarding all
      activity taking place under section 4.X.  ARIN must report
      the following items at a minimum, and is encouraged to report
      as much additional data as is practical and useful:

        - The amount of number resources recovered under 4.X.3.
        - The amount of number resources allocated under 4.X.4.
        - The min, max, median, and average prices for number resources
          recovered under 4.x.3.
        - The min, max, median, and average prices for number resources
          allocated under 4.x.4.
        - The min, max, median, and average prices for all bids received
          under 4.x.4, as well as the number of outstanding bids not
          yet satisfied.
        - How many address blocks were de-aggregated, and the resulting 
number
          of blocks.
        - How many address blocks were aggregated, and the resulting number
          of blocks.

4.X.6 Cost Recovery

      ARIN shall use the payments made in 4.X.4 to pay for any
      work done under section 4.X as well as for any payments made
      in section 4.X.3.  ARIN must base payment offers made under
      4.X.3 on the binding bids made in section 4.X.4.

       The Board may set aside a portion of ARIN's general funds
      to provide financial liquidity to the activities taking place
      under section 4.X, provided there is a clear mechanism and
      time frame to return those funds to the general fund.

Rationale:

Many have recognized that in order for unused or poorly used IPv4 
resources to be returned to the free pool that financial compensation 
will be required.  This is particularly the case in poorly used assets 
where the current holder may have to expend time and money to renumber 
in order to free the blocks.

This proposal sets up a fund administered by ARIN to encourage the 
return of space.  Effectively ARIN will offer financial incentives to 
return unused or poorly used IPv4 number resources and place them back 
into the IPv4 free pool.

The intention is for this activity to be revenue neutral to ARIN.  To 
achieve that goal those requesting IPv4 number resources will be 
requested to bid on a one-time payment to the recovery fund to cover the 
cost of the resources they have received.

The proposal is intentionally vague on the exact implementation details 
to staff because:

 - Transactions with those returning space and obtaining space may
   occur in any order.
 - The bidding process may need to evolve over time, and may not
   be as simple as highest bidder wins.  It may include aspects such
   as a dutch auction style format (all winners pay the lowest winning
   price), or may include other factors such as which size blocks
   ARIN has free in an effort to limit de-aggregation.
 - ARIN will have to develop contracts and procedures around this
   activity that are better suited for staff and legal than the policy 
process.

Compared to other "transfer proposals", this proposal has the following 
benefits:

 - Maintains that IP addresses are not property.
 - Maintains the concept that unused addresses should be returned to
   the free pool.
 - Maintains need based addressing.
 - Removes the need for those with excess resources to find those
   without resources.  There is no need for any sort of listing
   service, eBay, etc.
 - All transactions are two party transactions with ARIN as one of
   the parties.  The potential for multi-party legal disputes is
   reduced.
 - ARIN can absorb spikes in supply or demand, creating more level
   prices over time.
 - ARIN can provide transparency across all transactions in this
   system.
 - Reduces confusion to new entrants over where they should go to
   receive address space.

Change Log:

  - Changed "monetary" to "financial" to allow for the possibility
   of ARIN offering things other than direct payment (like fee
   credits).  Credit: Robert Bonomi.

 - Updated numbering so there were not two 4.10.2's.  Also changed
   to using a place holder for section.  Credit: Robert Bonomi

 - Changed the cost recovery language to be more clear and provide
   some additional flexibility.

 - Clarified 4.10.2 about future claims.  Credit: Ted Mittelstaedt

 - Split 10.X.3 into 10.X.3 and 10.X.3 with better titles.

 - Left the exact algorithm to staff.  Removed examples as a result.

Timetable for implementation: Staff should begin developing procedures 
and updated templates immediately. Policy would not go into effect until 
the criteria listed occurs.






From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Fri Apr 10 17:08:06 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:08:06 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:


[ snip ]


>
> 4.X.1 Implementation Timing
>
>      ARIN shall begin offering financial incentives for the return
>      of IPv4 number resources as specified in section 4.X when
>      IANA announces that the last full /8's in the IANA free pool
>      have been allocated to RIR(s).



This may be ineffective. Considering that transfers with cash benefit are
occurring now, it may be worthwhile to consider making policies like this
one "emergency".


>
>
>  4.X.2 Recovery of IPv4 Resources
>
>      Organizations should voluntarily return unused and/or unneeded
>      number resources to ARIN based on ARIN's current utilization
>      guidelines.  ARIN will provide instructions on how to
>      voluntarily return number resources on the ARIN web site.
>
>      After the conditions in section 4.x.1 are met, ARIN will
>      offer financial incentives for the return of IPv4 number
>      resources to ARIN and relinquishment of any future claims
>      to those resources.  ARIN will use the bids from section
>      4.X.3 to determine the value of returned resources.



Are we not simply acknowledging the gray market with this policy and
attempting to compete? I think that if ARIN offered a price lower than the
current $250K per /16 for example (~$4 per /32),  they would not only be
able to recover any v4 space, they would push prices /higher/ since they
would be acknowledging that IP addresses do in fact have a cash value
contrary to what we have been saying. The RSA and LRSA are not lost on me.
The lack for some of LRSA and RSA are not lost on me either. The loose
policy structure around transfer is also not lost on me or others hence the
conflict we see in the organization around transfer now.

Competing with an existing market or spending on buying back v4 address
space  now likely push our fees higher. I'm not in favor of higher fees with
recovery as a basis.


>
>
> 4.X.3 Allocation of Recovered IPv4 Resources
>
>      After a requester has been approved for IPv4 number resources
>      via any policy in section 4 or section 11 of the NRPM, ARIN
>      will ask the requester to specify a binding bid of how much
>      they are willing to pay for reclamation of number resources
>      to satisfy their request.  The requester may make a higher
>      bid at any time, which is treated as a brand new bid replacing
>      their old bid.
>
>       Requesters may choose to bid $0, in which case they would
>      only be eligible for number resources that were voluntarily
>      returned to ARIN.
>
>       IPv4 number resources recovered by ARIN under section 4.X.2
>      will be offered to those who have been waiting the longest
>      with bids high enough to cover ARIN's cost to recover the
>      resource.  If ARIN offers IPv4 number resources at or below
>      the requesters bid the requester will be required to take
>      the space at the offered price.


I don't think that this policy has been thought out well-or-long-enough. It
has potential and the intent is understood and appreciated.

Why not instead submit to the suggestions process and ask that [further]
money be allocated to research and development of an actual market mechanism
and associated transfer policy as a "regular activity of ARIN staff"?


[ clip ]




>
> Compared to other "transfer proposals", this proposal has the following
> benefits:


>
>  - Maintains that IP addresses are not property.
>  - Maintains the concept that unused addresses should be returned to
>   the free pool.
>  - Maintains need based addressing.
>  - Removes the need for those with excess resources to find those
>   without resources.  There is no need for any sort of listing
>   service, eBay, etc.
>  - All transactions are two party transactions with ARIN as one of
>   the parties.  The potential for multi-party legal disputes is
>   reduced.
>  - ARIN can absorb spikes in supply or demand, creating more level
>   prices over time.
>  - ARIN can provide transparency across all transactions in this
>   system.
>  - Reduces confusion to new entrants over where they should go to
>   receive address space.
>
>
No offense intended folks, but these benefits seem more like tchochkes than
benefits, IMHO.

Best,

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090410/2d0666da/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri Apr 10 17:53:37 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:53:37 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Polling on draft policies
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935CC@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605D1743D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>	<1090406203040.7109F-100000@Ives.egh.com>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A935CC@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <49DFBFE1.6060803@gmail.com>

The ARIN Advisory Council discussed the topic of polling at our meeting 
on Wednesday.  While we didn't make a motion or resolution on the 
subject, it looks like we're mostly leaning toward polling the 
subscribers PPML on draft policy 2009-1 after the San Antonio public 
policy meeting, if we still think it is appropriate after the meeting. 
This would allow everyone to express a well-informed opinion after they have
watched/heard/read the deliberative discussion there.  It will also 
allow us to coordinate the questions asked in the poll with those asked
at the meeting.

In addition, the AC we will also be discussing, in an AC workshop at San 
Antonio, the more general question of how to do regular recurring
polling of PPML subscribers, so that we can put something in place for 
the next policy cycle.

It is also worth noting that everyone on the PPML is invited to 
participate, in person or remotely, in the San Antonio public policy
meeting.  If you can't make it in person, the entire meeting is webcast, 
and remote participants can now participate in real time, asking
questions, making comments, and voting on the questions put before the 
community at the meeting.  ARIN has already sent out a note about how to 
register as a remote participant, and I would encourage everyone to take 
advantage of that opportunity.

-Scott
Member of the ARIN Advisory Council, speaking for myself

Scott Beuker wrote:
> g) You don't support a policy that would allow for the transfer of
>    space which was only acquired less than <n> years ago
>
> Here's an alternative to all this... ask if the voter supports a
> given policy proposal as written, and if they answer anything other
> than yes (no, haven't decided, I don't care), allow them to
> express their reason in 250 characters or less.
>
> When the results are disseminated, make the various comments
> available for those who wish to read them.
>
> With complicated and controversial policy proposals like we're
> seeing lately, you're never going to be able to nail down all the
> reasons people might not support them.
>
> - Scott
>
>   
>>> 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
>>> 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
>>> 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
>>> 	a) You don't support the emergency action
>>> 	b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
>>> 	c) Both (a) and (b)
>>>       
>> 	d) You don't support the re-definition of "organization"
>> 	e) You don't support the extention of the policy to IPv6
>> 	f) You don't support the extention of the policy to other ARIN
>> 		number resources.  (I can't remember what the magic
>> 		network number is called, and the ARIN web site is dead
>> 		in the water.  What a waste of time!  #$(*#$*((!)
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 bicknell at ufp.org  Fri Apr 10 18:33:33 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:33:33 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:08:06PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>    This may be ineffective. Considering that transfers with cash benefit
>    are occurring now, it may be worthwhile to consider making policies
>    like this one "emergency".

All of the offered transfer policies (2008-2, 2008-6, 2009-1, 2009-4)
require the "buyer" to qualify for the space under current ARIN
rules.  That is, they must go through the exact same process they
go through to get space from ARIN (for normal ARIN fees) in order
to be able to transfer space.

>    Are we not simply acknowledging the gray market with this policy and
>    attempting to compete? I think that if ARIN offered a price lower than
>    the current $250K per /16 for example (~$4 per /32),  they would not

Are the folks currently paying $250k per /16 able to qualify under
existing ARIN policies?  If so, why are they paying $250k for
something they can get from ARIN for $4500.

More importantly, if they can't qualify, none of the proposals help.
None of the proposals will make any difference positively or
negatively on a "black" or even "grey" market.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090410/f0fba720/attachment.sig>

From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Fri Apr 10 22:48:19 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:48:19 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>

During the last meeting there was a suggestion for improved transfer
statistics and logging of transfers publicly. I haven't followed up on
it. If it happened, we could probably reverse engineer the question of
'qualification and the gray market' looking at that data. My feeling
is that its not ARIN region policy currently fueling the transfers,
its other regions policies.

Do you disagree that a buy back is likely to cause a fee increase?
Hard to second guess without the staff summary and an actual cost, but
I think its a reasonable assumption.


Best,

Marty

On 4/10/09, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:08:06PM -0400, Martin
> Hannigan wrote:
>>    This may be ineffective. Considering that transfers with cash benefit
>>    are occurring now, it may be worthwhile to consider making policies
>>    like this one "emergency".
>
> All of the offered transfer policies (2008-2, 2008-6, 2009-1, 2009-4)
> require the "buyer" to qualify for the space under current ARIN
> rules.  That is, they must go through the exact same process they
> go through to get space from ARIN (for normal ARIN fees) in order
> to be able to transfer space.
>
>>    Are we not simply acknowledging the gray market with this policy and
>>    attempting to compete? I think that if ARIN offered a price lower than
>>    the current $250K per /16 for example (~$4 per /32),  they would not
>
> Are the folks currently paying $250k per /16 able to qualify under
> existing ARIN policies?  If so, why are they paying $250k for
> something they can get from ARIN for $4500.
>
> More importantly, if they can't qualify, none of the proposals help.
> None of the proposals will make any difference positively or
> negatively on a "black" or even "grey" market.
>
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>


From bicknell at ufp.org  Fri Apr 10 23:28:00 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:28:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:48:19PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Do you disagree that a buy back is likely to cause a fee increase?
> Hard to second guess without the staff summary and an actual cost, but
> I think its a reasonable assumption.

I'll be the first to admit this proposal is hard to understand in
writing, but the simple answer is no.

This proposal causes those getting new IPv4 resources to fully cover
ARIN's cost for the "buy back", as you put it.  ARIN fees, as in
the yearly renewal costs would not need to change to cover these
costs, and as such there should be no fee increase from this activity.

Under this proposal, if ARIN pays $5 to recover a /16, and then has
an approved buyer for a /16, they pay $5 + ARIN's cost to recover
(e.g.  staff time, and other overhead of the transaction), let's
call it $6.  They also pay ARIN's normal yearly fees, in the fee
schedule, now and going forward.

One of the things the community was clear about in earlier discussions
was that those who had planned ahead should not have to pay for
those who did not plan, and this proposal took that into consideration.

The complexity in this policy all comes from the fact that you have
to cover a number of corner cases, like ARIN gets a /16, but only
has two /17 qualified buyers, or ARIN gets 4 contiguous /24's and
only has a /22 qualified buyer.  Indeed, both are the interesting
things to having ARIN "in the middle" as some folks have put it.
I think there is no chance of a random buyer finding 4 contiguous
/24's on the open market and turning them into a /22.  With ARIN
in the middle though I think there is a decent probability of some
of that occurring.

Lastly, a comment on the black market.  While I agree it is important
to track the black market, and take appropriate measures to reduce
the size of the black market, I feel strongly that policy should
be made for those who want a white market.  We should design whatever
we do for those who are going to obey the rules, not out of fear
that some will break them.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090410/2f4a1ec5/attachment.sig>

From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Sat Apr 11 13:57:07 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:57:07 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:48:19PM -0400, Martin
> Hannigan wrote:
> > Do you disagree that a buy back is likely to cause a fee increase?
> > Hard to second guess without the staff summary and an actual cost, but
> > I think its a reasonable assumption.
>
> I'll be the first to admit this proposal is hard to understand in
> writing, but the simple answer is no.
>
> This proposal causes those getting new IPv4 resources to fully cover
> ARIN's cost for the "buy back", as you put it.  ARIN fees, as in
> the yearly renewal costs would not need to change to cover these
> costs, and as such there should be no fee increase from this activity.


My thought was more along the lines of why would "sellers" agree to an ARIN
sponsored program when they can instead contact their nearest domain name
broker and start negotiating at higher rates? For this to succeed, ARIN
would be forced to recover at those market rates, gray, black, or green, and
passing those costs on will be _more_ expensive due to program costs and
cost of capital even if reimbursed. If there are no "sellers", there is no
ARIN recovery program in the context of the policy, FWIW.

[ clip ]


>
> The complexity in this policy all comes from the fact that you have
> to cover a number of corner cases, like ARIN gets a /16, but only
> has two /17 qualified buyers, or ARIN gets 4 contiguous /24's and
> only has a /22 qualified buyer.  Indeed, both are the interesting
> things to having ARIN "in the middle" as some folks have put it.
> I think there is no chance of a random buyer finding 4 contiguous
> /24's on the open market and turning them into a /22.  With ARIN
> in the middle though I think there is a decent probability of some
> of that occurring.


I agree that this is beneficial. But this akin to making ARIN a market
maker. This means that we are in agreement that there is a market(and I'm
not trying to twist your words).

[ clip ]


Best,

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090411/8c5262b7/attachment.htm>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Sat Apr 11 14:53:55 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:53:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:57:07PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>    My thought was more along the lines of why would "sellers" agree to an
>    ARIN sponsored program when they can instead contact their nearest
>    domain name broker and start negotiating at higher rates? For this to
>    succeed, ARIN would be forced to recover at those market rates, gray,
>    black, or green, and passing those costs on will be _more_ expensive
>    due to program costs and cost of capital even if reimbursed. If there
>    are no "sellers", there is no ARIN recovery program in the context of
>    the policy, FWIW.

ARIN would be paying market rates if and only if those who still
need IP space are willing to pay market rates.

I hesitate to call ARIN a "pass-through" in this scheme, but from
a financial perspective that is what is going on.  Those who need
IP space figure out how much they are willing to pay (via a bid to
ARIN), ARIN goes off and recovers the space at market rate not to
exceed the bids.

From that perspective there is no advantage, prompting some folks
to ask "why put a monkey in the middle".  There are several advantages
to having ARIN in the middle:

  - Fraud is harder.  You and I, and probably everyone on the ARIN PPML
    list and at the ARIN meeting know a thing or two about addressing.
    We're not going to be taking in by someone selling 10/8, or doing
    any number of other bad things.  However, there are a lot of folks
    who get space from ARIN who don't do it every day.  We know there
    are companies that get space once, and never come back.  These folks
    don't have experience.

    ARIN would never pay to get 10/8 back.  How many folks for which
    addressing is not their day to day job will fall for the sales
    pitch that since IP addresses are short 10/8 is now in use, and
    they can buy a chunk of it?

    These folks are going to show up at an ISP's door and demand their
    space be routed, after all they just paid 10's of thousands of
    dollars for it.  They will demand ARIN recognize the transfer.
    We'll all have to deal with the mess that's made.

  - Bad transactions affect only one party.  If you and I agree to
    transfer space, perhaps sign a letter of intent, and agree to
    show up on the same street corner where the neighborhood notary
    has agreed to be our witness and I forgot my checkbook what do
    you do?  I suspect you wait for me to run home and get.  Or,
    what if you show up and say you need 1 more week to be out of
    the space?  I suspect I wait, not wanting to try and find another
    block, agree on a price, etc.

    If ARIN is in the middle and one of us messes up that party and
    ARIN will wait on each other.  ARIN can either give the space to
    another bidder that didn't forget their checkbook, or can recover
    space from someone else who got out on time to keep the other
    transaction moving.

  - The market becomes transparent, which should lower costs.  When
    folks don't know the going rate for something they can be convinced to
    overpay.  In 2008-2, 2008-6, and 2009-1 prices can be kept secret.
    Transactions are allowed to be private.  Folks won't have good
    information, particularly early on, to know if they are paying a fair
    price or not.

    With everything running through ARIN all pricing information is
    made available.

  - Deaggregation is controlled by ARIN.

  - Aggregation is possible.

>    I agree that this is beneficial. But this akin to making ARIN a market
>    maker. This means that we are in agreement that there is a market(and
>    I'm not trying to twist your words).

There is a black market today, I agree.  I don't think any of these
policy proposals will change the size or scope of the black market.

If 2008-6, 2009-1, or this policy is implemented there /will be/ a
white market.

I feel the choice this policy offers is between an unregulated
market (2008-6, 2009-1) and a central market.  In the other policies
ARIN pushes the financial transaction outside of ARIN; this is good
for ARIN's liability but leaves that aspect of the transaction with
no regulation, no rules, no standards, and limited laws (basic
contract stuff).  ARIN has no regulatory powers, so we can't create
a regulated market in the classic sense (e.g. create the IP version
of the SEC).  Thus the only alternative is what is offered in this
policy, a centralized market with ARIN in the middle.  ARIN is now
a party to all the contracts and can enforce rules via contract
with both parties.  It's not regulation, but it is as close as we
can come.

And thus, we have the core question this policy asks.  Is it better
to have ARIN take on some additional risk to (in my opinion) greatly
reduce the risk to those who are going to trade IPv4 number resources
(ISP's and their customers); or is it better to get the absolute
lowest risk to ARIN by leaving the ISP and their customers to fend
for themselves?

I'm not going to try and paint a rosy picture.  I think either way
we are in for a mess over the next 3-5 years.  However, the reason
I offered this policy up is that I believe ARIN is well positioned
to take on that small amount of extra risk, and that in doing so
will dramatically reduce the risk to the rest of the entire industry.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090411/37cbf7bb/attachment.sig>

From mpetach at netflight.com  Sat Apr 11 16:30:55 2009
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:30:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <63ac96a50904111330s5679938el1afe21c7b131432d@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/09, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:57:07PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>  >    My thought was more along the lines of why would "sellers" agree to an
>  >    ARIN sponsored program when they can instead contact their nearest
>  >    domain name broker and start negotiating at higher rates? For this to
>  >    succeed, ARIN would be forced to recover at those market rates, gray,
>  >    black, or green, and passing those costs on will be _more_ expensive
>  >    due to program costs and cost of capital even if reimbursed. If there
>  >    are no "sellers", there is no ARIN recovery program in the context of
>  >    the policy, FWIW.
>
> ARIN would be paying market rates if and only if those who still
>  need IP space are willing to pay market rates.
>
>  I hesitate to call ARIN a "pass-through" in this scheme, but from
>  a financial perspective that is what is going on.  Those who need
>  IP space figure out how much they are willing to pay (via a bid to
>  ARIN), ARIN goes off and recovers the space at market rate not to
>  exceed the bids.

In that case, can we consider calling this an 'escrow' function
rather than a 'recovery fund'?

I don't like the idea of sending a check for $250,000 to ARIN for
them to put in their "recovery fund'" in the hopes they find a
seller.

However, if I indicate an interest in purchasing a block of size X
at a cost not to exceed $250,000, and ARIN finds an entitty
willing to free up the space at or below that cost, I have considerably
fewer qualms about having ARIN act as the escrow agent for the
funds while the transaction is proceeding.

Can the proposal be edited to more accurately reflect the
function being provided as that of an escrow service, rather
than a recovery fund?

Thanks!

Matt


From bicknell at ufp.org  Sat Apr 11 17:17:24 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:17:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <63ac96a50904111330s5679938el1afe21c7b131432d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<63ac96a50904111330s5679938el1afe21c7b131432d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090411211723.GA99567@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:30:55PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> In that case, can we consider calling this an 'escrow' function
> rather than a 'recovery fund'?
> 
> I don't like the idea of sending a check for $250,000 to ARIN for
> them to put in their "recovery fund'" in the hopes they find a
> seller.

That's not quite how it works.

If you need space, you would:

1) Go through the exact same approval process as today, but rather than
   receive space you would receive a bid form.

2) Place a bid ($250,000 in your example).

At this point ARIN would go off and find space, if possible.  Let's
say they do find space, and for only $50,000.

3) ARIN asks you for the $50,000.  When the check clears, you get the
   space.

Your money is not tied up at ARIN.  We could structure the proposal the
other way around, that is you pre-deposit the $250,000 and you get back
the space plus whatever is left over.  I haven't really thought about
the pros and cons of that situation.

This is also a key point of concern from a legal/staff/Board
perspective.  Note in the example above ARIN pays the $50,000 to
the returner before they collect the $50,000 from you.  One of the
prime worries is what if you don't pay, is ARIN out the $50,000.
However, I think this is unlikely for two reasons; one is you have
a prequalified bidder who has done a significant amount of work to
get to the point where they would pull out, so that doesn't seem
likely; and would be prohibited by contract.  Also, even if you
didn't end up taking the space, there is likely to be a long line
of other people who want it.  I firmly suspect demand will be much
higher than supply.

> However, if I indicate an interest in purchasing a block of size X 
> at a cost not to exceed $250,000, and ARIN finds an entitty 
> willing to free up the space at or below that cost, I have considerably
> fewer qualms about having ARIN act as the escrow agent for the 
> funds while the transaction is proceeding.

Escrow, to me, requires a 1:1 match.  You need a /16, ARIN finds
someone with a /16, the two of you are matched.  ARIN becomes the
neutral party in the middle.  While that is possible, it precludes
all sorts of more interesting transactions, and also means the two
parties end up sharing fate, something the proposal was seeking to
avoid.

For instance, if ARIN convinces someone to give back a /8, but no
one is willing to pay the extremely high price required to get the
whole thing then it may need to be broken up into say, 16 /12's.
Having to get 17 folks into a classic escrow all at the same time
seems difficult.

That said, there's no reason this couldn't be done in some sort of
escrow fashion.  It would probably be slightly more complicated than
what is done with say, a house transaction, but it is possible.

> Can the proposal be edited to more accurately reflect the 
> function being provided as that of an escrow service, rather 
> than a recovery fund?

I think the AC would be quite open to editing the proposal if it
was a way to gain community support.  I did select the initial
title, which has stuck with the proposal, but after the first
comments back I realized it was a poor choice.  "Recovery Fund"
does not convey the correct sentiment of how this works.

At several meetings folks kept saying the same thing, "I wish there
was some alternative to a transfer policy" (referring primarily to
2008-2 the time).  I wanted to be sure we had an alternative concept to
consider, and thus I authored the original version of this proposal.
That said, we're running out of time.  IPv4 exhaustion will be here
soon, and whatever proposal we do ARIN must prepare.  The AC and the
Board need to know what the community wants.  If it's not exactly what
has been described in any of the proposals then please, describe it to
us.  We can turn it into policy.

--
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090411/199d077a/attachment.sig>

From mpetach at netflight.com  Sat Apr 11 19:01:23 2009
From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:01:23 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090411211723.GA99567@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<63ac96a50904111330s5679938el1afe21c7b131432d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411211723.GA99567@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <63ac96a50904111601i1d8fc293id861fe8f60510a9e@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/11/09, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:30:55PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
>  > In that case, can we consider calling this an 'escrow' function
>  > rather than a 'recovery fund'?
>  >
>  > I don't like the idea of sending a check for $250,000 to ARIN for
>  > them to put in their "recovery fund'" in the hopes they find a
>  > seller.
>
> That's not quite how it works.

(very good clarification of how Leo expects it to work deleted for brevity)

> Escrow, to me, requires a 1:1 match.  You need a /16, ARIN finds
>  someone with a /16, the two of you are matched.  ARIN becomes the
>  neutral party in the middle.  While that is possible, it precludes
>  all sorts of more interesting transactions, and also means the two
>  parties end up sharing fate, something the proposal was seeking to
>  avoid.
>
>  For instance, if ARIN convinces someone to give back a /8, but no
>  one is willing to pay the extremely high price required to get the
>  whole thing then it may need to be broken up into say, 16 /12's.
>  Having to get 17 folks into a classic escrow all at the same time
>  seems difficult.

On the flip side, if someone has a /8 to return, but will only return it
for the (stated by someone else in the thread) going rate of $4/32;
that is, they'll return it, but only for the sum of $67,108,884. would
you propose that ARIN front the $67M, obtain the space, in the hopes
that sufficient buyers are willing to meet the demand?  (Would ARIN
even have enough money to do that?)  Or, on the flip side, should
ARIN collect enough bids until the full asking price is met before
proceeding, which could take months or years?

It would seem like we'd want ARIN out of the funds-collecting-and-issuing
process as much as possible, to minimize liability, and prevent ARIN
from being the bottleneck in the proceedings.  I can see your point
about the flexibility that having it be a "fund" entails over pure escrow,
but I can also see the very big downsides, in that as the price goes
up, ARIN may have to start "borrowing" more and more to obtain the
blocks before recouping the outlay from the various bidders--and that
presupposes that the recovered blocks fold neatly into the reallocated
blocks.  If I have 64 non-contiguous /24's to return, and am asking
$1,000 each for them, but all ARIN has in the bid pipeline is 8 bids
for /22's at $4,000 each, should ARIN
a) spend $64,000, purchase the /24's and hold them in case future
    /24 requests come in, but reject the bids due to lack of /22s
    (leaves ARIN $64,000 poorer)
b) spend no money; reject the offer of space, and reject the bids
    due to lack of /22s
    (no net loss or gain in the fund)
c) accept the bids as an open-ended offer, and keep them on the
    books, potentially for months, until /22 blocks become available,
    adding them either 1) sequentially into the wait queue for /22's, or
    2) adding them by bid amount into the wait queue for /22s

I *suspect you'd recommend case c-1, but both c-1 and c-2 come with
some challenges; if you go strictly in request order, if the first request
in the queue is stupidly low, you'll end up with head-of-line blocking;
a person bidding $1 for a /22 will hold up a queue of people bidding
$4000 per /22.  If you go with option c-2, then you need a way to
provide feedback to bidders, and provide a dynamic portal for them
to adjust their bids appropriately, so that as the asking price goes
up, they can raise their bids to match, re-ordering the hold queue
each time based on the newly submitted bids.  This is actually a
non-trivial situation to handle, as eBay, Yahoo, Google, and others
will be happy to point out.  It also puts us right back into the "big
guys with money get all the space" scenario that people are so
fond of whining about here.  (disclaimer--I work for a big company
with money.)

> I think the AC would be quite open to editing the proposal if it
>  was a way to gain community support.  I did select the initial
>  title, which has stuck with the proposal, but after the first
>  comments back I realized it was a poor choice.  "Recovery Fund"
>  does not convey the correct sentiment of how this works.
>
>  At several meetings folks kept saying the same thing, "I wish there
>  was some alternative to a transfer policy" (referring primarily to
>  2008-2 the time).  I wanted to be sure we had an alternative concept to
>  consider, and thus I authored the original version of this proposal.
>  That said, we're running out of time.  IPv4 exhaustion will be here
>  soon, and whatever proposal we do ARIN must prepare.  The AC and the
>  Board need to know what the community wants.  If it's not exactly what
>  has been described in any of the proposals then please, describe it to
>  us.  We can turn it into policy.

I think I'm stuck in the same boat as you; I don't like the name "recovery
fund", but as you've clearly pointed out, a pure escrow model doesn't
quite fit either, because there's non-1:1 pairings that are possible that
don't really map to the real estate model ("yes, I'd like to buy half that
house, please...").

With that said, if we can work out the challenges with scenario "c" I
outlined above, and come up with a better name for the proposal rather
than a "recovery fund", I think I'd be able to support this.  Very good work,
Leo--thanks!

Matt


From bicknell at ufp.org  Sat Apr 11 21:50:10 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:50:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <63ac96a50904111601i1d8fc293id861fe8f60510a9e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
	<4607e1d50904101408g24c22431o9d8e282031c8c29b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090410223333.GB98978@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904101948w4278caecu2563d1bb4a7c4409@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411032800.GB13991@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<4607e1d50904111057vcf1705cs3222c79fbefac06e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<63ac96a50904111330s5679938el1afe21c7b131432d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090411211723.GA99567@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<63ac96a50904111601i1d8fc293id861fe8f60510a9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090412015010.GA10494@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 04:01:23PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> blocks.  If I have 64 non-contiguous /24's to return, and am asking
> $1,000 each for them, but all ARIN has in the bid pipeline is 8 bids
> for /22's at $4,000 each, should ARIN
> a) spend $64,000, purchase the /24's and hold them in case future
>     /24 requests come in, but reject the bids due to lack of /22s
>     (leaves ARIN $64,000 poorer)
> b) spend no money; reject the offer of space, and reject the bids
>     due to lack of /22s
>     (no net loss or gain in the fund)
> c) accept the bids as an open-ended offer, and keep them on the
>     books, potentially for months, until /22 blocks become available,
>     adding them either 1) sequentially into the wait queue for /22's, or
>     2) adding them by bid amount into the wait queue for /22s

As written right now the policy requires c, but specifies the bids
are good for 60 days at a time unless renewed by the bidder.

Regarding C1 and C2, well, it's complicated.  We like a first-come
first-served model, that's the way it has always been, and it seems
fair.  However, let's look at the following bids, in timesequence order,
for a /22:

   $500, $600, $400, $800, $250, $900.

ARIN finds two folks with /22's willing to return them, but only at a
price of $750.  It seems like the correct answer is to give them to the
$800 and $1000 bidders, and then re-sort the queue to be:

   $500, $600, $400, $250

The policy attempts to specify this, however having thought about this
for a really long time, when you add in deaggregating and aggregating
space the algorythm becomes really, really complicated.  If you go back
in the PPML archives you'll find a bunch of folks proposing algorythms
in the original discussion on this.  None of them are fool-proof.

In this draft I've laid out general guidelines and left the rest
to staff as an operational matter.  This isn't taking the easy way
out, on the contrary I think the rules will have to have minor
adjustments over time as the policy is actually implemented.  The
weird corner cases will come up, and a call will have to be made.

Now, back to your example.  You've picked a particularly hard case.
The only way ARIN can allocate a /24 is via the micro-allocation
policy, and while I don't know the exact rate of applications I
suspect it is extremely low.

However, let me point out something this policy allows.  Let's say
you hold 10.0.0.0/24, 10.0.1.0/24, and 10.0.2.0/24 and are willing
to sell all three.  I hold 10.0.3.0/24, and I am actively using it
and unwilling to sell the space.

ARIN has the ability, via the current contract to take back numbers
and issue new ones.  I don't know if they have ever done it or not,
but they can.  I'm not suggesting they just do that, as it would
be rude and likely not what the community wants.  But let's try
this...

ARIN has a bid for $6k for a /22.  ARIN offers you the $1000 asking
price for the three blocks you hold, and offers me $500 to return
my block at which time ARIN will replace it with a different block
(say 10.0.4.0/24, which happens to have never been allocated for
some reason).  In essense they replace my block, but pay me for the
trouble of renumbering.

ARIN now has 10.0.0.0/22, at a cost of $3500.  They add say $500
for the staff time to figure this out, make the phone calls and all
that and sell it to the bidder for $4k.

In essense the money can also be used to pay someone to move to
"defragment" the address space.  I suspec the payment to move will
be significantly less than the payment to just return space; but
none the less it recognizes that renumbering into a new block so
someone can have that /22 costs time and money, and compensates for
it.

For a /1 to a /22 I suspect ARIN will have orders of magnitude more
bidders than they do address space, at least after a short period
of time.  As the address space gets more efficiently used there
will simply be less and less folks willing to part with it.  Thus for
those sizes I would think ARIN would always have a deep pile of bids.
The issue comes in with /23-/24, which today can only be given out via
micro-allocation policy.  I think the community needs to consider this
sub-issue carefully no matter what policy is adopted, there are plenty
of "swamp space" /24's out there that may appear in the market in one
form or another.

> will be happy to point out.  It also puts us right back into the "big
> guys with money get all the space" scenario that people are so
> fond of whining about here.  (disclaimer--I work for a big company
> with money.)

In all of the schemes I have seen proposed the guy with the money
gets the space.  Frankly, I don't see a away around that.  However,
some of the proposals attempt to make an interesting restriction
on the big guy, including this one.

If you come to ARIN and get qualified for a /12, then in this policy
you get to bid on a /12, period.  ARIN can't fill your order with
a /11, /10, and two /9's.  You must wait for a /12 to come up, or
something larger ARIN doesn't have bids for so they are willing to
subdivide.  One of the worries is someone comes along and justifies
a /8 (say, a cell provider) and hoovers up all of the little chucks
of space all over.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090411/27e607ec/attachment.sig>

From leo.vegoda at icann.org  Sat Apr 11 23:00:00 2009
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:00:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
 Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>

On 11/04/2009 11:53, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

[...]

> From that perspective there is no advantage, prompting some folks
> to ask "why put a monkey in the middle".  There are several advantages
> to having ARIN in the middle:

[...]

>     ARIN would never pay to get 10/8 back.  How many folks for which
>     addressing is not their day to day job will fall for the sales
>     pitch that since IP addresses are short 10/8 is now in use, and
>     they can buy a chunk of it?

While there are doubtless a few people in the world that believe they don't
need to go in to work on Monday because they have probably won a competition
they never entered, they are few and far between. That's why the scammers
need to send so many e-mails.

I think very few people will be spending the kind of money you have
mentioned without doing some cursory due diligence work. And that will show
them them whether there has been an industry-wide agreed change in the
status of the RFC 1918 space.

>     These folks are going to show up at an ISP's door and demand their
>     space be routed, after all they just paid 10's of thousands of
>     dollars for it.  They will demand ARIN recognize the transfer.
>     We'll all have to deal with the mess that's made.

The 10/8 space they bought? I don't think so. I think they'll need to
explain to someone why they didn't do their due diligence work. That is all.

Regards,

Leo



From bicknell at ufp.org  Sun Apr 12 09:25:38 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:25:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
References: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <20090412132538.GA45310@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 08:00:00PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> >     ARIN would never pay to get 10/8 back.  How many folks for which
> >     addressing is not their day to day job will fall for the sales
> >     pitch that since IP addresses are short 10/8 is now in use, and
> >     they can buy a chunk of it?
> 
> While there are doubtless a few people in the world that believe they don't
> need to go in to work on Monday because they have probably won a competition
> they never entered, they are few and far between. That's why the scammers
> need to send so many e-mails.
> 
> I think very few people will be spending the kind of money you have
> mentioned without doing some cursory due diligence work. And that will show
> them them whether there has been an industry-wide agreed change in the
> status of the RFC 1918 space.

I probably picked a too-obvious example with 10/8.  What about the
guy who worked for a small company, put in the ARIN request for his
company and was the contact, but was then fired.  He then puts the
companies block up on e-bay and represents that it is his, since
he is the contact.  He may even have an old bage to show someone
who asks.  I bet there's a good chance he can fool someone into
buying the block.

ARIN deals with these situations already.  I'm sure more than once
someone has tried to update a block with stale contact information
and it has looked suspicious to ARIN.  As such they have done
additional checks to figure out who the legitimate holder is and
verify the update.

I'll also note you've made an assumption with 'spending the kind
of money you have mentioned'.  You'll note in the examples I use I
always use values like $5, or $10.  Other folks, like the poster I
was replying to use $250,000 per /16.

I don't know where prices will end up, and more importantly they
/will/ change over time.  I don't think it is any more of a wacky
prediction to think some /22's will go for $5000 than it is to think
a /16 will go for $250,000.  There are plenty of companies where
if the $5000 purchase was holding up the roll out of the new product
expected to generate $500 million in reveneue would that would make
the purchase with a very small amount of due dilligence.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090412/9e23564f/attachment.sig>

From bicknell at ufp.org  Sun Apr 12 09:39:21 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:39:21 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
References: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <20090412133920.GA47074@ussenterprise.ufp.org>


Apologies for replying to my own post, but after I realized there
was a far better scenario to consider.

What about the legitimate holder of a block selling it to 5 different
people simultaneously?  They can each do their due dilligence and
see the seller is legitimately able to sell the block.

What if ARIN doesn't relize it and changes the registration to the
first one that shows up; and then detects the problem when the
second guy shows up?

If ARIN is the only entity that can recover blocks I think it is
unlikely someone will be able to sell them the same block more than
once.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090412/74dec335/attachment.sig>

From leo.vegoda at icann.org  Sun Apr 12 13:17:08 2009
From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:17:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
 Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090412132538.GA45310@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <C6077024.27A90%leo.vegoda@icann.org>

On 12/04/2009 6:25, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

[...]

> who asks.  I bet there's a good chance he can fool someone into
> buying the block.

Like a bridge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker

> ARIN deals with these situations already.  I'm sure more than once
> someone has tried to update a block with stale contact information
> and it has looked suspicious to ARIN.  As such they have done
> additional checks to figure out who the legitimate holder is and
> verify the update.

I am fairly sure that sort of thing isn't allowed in most places. Couldn't
we just let the law take its course?

> I'll also note you've made an assumption with 'spending the kind
> of money you have mentioned'.  You'll note in the examples I use I
> always use values like $5, or $10.  Other folks, like the poster I
> was replying to use $250,000 per /16.

I was thinking of your message,
<20090411211723.GA99567 at ussenterprise.ufp.org>, in which you suggest a price
of $50k for that /16.

> I don't know where prices will end up, and more importantly they
> /will/ change over time.  I don't think it is any more of a wacky
> prediction to think some /22's will go for $5000 than it is to think
> a /16 will go for $250,000.  There are plenty of companies where
> if the $5000 purchase was holding up the roll out of the new product
> expected to generate $500 million in reveneue would that would make
> the purchase with a very small amount of due dilligence.

Indeed. But I don't think the kind of consumer protection issue you raise
here is central to whether this proposal will work better than a simpler
proposal. While it might make fraud harder, I doubt a simpler proposal makes
it more likely or less illegal. Unless people aren't being careful about
what they buy and and how they pay for it we shouldn't need to worry. I am
not convinced that we can create an effective system to protect people from
themselves.

Regards,

Leo



From jaitken at aitken.com  Mon Apr 13 10:46:16 2009
From: jaitken at aitken.com (Jeff Aitken)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:46:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090412133920.GA47074@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<20090412133920.GA47074@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <20090413144616.GA80055@eagle.aitken.com>

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 09:39:21AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> If ARIN is the only entity that can recover blocks I think it is
> unlikely someone will be able to sell them the same block more than
> once.

Sure, that particular type of fraud becomes harder.  The tricky part is
predicting what kind of fraud will become possible/easier.  If we've
learned anything from email, the DNS, or various malware issues over the
years its that the Bad Guys will find holes in pretty much any scheme if
there's sufficient profit in it.  One good way to minimize the impact is
to keep the system as simple as possible.  The longer and more complex the
policy, the more potential loopholes and grey areas that it contains.

This is why I supported 2008-6.  It is simple and unambiguous.   Most of
the arguments that you've made in support of 2009-4 also apply to 2008-6
and the latter has the advantage that it's exactly two sentences long.  
Unless you're a constitutional scholar, it's pretty hard to read too much
into those two sentences.

You asked:

> Is it better to have ARIN take on some additional risk to (in my opinion)
> greatly reduce the risk to those who are going to trade IPv4 number
> resources (ISP's and their customers); or is it better to get the absolute
> lowest risk to ARIN by leaving the ISP and their customers to fend for
> themselves?

Ignoring the obvious bias in the way the question was phrased, my vote is
to keep ARIN out of the middle of transfers.  In my opinion, ARIN's goal
should be to make the database as accurate as possible, and very little
else; take the time and money that would be spent playing matchmaker and
use it to validate POC data or promote v6 instead.


--Jeff



From randy at psg.com  Mon Apr 13 11:10:14 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:10:14 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4
	Recovery	Fund
In-Reply-To: <20090413144616.GA80055@eagle.aitken.com>
References: <20090411185355.GA91487@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<C606A740.27A73%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<20090412133920.GA47074@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<20090413144616.GA80055@eagle.aitken.com>
Message-ID: <m263h8y4h5.wl%randy@psg.com>

i have been keeping out of this unbelievable poolpah.  but you've been a
sane on eover the years and your simple message just caught me.

> This is why I supported 2008-6.  It is simple and unambiguous.   Most of
> the arguments that you've made in support of 2009-4 also apply to 2008-6
> and the latter has the advantage that it's exactly two sentences long.  

even if i disagreed with a policy, that the arin culture could produce a
policy that was only two sentences would warrant a standing ovation.

in this case, one can actually read and understand it.  undoubtedly the
folk in the black helicopters can find holes, nothing is without holes [0].

> my vote is to keep ARIN out of the middle of transfers.  In my
> opinion, ARIN's goal should be to make the database as accurate as
> possible, and very little else; take the time and money that would be
> spent playing matchmaker and use it to validate POC data or promote v6
> instead.

eminently sensible.

randy

-- 

[0] - a week or so ago, on the apnic policy mailing list, andy linton
      said, in
      <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2009/04/msg00001.html>
      "I'd still like to see us proceed with what we've already got
      consensus on and trust the hostmasters at APNIC to "do the right
      thing"."

      and he refers to <http://www.nkarten.com/sla.html#avoidjic> which
      is good advice for dealing with black helicopters.


From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 14:35:56 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:35:56 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>
Message-ID: <32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>


We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5

We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the
dollar amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing
them would compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive
internal company data of "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 10:33 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 
> Recovery Fund
> 
> Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund has been revised. 
> This proposal is open for discussion on this mailing list and 
> will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.
> 
> The current policy proposal text is provided below and is 
> also available
> at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_4.html
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 2009 -4: IPv4 Recovery Fund
> 
> Date: 9 April 2009
> 
> Proposal type: New
> 
> Policy term:  Permanent
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> (Create new section in section 4, represented by "4.X".)
> 
> 4.X IPv4 Recovery Fund
> 
> 4.X.1 Implementation Timing
> 
>       ARIN shall begin offering financial incentives for the return
>       of IPv4 number resources as specified in section 4.X when
>       IANA announces that the last full /8's in the IANA free pool
>       have been allocated to RIR(s).
> 
>   4.X.2 Recovery of IPv4 Resources
> 
>       Organizations should voluntarily return unused and/or unneeded
>       number resources to ARIN based on ARIN's current utilization
>       guidelines.  ARIN will provide instructions on how to
>       voluntarily return number resources on the ARIN web site.
> 
>       After the conditions in section 4.x.1 are met, ARIN will
>       offer financial incentives for the return of IPv4 number
>       resources to ARIN and relinquishment of any future claims
>       to those resources.  ARIN will use the bids from section
>       4.X.3 to determine the value of returned resources.
> 
> 4.X.3 Allocation of Recovered IPv4 Resources
> 
>       After a requester has been approved for IPv4 number resources
>       via any policy in section 4 or section 11 of the NRPM, ARIN
>       will ask the requester to specify a binding bid of how much
>       they are willing to pay for reclamation of number resources
>       to satisfy their request.  The requester may make a higher
>       bid at any time, which is treated as a brand new bid replacing
>       their old bid.
> 
>        Requesters may choose to bid $0, in which case they would
>       only be eligible for number resources that were voluntarily
>       returned to ARIN.
> 
>        IPv4 number resources recovered by ARIN under section 4.X.2
>       will be offered to those who have been waiting the longest
>       with bids high enough to cover ARIN's cost to recover the
>       resource.  If ARIN offers IPv4 number resources at or below
>       the requesters bid the requester will be required to take
>       the space at the offered price.
> 
> 4.X.4 Management of Recovered IPv4 Resources
> 
>       ARIN may not fill a request with multiple smaller blocks.
>       ARIN must offer recovered number resources in the largest
>       possible contiguous blocks.  Recovered IPv4 number resources
>       should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
>       bidders for the larger sized blocks, and ARIN believes there
>       are unlikely to be bidders for the larger sized block in the
>       next 30 days.  When sub-diving the block ARIN shall divide it
>       into as few pieces as possible to satisfy existing bids.
> 
>       ARIN should take all practical steps to aggregate returned
>       address blocks.
> 
> 4.X.5 Transparency
> 
>        ARIN must post statistics updated as frequently as practical
>       but not less than monthly on the ARIN web site regarding all
>       activity taking place under section 4.X.  ARIN must report
>       the following items at a minimum, and is encouraged to report
>       as much additional data as is practical and useful:
> 
>         - The amount of number resources recovered under 4.X.3.
>         - The amount of number resources allocated under 4.X.4.
>         - The min, max, median, and average prices for number 
> resources
>           recovered under 4.x.3.
>         - The min, max, median, and average prices for number 
> resources
>           allocated under 4.x.4.
>         - The min, max, median, and average prices for all 
> bids received
>           under 4.x.4, as well as the number of outstanding bids not
>           yet satisfied.
>         - How many address blocks were de-aggregated, and the 
> resulting number
>           of blocks.
>         - How many address blocks were aggregated, and the 
> resulting number
>           of blocks.
> 
> 4.X.6 Cost Recovery
> 
>       ARIN shall use the payments made in 4.X.4 to pay for any
>       work done under section 4.X as well as for any payments made
>       in section 4.X.3.  ARIN must base payment offers made under
>       4.X.3 on the binding bids made in section 4.X.4.
> 
>        The Board may set aside a portion of ARIN's general funds
>       to provide financial liquidity to the activities taking place
>       under section 4.X, provided there is a clear mechanism and
>       time frame to return those funds to the general fund.
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> Many have recognized that in order for unused or poorly used 
> IPv4 resources to be returned to the free pool that financial 
> compensation will be required.  This is particularly the case 
> in poorly used assets where the current holder may have to 
> expend time and money to renumber in order to free the blocks.
> 
> This proposal sets up a fund administered by ARIN to 
> encourage the return of space.  Effectively ARIN will offer 
> financial incentives to return unused or poorly used IPv4 
> number resources and place them back into the IPv4 free pool.
> 
> The intention is for this activity to be revenue neutral to 
> ARIN.  To achieve that goal those requesting IPv4 number 
> resources will be requested to bid on a one-time payment to 
> the recovery fund to cover the cost of the resources they 
> have received.
> 
> The proposal is intentionally vague on the exact 
> implementation details to staff because:
> 
>  - Transactions with those returning space and obtaining space may
>    occur in any order.
>  - The bidding process may need to evolve over time, and may not
>    be as simple as highest bidder wins.  It may include aspects such
>    as a dutch auction style format (all winners pay the lowest winning
>    price), or may include other factors such as which size blocks
>    ARIN has free in an effort to limit de-aggregation.
>  - ARIN will have to develop contracts and procedures around this
>    activity that are better suited for staff and legal than 
> the policy process.
> 
> Compared to other "transfer proposals", this proposal has the 
> following
> benefits:
> 
>  - Maintains that IP addresses are not property.
>  - Maintains the concept that unused addresses should be returned to
>    the free pool.
>  - Maintains need based addressing.
>  - Removes the need for those with excess resources to find those
>    without resources.  There is no need for any sort of listing
>    service, eBay, etc.
>  - All transactions are two party transactions with ARIN as one of
>    the parties.  The potential for multi-party legal disputes is
>    reduced.
>  - ARIN can absorb spikes in supply or demand, creating more level
>    prices over time.
>  - ARIN can provide transparency across all transactions in this
>    system.
>  - Reduces confusion to new entrants over where they should go to
>    receive address space.
> 
> Change Log:
> 
>   - Changed "monetary" to "financial" to allow for the possibility
>    of ARIN offering things other than direct payment (like fee
>    credits).  Credit: Robert Bonomi.
> 
>  - Updated numbering so there were not two 4.10.2's.  Also changed
>    to using a place holder for section.  Credit: Robert Bonomi
> 
>  - Changed the cost recovery language to be more clear and provide
>    some additional flexibility.
> 
>  - Clarified 4.10.2 about future claims.  Credit: Ted Mittelstaedt
> 
>  - Split 10.X.3 into 10.X.3 and 10.X.3 with better titles.
> 
>  - Left the exact algorithm to staff.  Removed examples as a result.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Staff should begin developing 
> procedures and updated templates immediately. Policy would 
> not go into effect until the criteria listed occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com  Mon Apr 13 14:22:54 2009
From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4
	Recovery
In-Reply-To: <20090413144616.GA80055@eagle.aitken.com>
Message-ID: <200904131822.n3DIMs8A028571@cjbsys.bdb.com>

> 
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 09:39:21AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > If ARIN is the only entity that can recover blocks I think it is
> > unlikely someone will be able to sell them the same block more than
> > once.
> 
> Sure, that particular type of fraud becomes harder.  The tricky part is
> predicting what kind of fraud will become possible/easier.  If we've
> learned anything from email, the DNS, or various malware issues over the
> years its that the Bad Guys will find holes in pretty much any scheme if
> there's sufficient profit in it.  One good way to minimize the impact is
> to keep the system as simple as possible.  The longer and more complex the
> policy, the more potential loopholes and grey areas that it contains.
> 
> This is why I supported 2008-6.  It is simple and unambiguous.   Most of
> the arguments that you've made in support of 2009-4 also apply to 2008-6
> and the latter has the advantage that it's exactly two sentences long.  
> Unless you're a constitutional scholar, it's pretty hard to read too much
> into those two sentences.
> 
> You asked:
> 
> > Is it better to have ARIN take on some additional risk to (in my opinion)
> > greatly reduce the risk to those who are going to trade IPv4 number
> > resources (ISP's and their customers); or is it better to get the absolute
> > lowest risk to ARIN by leaving the ISP and their customers to fend for
> > themselves?
> 
> Ignoring the obvious bias in the way the question was phrased, my vote is
> to keep ARIN out of the middle of transfers.  In my opinion, ARIN's goal
> should be to make the database as accurate as possible, and very little
> else; take the time and money that would be spent playing matchmaker and
> use it to validate POC data or promote v6 instead.

I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the automotive title
group in the state governmnent (at least like they do it in MD)  Party A wants
to sell a car, party B want to buy.  Party A signs over his title to Party B
and the state, upon deciding the party A title is valid, issues a new title to
party B and collects the appropriate sales tax (ARIN fees)  Let the free
market work within the confines of ARIN validating the legitimacy of the two
parties claims. (i.e. the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B
justified their need per standard ARIN policy)

Cliff
> 
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 


-- 
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 tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 14:46:08 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:46:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
	IPv4Recovery
In-Reply-To: <200904131822.n3DIMs8A028571@cjbsys.bdb.com>
References: <20090413144616.GA80055@eagle.aitken.com>
	<200904131822.n3DIMs8A028571@cjbsys.bdb.com>
Message-ID: <57971A56164F41D1A6B87E267E270E18@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Cliff
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:23 AM
> To: Jeff Aitken
> Cc: arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 
> 2009-4: IPv4Recovery
> 

> 
> I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the 
> automotive title group in the state governmnent (at least 
> like they do it in MD)  Party A wants to sell a car, party B 
> want to buy.  Party A signs over his title to Party B and the 
> state, upon deciding the party A title is valid, issues a new 
> title to party B and collects the appropriate sales tax (ARIN 
> fees)  Let the free market work within the confines of ARIN 
> validating the legitimacy of the two parties claims. (i.e. 
> the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B justified 
> their need per standard ARIN policy)
> 

The problem here is that the automotive title group in the state
government does NOT own the cars that it's titling.  Thus this is
a very flawed analogy.

A more accurate analogy is that ARIN is the owner of a large,
desirable (maybe the rents are cheap) apartment complex with many
apartments.  Apartment dwellers may want very much to "sell"
their apartments when they are moving out to new would-be apartment
dwellers who want to live there, and the would-be apartment
dwellers may be very willing to "buy" them.  But, the dwellers don't
own or have control over the apartments.

Ted



From info at arin.net  Mon Apr 13 15:42:49 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:42:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks -
 Accepted on AC's Docket
In-Reply-To: <49C1416C.9070203@arin.net>
References: <49C1416C.9070203@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49E395B9.3050105@arin.net>

Policy Proposal 84
IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

On 8 April 2009 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) reviewed the following
proposal and accepted it onto the AC's docket for development and
evaluation:

Policy Proposal 84: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

Proposal texts are available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


Member Services wrote:
> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the 
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy Development 
> Process.
>
> This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development Process. 
> ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does 
> not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal is to make sure that 
> they understand the proposal and believe the community will as well. 
> Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within 
> 10 days.
>
> The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled
> meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is
> less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent
> regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the
> proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the 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 Policy Development Process can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.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: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks
>
> Proposal Originator: David Divins
>
> Proposal Version: 1
>
> Date: 3/17/2009
>
> Proposal type: Add
>
> Policy term: Permanent
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Organizations with multiple discrete IPv6 networks desiring to request
> new or additional address space under a single Organization ID must meet
> the following criteria:
>
>       1. The organization shall be a single entity and not a consortium
> of smaller independent entities.
>
>       2. The organization must have compelling criteria for creating
> discrete networks. Examples of a discrete network might include:
>
>             1. Regulatory restrictions for data transmission,
>
>             2. Geographic distance and diversity between networks,
>
>             3. Autonomous multihomed discrete networks.
>
>       3. The organization must keep detailed records on how it has
> allocated space to each location, including the date of each allocation.
>
>       4. The organization should notify ARIN at the time of the request
> their desire to apply this policy to their account.
>
> Rationale:
>
> This proposed policy is suggested as NRPM 6.11.  The policy is intended
> to provide parity between current IPv4 policy and allow discrete network
> operators to obtain IPv6 space.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediately
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 info at arin.net  Mon Apr 13 15:44:30 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:44:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revision to Policy Proposal: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1
 on schedule - Abandoned
In-Reply-To: <49DB5C05.7090207@arin.net>
References: <49DB5C05.7090207@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49E3961E.4010308@arin.net>

Policy Proposal 85
Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule

On 8 April 2009 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) abandoned Policy Proposal
85: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule. The AC provided the following
explanation of their decision:

#####
This proposal was abandoned due to the fact that 2008-6 is officially
adopted and still has a valid ?sunset clause? in it. The issue with
whether or not to remove the ?sunset clause? from 2008-6 is being
reviewed under Draft Policy 2009-1. The AC felt that this proposal was
redundant.
#####

The AC abandoned the proposal. Per the ARIN Policy Development Process,
?Any member of the community, including a proposal originator, may
initiate a Discussion Petition if they are dissatisfied with the action
taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific policy proposal. If
successful, this petition will change the policy proposal to a draft
policy which will be published for discussion and review by the
community on the PPML and at an upcoming public policy meeting.? Note
that we have passed the deadline for petitions for the upcoming meeting
in San Antonio (as posted to PPML on 9 March 2009); a successful
petition at this time would be for the Fall ARIN meeting.

The deadline to begin a petition for this proposal is 20 April 2009.
Petitions must include the proposal and a petition statement. Once
begun, a petition lasts for 5 business days. Success is measured as
support from at least 10 different people from 10 different
organizations. Should an actual petition begin, ARIN staff will post
additional information.

The text for Draft Policies and Proposals is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Member Services wrote:
> Policy Proposal 85: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule
>
> The proposal originator submitted a revised version of the proposal.
>
> The AC will review this proposal at their next regularly scheduled 
> meeting and decide how to utilize the proposal. Their decision will be 
> announced to 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 Policy Development Process can be found at: 
> http://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.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: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule
> Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong
> Proposal Version: 2.0
> Date: 06-April-2009
>
> Proposal type: delete
> Policy term: permanent
>
> Policy statement:  The changes made to the NRPM by proposals 2008-6 and 
> 2009-1 are removed effective Dec. 31, 2012.
>
> Policy Rationale:  Part of the policy that the community developed 
> consensus for in 2008-6  included a sunset clause.  The ARIN Board in an 
> unprecedented action
> chose to discard this clause while approving the remainder of the 
> policy. This proposal is intended to restore the will of the community 
> and ensure
> that this policy remains temporary as intended.
>
> Timetable for implementation: December 31, 2012
>
> < END>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 farmer at umn.edu  Mon Apr 13 16:13:03 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:13:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>

On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5
> 
> We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the
> dollar amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing
> them would compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive
> internal company data of "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
> was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.
> 
> Ted

Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?   

I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent, 
that is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably 
not a good idea.  

But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I 
think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.

I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period 
like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the 
competitive range of successful biding is.

Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular 
transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I think 
the community overall wants/needs some assurance that the 
system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal 
transparency is probably the best way to allow the community 
to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.



================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From schnizlein at isoc.org  Mon Apr 13 16:36:24 2009
From: schnizlein at isoc.org (John Schnizlein)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:36:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <7F01618C-0471-4231-88BC-2CD1463E9C46@isoc.org>

If we are going to pursue this proposal very much further, we should  
get expert advice on the feasibility of operating (or outsourcing) a  
Market Maker constrained according to some specified features.   
Precluding naked shorts is probably a feature we all agree with.   
Should there also be a limit on the time that the Market Maker holds a  
prefix in its attempt to maximize aggregation and minimize  
deaggregation?  It seems to me that the ARIN community is just about  
an non-expert on market operation as Nasdaq experts are on network  
operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker

John

On 2009Apr13, at 4:13 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5
>>
>> We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the
>> dollar amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing
>> them would compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive
>> internal company data of "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
>> was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.
>>
>> Ted
>
> Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?
>
> I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent,
> that is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably
> not a good idea.
>
> But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I
> think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.
>
> I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period
> like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the
> competitive range of successful biding is.
>
> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular
> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I think
> the community overall wants/needs some assurance that the
> system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal
> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community
> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
>
>
>
> ================================================
> =======
> David Farmer				     Email:	
> farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> Networking & Telecomunication Services
> University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
> 0815
> 2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
> 612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
> 1818
> ================================================
> =======
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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  Mon Apr 13 16:45:08 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:45:08 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
 Fund
In-Reply-To: <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <49E3A454.1050104@sprunk.org>

David Farmer wrote:
> Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?   
>
> I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent, that is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably not a good idea.  
>
> But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.
>
> I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the competitive range of successful biding is.
>
> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I think the community overall wants/needs some assurance that the system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal transparency is probably the best way to allow the community to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
>   

I think that, regardless of the exact mechanism of transfers or bidding, 
ARIN should operate a voluntary listing service, as is done in the real 
estate industry.  Sure, you can buy and sell property outside that 
system if you have a good reason, but the vast majority of buyers and 
sellers (at least in arms-length transactions) choose to use the listing 
service because it will provide them the best price.  And, after a bit 
of data accumulates, we will _all_ have a much better idea of the fair 
market value of various size blocks, and there will be even less 
incentive to go outside the listing system.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090413/b2b02cbd/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr 13 16:55:54 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:55:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>

My apologies for top loading, but it seemed best in this instance.

In first look at 2009-4 I do not hate it, (which I know will shock many of
you).  To my mind there are a few requirements for any transfer proposal
that seem to be met by 2009-4.

1.  ARIN should do any brokering.
2.  Anonymity must be maintained, the receiver should not know which IP's
they are getting or being considered for ahead of time in order to preclude
side deals and a grey market. Endpoints must not be allowed to negotiate.

One issue I do have is that the proposal is heavily slanted toward the big
organizations with section 4.X.4 where it states "Recovered IPv4 number
resources should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
bidders for the larger sized blocks"
I understand the rationale for this, but it would guarantee the big ISP's
first crack at any blocks leaving only leftovers for small and middle sized
operations.  This is not a level playing field.
I believe that ARIN will tend not to de-aggregate blocks any more than is
necessary and we can leave this operational feature to the prerogative of
staff.  It does not need to be in Policy.
I agree that the statement " ARIN should take all practical steps to
aggregate returned address blocks." should remain, but the rest of the
section can be managed by staff at their discretion.

I would suggest that the data reporting for section 4.X.5 be published when
or after it is thirty days old.  

I might add a section where IP seekers who advertise or solicit offers be
disqualified from the process.  Without this there is the probability of
seeker publishing a general notice that they would bid a million for a /8,
allowing the returner to submit a safe million dollar offering.  This would
be just a hidden version of peer-to-peer sales.

Another item that should be in place is a 90 day (or longer)
disqualification for any party that backs out of a brokered deal at or after
the point that an offer is tendered.




> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4
> RecoveryFund
> 
> On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5
> >
> > We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the
> > dollar amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing
> > them would compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive
> > internal company data of "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
> > was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.
> >
> > Ted
> 
> Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?
> 
> I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent,
> that is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably
> not a good idea.
> 
> But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I
> think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.
> 
> I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period
> like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the
> competitive range of successful biding is.
> 
> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular
> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I think
> the community overall wants/needs some assurance that the
> system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal
> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community
> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090413/150512c8/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr 13 17:03:35 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:03:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <49E3A454.1050104@sprunk.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49E3A454.1050104@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE8@mail>

> 
> David Farmer wrote:
> > Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?
> >
> > I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent, that
> is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably not a good idea.
> >
> > But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I think what
> is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.
> >
> > I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period like a
> month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the competitive range
> of successful biding is.
> >
> > Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular transaction
> depending on the role they are playing.  But I think the community overall
> wants/needs some assurance that the system is fair and functioning
> properly.  Some minimal transparency is probably the best way to allow the
> community to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
> >
> 
> I think that, regardless of the exact mechanism of transfers or bidding,
> ARIN should operate a voluntary listing service, as is done in the real
> estate industry.  Sure, you can buy and sell property outside that
> system if you have a good reason, but the vast majority of buyers and
> sellers (at least in arms-length transactions) choose to use the listing
> service because it will provide them the best price.  And, after a bit
> of data accumulates, we will _all_ have a much better idea of the fair
> market value of various size blocks, and there will be even less
> incentive to go outside the listing system.

Under no circumstances should a "buyer" be able to look up an available
block and equate it to a "seller" ..  this is nothing more than peer-to-peer
sales.

Leave it so that the "buyer" tenders and offer to ARIN and receives an offer
if and when a block becomes available.

Historical data should be available.  If any future data is available it
should be sterilized and aggregated.


> 
> S
> 
> --
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090413/904e7d64/attachment.bin>

From tvest at pch.net  Mon Apr 13 17:10:24 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:10:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <7F01618C-0471-4231-88BC-2CD1463E9C46@isoc.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<7F01618C-0471-4231-88BC-2CD1463E9C46@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <E0299386-C622-4A05-BF38-FB02C160B936@pch.net>

FWIW, I agree with John's reasoning.

Based on the same reasoning, I think that the community should also  
solicit structured expert advice on the feasibility of ongoing  
maintenance of IP address registration data quality given:
-- the observed historical decay rate of other high value databases  
that are maintainable solely by individual incentive-driven voluntary  
action (e.g., "public" inter-provider route registries);
-- the existence of alternative mechanisms for "securing" uniqueness  
and/or "ownership" (formerly: unique beneficial usage rights) of  
number resources, e.g., bilateral contracts, contract law, armies of  
ever-eager lawyers, etc.
-- the existence and appeal of widely held values (e.g., privacy) that  
generally if not invariably conflict with the pursuit of uniqueness  
and identifiability through the mechanism of "public" / inter-provider  
registries; and
-- the impact of such conflicts on other, similar high value databases  
(e.g., domain registration).

The ARIN community might be marginally more competent to undertake  
this one than the aforementioned Nasdaq experts, but only marginally  
so...

TV

On Apr 13, 2009, at 4:36 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> If we are going to pursue this proposal very much further, we should
> get expert advice on the feasibility of operating (or outsourcing) a
> Market Maker constrained according to some specified features.
> Precluding naked shorts is probably a feature we all agree with.
> Should there also be a limit on the time that the Market Maker holds a
> prefix in its attempt to maximize aggregation and minimize
> deaggregation?  It seems to me that the ARIN community is just about
> an non-expert on market operation as Nasdaq experts are on network
> operation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_maker
>
> John
>
> On 2009Apr13, at 4:13 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5
>>>
>>> We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the
>>> dollar amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing
>>> them would compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive
>>> internal company data of "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
>>> was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>> Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?
>>
>> I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely transparent,
>> that is revealing who paid how much for what, that is probably
>> not a good idea.
>>
>> But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I
>> think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.
>>
>> I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a period
>> like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes what the
>> competitive range of successful biding is.
>>
>> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular
>> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I think
>> the community overall wants/needs some assurance that the
>> system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal
>> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community
>> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> ================================================
>> =======
>> David Farmer				     Email:	
>> farmer at umn.edu
>> Office of Information Technology
>> Networking & Telecomunication Services
>> University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
>> 0815
>> 2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
>> 612-812-9952
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
>> 1818
>> ================================================
>> =======
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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 bicknell at ufp.org  Mon Apr 13 17:11:31 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:11:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
References: <32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
Message-ID: <20090413211131.GA83281@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 03:55:54PM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> One issue I do have is that the proposal is heavily slanted toward the big
> organizations with section 4.X.4 where it states "Recovered IPv4 number
> resources should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
> bidders for the larger sized blocks"
> I understand the rationale for this, but it would guarantee the big ISP's
> first crack at any blocks leaving only leftovers for small and middle sized
> operations.  This is not a level playing field.

I saw this the opposite, that it helps the little guy.  However,
that is based on an assumption, the smaller the block the more
likely it will be available on the market.

If a big guy comes along and gets qualified for a /12, he has to
wait for someone to return (voluntarily or for a recovery fee) a
/12.  ARIN is prohibited from handing him a bunch of smaller blocks
under this policy.  Relatively speaking there are very few /12's
out there, so there's a good chance that big guy will be waiting
for a long time.

Compare to someone who needs a /20.  There are a ton of /20's out
there, so there is a much better chance someone will be able to
free up one for someone else to use.

With transfer proposals like 2008-6 and 2009-1 there's nothing to
prevent someone who needs a /12 from buying up hundreds or even
thousands of /18-/22 sized blocks to meet their needs.  This proposal
only allows you to bid on the exact size you were approved for, get
approved for a /12 you can only bid on a /12.

--
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090413/bb2b216f/attachment.sig>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Mon Apr 13 17:23:29 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:23:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <20090413211131.GA83281@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
	<20090413211131.GA83281@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE9@mail>

> 
> In a message written on Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 03:55:54PM -0500, Kevin
> Kargel wrote:
> > One issue I do have is that the proposal is heavily slanted toward the
> big
> > organizations with section 4.X.4 where it states "Recovered IPv4 number
> > resources should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
> > bidders for the larger sized blocks"
> > I understand the rationale for this, but it would guarantee the big
> ISP's
> > first crack at any blocks leaving only leftovers for small and middle
> sized
> > operations.  This is not a level playing field.
> 
> I saw this the opposite, that it helps the little guy.  However,
> that is based on an assumption, the smaller the block the more
> likely it will be available on the market.
> 
> If a big guy comes along and gets qualified for a /12, he has to
> wait for someone to return (voluntarily or for a recovery fee) a
> /12.  ARIN is prohibited from handing him a bunch of smaller blocks
> under this policy.  Relatively speaking there are very few /12's
> out there, so there's a good chance that big guy will be waiting
> for a long time.
> 
> Compare to someone who needs a /20.  There are a ton of /20's out
> there, so there is a much better chance someone will be able to
> free up one for someone else to use.
> 
> With transfer proposals like 2008-6 and 2009-1 there's nothing to
> prevent someone who needs a /12 from buying up hundreds or even
> thousands of /18-/22 sized blocks to meet their needs.  This proposal
> only allows you to bid on the exact size you were approved for, get
> approved for a /12 you can only bid on a /12.
> 
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> 	PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

I do think that if an organization is qualified for a /12, but thinks they
might have better success to meet a short term need by bidding for a /16
they should have the freedom to do so.  Perhaps placing a limit on the
number of concurrent active bids would solve that.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090413/2641c54d/attachment.bin>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 17:26:04 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:26:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:13 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> 
> On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > We are neutral to this proposal with the exception of 4.X.5
> > 
> > We don't believe any purpose would be served by listing the dollar 
> > amounts, and can think of many scenarios where revealing them would 
> > compromise the bid system, and leak sensitive internal 
> company data of 
> > "bidders"  If all mention of "pricing"
> > was struck from this section we would be neutral on it as well.
> > 
> > Ted
> 
> Are you saying that pricing should be completely opaque?   
> 
> I think I agree that pricing shouldn't be completely 
> transparent, that is revealing who paid how much for what, 
> that is probably not a good idea.  
> 
> But I think a completely opaque system is a bad idea too;  I 
> think what is proposed is fairly close to what is needed.
> 
> I think a Max, Min, and Average of successful bids for a 
> period like a month is minimally needed to at least exposes 
> what the competitive range of successful biding is.
> 
> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular 
> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I 
> think the community overall wants/needs some assurance that 
> the system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal 
> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community 
> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
> 
> 

I just see no point to publicizing the figure, and a lot
of time-wasting and diverting-from-IPv6-focus happening if
the figure is published.

If your in support of a transfer market you need to ask
yourself which is more important?  Getting the IPv4 numbers
reallocated, or waving around a bunch of pricing for some
political agenda?

I see no problem with ARIN staff communicating to would-be
sellers and would-be buyers what the current market rate is
under NDA.  Not publicizing the pricing is no deterrent to this
proposal and it really takes the air out of a lot of 
potentially inflammatory rhetoric.

DO you really want people publically bitching because 2 months
ago an IPv4 block they bought today for $500 was going for
$200 and they feel cheated?  Or they buy that $500 block then
a week later the published "index" shows the price down to
$400 because someone turned in a /8 they didn't need anymore?

We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the
current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community think
that ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then
I have a simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 17:30:51 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:30:51 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
Message-ID: <BDE09672367B434BBF51E9C4696D673B@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> 
> My apologies for top loading, but it seemed best in this instance.
> 
> In first look at 2009-4 I do not hate it, (which I know will 
> shock many of you).  To my mind there are a few requirements 
> for any transfer proposal that seem to be met by 2009-4.
> 
> 1.  ARIN should do any brokering.
> 2.  Anonymity must be maintained, the receiver should not 
> know which IP's they are getting or being considered for 
> ahead of time in order to preclude side deals and a grey 
> market. Endpoints must not be allowed to negotiate.
> 
> One issue I do have is that the proposal is heavily slanted 
> toward the big organizations with section 4.X.4 where it 
> states "Recovered IPv4 number resources should be broken into 
> smaller blocks only if there are no bidders for the larger 
> sized blocks"
> I understand the rationale for this, but it would guarantee 
> the big ISP's first crack at any blocks leaving only 
> leftovers for small and middle sized operations.  This is not 
> a level playing field.
> I believe that ARIN will tend not to de-aggregate blocks any 
> more than is necessary and we can leave this operational 
> feature to the prerogative of staff.  It does not need to be 
> in Policy.
> I agree that the statement " ARIN should take all practical 
> steps to aggregate returned address blocks." should remain, 
> but the rest of the section can be managed by staff at their 
> discretion.
> 
> I would suggest that the data reporting for section 4.X.5 be 
> published when or after it is thirty days old.  
> 

I would not have an objection to historical reporting for the
history buffs, but I think 30 days is way too soon.  How about
6 months out for the pricing data?

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 17:32:58 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:32:58 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
	Fund
In-Reply-To: <49E3A454.1050104@sprunk.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49E3A454.1050104@sprunk.org>
Message-ID: <406A33B862BC4448A8E981A504809188@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:45 PM
> To: David Farmer
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 Recovery Fund
> 
> 
> I think that, regardless of the exact mechanism of transfers 
> or bidding, ARIN should operate a voluntary listing service, 
> as is done in the real estate industry.  Sure, you can buy 
> and sell property outside that system if you have a good 
> reason, but the vast majority of buyers and sellers (at least 
> in arms-length transactions) choose to use the listing 
> service because it will provide them the best price.  And, 
> after a bit of data accumulates, we will _all_ have a much 
> better idea of the fair market value of various size blocks, 
> and there will be even less incentive to go outside the 
> listing system.
> 

However the people with the IPv4 blocks do not own them,
the people with real estate do own it.  It's a different
paradigm.

Ted



From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Apr 13 17:45:18 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:45:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>, <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49E36C1E.26995.F4641C1@farmer.umn.edu>

On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> DO you really want people publically bitching because 2 months
> ago an IPv4 block they bought today for $500 was going for
> $200 and they feel cheated?  Or they buy that $500 block then
> a week later the published "index" shows the price down to
> $400 because someone turned in a /8 they didn't need anymore?

I'd be happy to set up an mail filter to auto respond to people 
bitching about IPv4 pricing and variability with convert to IPv6 
and your problem goes away.

So, YES, this is exactly what I think we what, IPv4 addresses 
generally trending to more expensive but with a high degree a 
variability in the pricing.

> We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the
> current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
> IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community think
> that ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then
> I have a simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.

I disagree, publicizing that it is expensive and risky to stick with 
IPv4 would help drive people toward the stability and generally 
lower cost of IPv6.

> Ted


================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From schnizlein at isoc.org  Mon Apr 13 17:55:30 2009
From: schnizlein at isoc.org (John Schnizlein)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:55:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>

It seems to me that the "bounty" a network operator could realize by  
converting to IPv6 in order to release a block of IPv4 addresses is  
exactly what would hasten deployment of IPv6.  Because this "bounty"  
will obviously go to zero when IPv6 is widely enough deployed that  
nobody needs any more IPv4 addresses, such an operator knows that  
holding off too long ruins the chance for any bounty at all.

What would be even more beneficial is that a network operator trying  
to decide if a new deployment should use IPv4 or IPv6 would see  
(discouraging) variable and increasing costs of using IPv4 that it  
could compare to the (hopefully decreasing) costs of deploying IPv6.

Part of the problem with deployment of IPv6 is that the cost of the  
transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is hidden - or visible only to the far- 
sighted who realize that it will be necessary when the number of hosts  
on the Internet doubles again, but not now.

John

On 2009Apr13, at 5:26 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
>> ...
>>
>> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular
>> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I
>> think the community overall wants/needs some assurance that
>> the system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal
>> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community
>> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
>
> I just see no point to publicizing the figure, and a lot
> of time-wasting and diverting-from-IPv6-focus happening if
> the figure is published.
>
> ...
>
> We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the
> current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
> IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community think
> that ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then
> I have a simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 18:07:29 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:07:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <49E36C1E.26995.F4641C1@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>, <49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>
	<49E36C1E.26995.F4641C1@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <08705A0B94154DD480D7106AD3F32B02@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 2:45 PM
> To: 'David Farmer'; arin-ppml at arin.net; Ted Mittelstaedt
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> 
> On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > DO you really want people publically bitching because 2 
> months ago an 
> > IPv4 block they bought today for $500 was going for $200 
> and they feel 
> > cheated?  Or they buy that $500 block then a week later the 
> published 
> > "index" shows the price down to $400 because someone turned in a /8 
> > they didn't need anymore?
> 
> I'd be happy to set up an mail filter to auto respond to 
> people bitching about IPv4 pricing and variability with 
> convert to IPv6 and your problem goes away.
> 
> So, YES, this is exactly what I think we what, IPv4 addresses 
> generally trending to more expensive but with a high degree a 
> variability in the pricing.
> 
> > We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the 
> > current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
> > IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community 
> think that 
> > ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then I have a 
> > simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.
> 
> I disagree, publicizing that it is expensive and risky to stick with
> IPv4 would help drive people toward the stability and 
> generally lower cost of IPv6.
> 

NOT publicizing it is even more effective, as people invariably
assume it's more expensive than it really is.

Which do you immediately assume is more expensive?

An expensive
snooty restaurant with a 5 star cook that charges $60 a steak?
Or an expensive snooty restaurant with a 5 star cook that doesn't
put the prices on the menu and has the attitude that if you have
to ask, you cannot afford it.

Ted



From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Mon Apr 13 18:23:22 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:23:22 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50904081956s61b801b0u113fa59fc0eb7171@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFA4@mail>
	<C5FF93C1.27508%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
	<22E4CA6043944274B5B0D5EE085131EA@tedsdesk> <49DA717D.6040705@chl.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB0@mail>
	<CA6DC5B09E43495CB1E093EEA9513497@tedsdesk>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFB3@mail>
	<2C3BA65A72794B2CA6C9F76CC2E3D4EB@tedsdesk>
	<EA4B4E5F-D1EE-41C4-9295-8000EA5126DA@delong.com>
	<4607e1d50904081956s61b801b0u113fa59fc0eb7171@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904131523t7646c672q3d2cf3aca58e0e62@mail.gmail.com>

In fairness to Owen. I aksed this because I am trying to figure out
where the different groups fall in terms of transfer. I see LRSA, RSA,
and legacy groups and I see mostly small block holders, indifferent,
and likely to participate in a market paired.

Anyone want to offer a self-correlation, public or private?

Best,

Marty



On 4/8/09, Martin Hannigan <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it
>>>> pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car,
>>>> but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they
>>>> wanted free of charge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
>>> the basis of need.
>>>
>>
>> As a legacy holder, I can tell you that is simply not true. Most, if not
>> all
>> legacy requests were based on need. The amount given
>> relative to need has changed, and, the definition of qualified need
>> has evolved over time, but, for as long as I can remember (which
>> goes back a fair distance, but, not quite to 8 bit addressing and
>> the days prior to IP) requests were based on need.
>
>
>
> Have you signed the LRSA?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>


From owen at delong.com  Mon Apr 13 18:22:53 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:22:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AFE7@mail>
Message-ID: <673F554C-49A3-4431-B06F-4B65E4DD5617@delong.com>


On Apr 13, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:

> My apologies for top loading, but it seemed best in this instance.
>
> In first look at 2009-4 I do not hate it, (which I know will shock  
> many of
> you).  To my mind there are a few requirements for any transfer  
> proposal
> that seem to be met by 2009-4.
>
> 1.  ARIN should do any brokering.
> 2.  Anonymity must be maintained, the receiver should not know which  
> IP's
> they are getting or being considered for ahead of time in order to  
> preclude
> side deals and a grey market. Endpoints must not be allowed to  
> negotiate.
>
> One issue I do have is that the proposal is heavily slanted toward  
> the big
> organizations with section 4.X.4 where it states "Recovered IPv4  
> number
> resources should be broken into smaller blocks only if there are no
> bidders for the larger sized blocks"
> I understand the rationale for this, but it would guarantee the big  
> ISP's
> first crack at any blocks leaving only leftovers for small and  
> middle sized
> operations.  This is not a level playing field.

Realistically, I don't think this is an issue. I think the majority of  
the blocks
likely to be recovered will be /18 and longer, leaving the vast majority
of large ISPs out in the cold. I suspect that there will be more /22s  
than
any other size and more /20s than /18s.

>
> I believe that ARIN will tend not to de-aggregate blocks any more  
> than is
> necessary and we can leave this operational feature to the  
> prerogative of
> staff.  It does not need to be in Policy.
> I agree that the statement " ARIN should take all practical steps to
> aggregate returned address blocks." should remain, but the rest of the
> section can be managed by staff at their discretion.
>
This, however, is  valid in my opinion.

> I would suggest that the data reporting for section 4.X.5 be  
> published when
> or after it is thirty days old.
>
Is there a reason for this? I think that publishing 9/1-9/30 on 10/5  
or so
is probably fine, for example.

> I might add a section where IP seekers who advertise or solicit  
> offers be
> disqualified from the process.  Without this there is the  
> probability of
> seeker publishing a general notice that they would bid a million for  
> a /8,
> allowing the returner to submit a safe million dollar offering.   
> This would
> be just a hidden version of peer-to-peer sales.
>
Not so much.  After all, you know that there may be several potential  
seekers
going after that single /8.  Also, the seeker would still have to meet  
ARIN
requirements for a /8, and, frankly, at that level, all the possible  
players
know all the other possible players anyway.  When you get to the realm
of longer prefixes, the number of players expands rapidly and the  
likelihood
of successful peer-to-peer bargaining becomes virtually zero.

Owen




From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Apr 13 18:53:43 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:53:43 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <08705A0B94154DD480D7106AD3F32B02@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<49E36C1E.26995.F4641C1@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<08705A0B94154DD480D7106AD3F32B02@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49E37C27.14991.F84E41E@farmer.umn.edu>

On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> > I disagree, publicizing that it is expensive and risky to stick with
> > IPv4 would help drive people toward the stability and 
> > generally lower cost of IPv6.
> > 
> 
> NOT publicizing it is even more effective, as people invariably
> assume it's more expensive than it really is.
> 
> Which do you immediately assume is more expensive?
> 
> An expensive
> snooty restaurant with a 5 star cook that charges $60 a steak?
> Or an expensive snooty restaurant with a 5 star cook that doesn't
> put the prices on the menu and has the attitude that if you have
> to ask, you cannot afford it.

Ok, that works for some people, but, what if you have the boss 
that says prove to them it will be more expensive to stay with 
IPv4, and cheaper to go with IPv6.  Without public data, on 
how expensive IPv4 is, how do you make a business case that 
IPv6 is the better way to go? 

I agree that the current daily or hourly price could be use in 
ways the community doesn't want.  I can accept that there 
should be a 15 or 30 day delay on the release of pricing data, 
so maybe you don't release February's data until March 15th or 
March 31st.  But, we need reasonably current pricing data for 
people to make business cases with.  Even the business case 
we would like them to make, like going to IPv6, will take some 
data.  The trick is to provide data, without it being so current 
that the release of the data might cause speculative blips in the 
pricing, there has got to be a balance some where.

> Ted




================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From tvest at pch.net  Mon Apr 13 19:06:35 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:06:35 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk>
	<49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk>
	<34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <A5907E14-5E3B-43CA-B5CF-E89832EABF36@pch.net>


On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:55 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> It seems to me that the "bounty" a network operator could realize by
> converting to IPv6 in order to release a block of IPv4 addresses is
> exactly what would hasten deployment of IPv6.  Because this "bounty"
> will obviously go to zero when IPv6 is widely enough deployed that
> nobody needs any more IPv4 addresses, such an operator knows that
> holding off too long ruins the chance for any bounty at all.

Assuming that the profit motive will be sufficient to motivate some  
IPv4 holders to sell some IPv4, does it make sense to assume that it  
will not also be strong enough to make the sellers structure their  
sales in a way that perpetuates this particular commercial opportunity  
for as long as possible? Isn't it more internally consistent --  
doesn't it make more sense (commercial, common, et al.) -- to assume  
that this opportunity will be cultivated for as long as possible?  
Given the myriad strategies that would permit a profit-maximizing  
incumbent operator (or middleman/market maker) to capitalize on the  
IPv4 sales opportunity without reducing in any way the ultimate  
requirement for (some) IPv4, why does it make sense to assume that the  
day when "nobody needs any more IPv4 addresses" will ever come?

> What would be even more beneficial is that a network operator trying
> to decide if a new deployment should use IPv4 or IPv6 would see
> (discouraging) variable and increasing costs of using IPv4 that it
> could compare to the (hopefully decreasing) costs of deploying IPv6.

Incumbent IPv4-based operators -- i.e., those that could be IPv4  
sellers if they so chose -- will likely experience these cost  
dynamics, eventually.
Even so, aspiring post-runout new entrants will never experience those  
cost dynamics, unless/until the preponderance of incumbents make  
themselves equally accessible to native IPv6-based third parties as  
they are to their current IPv4-based peers -- i.e., until we get very  
close to that that fateful day when "nobody needs any more IPv4  
addresses."

> Part of the problem with deployment of IPv6 is that the cost of the
> transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is hidden - or visible only to the far-
> sighted who realize that it will be necessary when the number of hosts
> on the Internet doubles again, but not now.

A transition from IPv4-based growth to IPv6-based growth may  
eventually become necessary for those that start off with lots of IPv4,
but that does not entail that the absolute demand for (some) IPv4  
among aspiring post-runout new entrants will be eliminated.

We may hope that it works out that way, but it is not inevitable.

Lucrative businesses often take root in gaps like this; what's going  
to prevent them from doing so in this case?
More to the point, what's going to motivate the new market makers to  
accept a near-term closure of this particular gap, given the  
possibility of keeping it open indefinitely?

We are betting the continued openness* of the industry on the answers  
to these questions.
I hope somebody has thought of some good ones...

TV

*If this seems to soft and fuzzy, replace with "freedom from antitrust- 
related intervention."



> John
>
> On 2009Apr13, at 5:26 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Each bidder wants to minimize or maximize in a particular
>>> transaction depending on the role they are playing.  But I
>>> think the community overall wants/needs some assurance that
>>> the system is fair and functioning properly.  Some minimal
>>> transparency is probably the best way to allow the community
>>> to evaluate how the system is functioning or not.
>>
>> I just see no point to publicizing the figure, and a lot
>> of time-wasting and diverting-from-IPv6-focus happening if
>> the figure is published.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> We need to be encouraging people to go to IPv6.  Publicizing the
>> current "bounty" for free IPv4 just draws attention to
>> IPv4 at the expense of IPv6.  If members of the community think
>> that ARIN's non-publically-disclosed pricing is unfair, then
>> I have a simple solution for them - don't buy IPv4.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 19:12:40 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:12:40 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <49E37C27.14991.F84E41E@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<49E36C1E.26995.F4641C1@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<08705A0B94154DD480D7106AD3F32B02@tedsdesk>
	<49E37C27.14991.F84E41E@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <59A1CD4860D14FACB3139896F96D562F@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 3:54 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> 
> On 13 Apr 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> > > I disagree, publicizing that it is expensive and risky to 
> stick with
> > > IPv4 would help drive people toward the stability and generally 
> > > lower cost of IPv6.
> > > 
> > 
> > NOT publicizing it is even more effective, as people 
> invariably assume 
> > it's more expensive than it really is.
> > 
> > Which do you immediately assume is more expensive?
> > 
> > An expensive
> > snooty restaurant with a 5 star cook that charges $60 a steak?
> > Or an expensive snooty restaurant with a 5 star cook that 
> doesn't put 
> > the prices on the menu and has the attitude that if you 
> have to ask, 
> > you cannot afford it.
> 
> Ok, that works for some people, but, what if you have the 
> boss that says prove to them it will be more expensive to 
> stay with IPv4, and cheaper to go with IPv6.  Without public 
> data, on how expensive IPv4 is, how do you make a business case that
> IPv6 is the better way to go? 
> 

That's a boss that isn't interested in going to IPv6 and you
ought to know that one by now.  In other words, the admin may
make a very good case for going to IPv6 - but that boss will
merely find something he doesn't like about it and focus
on that.

If your boss can't be convinced to go to IPv6 by the argument
that IPv4 runout is happening on June 19th 2011 and it will
affect every ISP in the world, so we need to get going on
IPv6 now, then they aren't going to be impressed until year
2012 when a major customer calls up and says "I need IPv6
yesterday, you don't have it? OK I'm going to disconnect now
and go down the street to your competitor"

And even then, there's bosses out there who will say we don't
need to go to IPv6 until more than 10% of our customers have
left to go to a competitor.

Some bosses simply won't be convinced they need to go to IPv6
until the place is burning down because you haven't gone to
it, and then they will want it yesterday.

> I agree that the current daily or hourly price could be use 
> in ways the community doesn't want.  I can accept that there 
> should be a 15 or 30 day delay on the release of pricing 
> data, so maybe you don't release February's data until March 
> 15th or March 31st.  But, we need reasonably current pricing 
> data for people to make business cases with.  Even the 
> business case we would like them to make, like going to IPv6, 
> will take some data. 

The fundamental problem with a business case to going to IPv6
is that the benefit to doing it is effectively zero until
the content providers on the Internet that your customers want
to reach (or the customers that your content-providing customers
want to reach) are all on IPv6 and are beginning to wind down
their IPv4 operations.  Then, the benefit shoots immediately
to 1000%.  There is no soft-uptake.  So the admin who wants to
do it is left arguing that the benefit of doing it now is less
work to do it later on, but that's a very speculative and hard
to quantify argument.

I suspect a lot of admins out there simply take the
approach that I took at my company which is to just start working
on it by selecting IPv6-compliant gear, without even giving the
boss a say in it.  Then eventually when everything can handle it,
switching over to it.

> The trick is to provide data, without 
> it being so current that the release of the data might cause 
> speculative blips in the pricing, there has got to be a 
> balance some where.
> 

I agree with this approach.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 19:22:17 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:22:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <A5907E14-5E3B-43CA-B5CF-E89832EABF36@pch.net>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu><3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk><34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>
	<A5907E14-5E3B-43CA-B5CF-E89832EABF36@pch.net>
Message-ID: <1B08611B4F9A44DD83DCFC5228170A1B@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Tom Vest
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:07 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative businesses often take root in gaps like this; 
> what's going to prevent them from doing so in this case?
> More to the point, what's going to motivate the new market 
> makers to accept a near-term closure of this particular gap, 
> given the possibility of keeping it open indefinitely?
> 

Nothing.  But, there are still people selling old wooden candlestick
telephones for home use:

http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Teleph/150-series-GB.asp


"...What distinguishes our range of candlestick telephones is ... the
care we take in producing an attractive museum piece that can be used
every day for making calls..."

Once the majority of the Internet has
switched to IPv6, there will be plenty of IPv4 available for
those who want to dual-stack for the next 50 years.

What matters is what the large networks do - what the majority
does.  For where they go, the rest of the world will eventually
follow.

Ted



From tvest at pch.net  Mon Apr 13 20:22:51 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:22:51 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <1B08611B4F9A44DD83DCFC5228170A1B@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu><3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk><34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>
	<A5907E14-5E3B-43CA-B5CF-E89832EABF36@pch.net>
	<1B08611B4F9A44DD83DCFC5228170A1B@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <E89F81BC-B988-4A99-B216-E84B81362831@pch.net>


On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:22 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Tom Vest
>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:07 PM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
>> IPv4 RecoveryFund
>>
>>
>>
>> Lucrative businesses often take root in gaps like this;
>> what's going to prevent them from doing so in this case?
>> More to the point, what's going to motivate the new market
>> makers to accept a near-term closure of this particular gap,
>> given the possibility of keeping it open indefinitely?
>>
>
> Nothing.  But, there are still people selling old wooden candlestick
> telephones for home use:
>
> http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Teleph/150-series-GB.asp
>
> "...What distinguishes our range of candlestick telephones is ... the
> care we take in producing an attractive museum piece that can be used
> every day for making calls..."
>
> Once the majority of the Internet has
> switched to IPv6, there will be plenty of IPv4 available for
> those who want to dual-stack for the next 50 years.
>
> What matters is what the large networks do - what the majority
> does.  For where they go, the rest of the world will eventually
> follow.
>
> Ted

History suggests that what the large networks do may indeed dictate  
what the rest of the world can/must do.
But I suspect that we've all noticed that the two activity-sets are  
rarely the same -- and quite often they represent non-overlapping  
subsets of the universe of commercial strategies.

Think about how interconnection works.

TV




From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 13 20:50:56 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:50:56 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <E89F81BC-B988-4A99-B216-E84B81362831@pch.net>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu><3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk><34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>
	<A5907E14-5E3B-43CA-B5CF-E89832EABF36@pch.net>
	<1B08611B4F9A44DD83DCFC5228170A1B@tedsdesk>
	<E89F81BC-B988-4A99-B216-E84B81362831@pch.net>
Message-ID: <B1322E45424B4696B266D8FC52DA6B5E@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net] 
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 5:23 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> 
> 
> On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:22 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Tom Vest
> >> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:07 PM
> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
> >> IPv4 RecoveryFund
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Lucrative businesses often take root in gaps like this; 
> what's going 
> >> to prevent them from doing so in this case?
> >> More to the point, what's going to motivate the new market 
> makers to 
> >> accept a near-term closure of this particular gap, given the 
> >> possibility of keeping it open indefinitely?
> >>
> >
> > Nothing.  But, there are still people selling old wooden 
> candlestick 
> > telephones for home use:
> >
> > 
> http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Teleph/150-series-GB.asp
> >
> > "...What distinguishes our range of candlestick telephones 
> is ... the 
> > care we take in producing an attractive museum piece that 
> can be used 
> > every day for making calls..."
> >
> > Once the majority of the Internet has
> > switched to IPv6, there will be plenty of IPv4 available 
> for those who 
> > want to dual-stack for the next 50 years.
> >
> > What matters is what the large networks do - what the 
> majority does.  
> > For where they go, the rest of the world will eventually follow.
> >
> > Ted
> 
> History suggests that what the large networks do may indeed 
> dictate what the rest of the world can/must do.
> But I suspect that we've all noticed that the two 
> activity-sets are rarely the same -- and quite often they 
> represent non-overlapping subsets of the universe of 
> commercial strategies.
> 
> Think about how interconnection works.
> 

I watched first-hand the migration of
corporate networks from IPX to IP as at the time I was not working
for ISPs.

I remember back in 1991 asking the head of the telecom department at
the 300+ person company I was working for at the time if he had
given any thought to TCP/IP and the Internet.  His response was:
"I don't know what your talking about"

3 years later the acting CEO of that company was asking me if
they should spend a whole lot of money on TCP/IP licenses from
Ipswitch.  My response was to wait for win95 - which they did.

By '96, their entire corporate internal LAN and WAN was IP.  I
remember loading '95 on '486's in order to keep people going for
a few more months before the prices on new systems dropped enough
to be able to forklift stuff.

It's not that I was better than these folks.  It was simply that
I had experience with NSF-net as a user, much earlier than any
of them did, and, having first hand experience, I saw the potential
more than they did.

It would not surprise me the least if someone, somewhere was
puttering away on a little insignificant application that
requires IPv6 - and that 5 years from now, will be an absolute
must-have.  This entire discussion over IPv4 could be rendered
moot by something going on right now that we are oblivious to.


Ted



From tvest at pch.net  Mon Apr 13 22:02:00 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:02:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 RecoveryFund
In-Reply-To: <B1322E45424B4696B266D8FC52DA6B5E@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu><3F6B98A1C632470A8642B012340A5103@tedsdesk><34678088-72A0-4D0B-A950-1E3DB86850DD@isoc.org>
	<A5907E14-5E3B-43CA-B5CF-E89832EABF36@pch.net>
	<1B08611B4F9A44DD83DCFC5228170A1B@tedsdesk>
	<E89F81BC-B988-4A99-B216-E84B81362831@pch.net>
	<B1322E45424B4696B266D8FC52DA6B5E@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <B99DCADC-DD12-44CD-B938-436E940CEA67@pch.net>


On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net]
>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 5:23 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
>> IPv4 RecoveryFund
>>
>>
>> On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:22 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Tom Vest
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:07 PM
>>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
>>>> IPv4 RecoveryFund
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lucrative businesses often take root in gaps like this;
>> what's going
>>>> to prevent them from doing so in this case?
>>>> More to the point, what's going to motivate the new market
>> makers to
>>>> accept a near-term closure of this particular gap, given the
>>>> possibility of keeping it open indefinitely?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing.  But, there are still people selling old wooden
>> candlestick
>>> telephones for home use:
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.eurocosm.com/Application/Products/Teleph/150-series-GB.asp
>>>
>>> "...What distinguishes our range of candlestick telephones
>> is ... the
>>> care we take in producing an attractive museum piece that
>> can be used
>>> every day for making calls..."
>>>
>>> Once the majority of the Internet has
>>> switched to IPv6, there will be plenty of IPv4 available
>> for those who
>>> want to dual-stack for the next 50 years.
>>>
>>> What matters is what the large networks do - what the
>> majority does.
>>> For where they go, the rest of the world will eventually follow.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>> History suggests that what the large networks do may indeed
>> dictate what the rest of the world can/must do.
>> But I suspect that we've all noticed that the two
>> activity-sets are rarely the same -- and quite often they
>> represent non-overlapping subsets of the universe of
>> commercial strategies.
>>
>> Think about how interconnection works.
>>
>
> I watched first-hand the migration of
> corporate networks from IPX to IP as at the time I was not working
> for ISPs.
>
> I remember back in 1991 asking the head of the telecom department at
> the 300+ person company I was working for at the time if he had
> given any thought to TCP/IP and the Internet.  His response was:
> "I don't know what your talking about"
>
> 3 years later the acting CEO of that company was asking me if
> they should spend a whole lot of money on TCP/IP licenses from
> Ipswitch.  My response was to wait for win95 - which they did.
>
> By '96, their entire corporate internal LAN and WAN was IP.  I
> remember loading '95 on '486's in order to keep people going for
> a few more months before the prices on new systems dropped enough
> to be able to forklift stuff.
>
> It's not that I was better than these folks.  It was simply that
> I had experience with NSF-net as a user, much earlier than any
> of them did, and, having first hand experience, I saw the potential
> more than they did.
>
> It would not surprise me the least if someone, somewhere was
> puttering away on a little insignificant application that
> requires IPv6 - and that 5 years from now, will be an absolute
> must-have.  This entire discussion over IPv4 could be rendered
> moot by something going on right now that we are oblivious to.

I do hope that you are right.
Because I watched first-hand a migration of another kind, one that  
followed a more recent technology advance that was, at least  
initially, only or most relevant to large operators. Some of the most  
experienced and insightful people in the industry pioneered the  
adaptation to that change too, only very shortly thereafter that  
adaptation occasioned the collapse of the telecom/internet sector, c.  
mid-late 2002.

We could (but won't) quibble over the specific causes behind both  
migration moments ad nauseam.

The point is
	-- Not all adaptations are sustainable, much less "good" (as in "not  
self-evidently suicidal in the near-to-medium term").
	-- Given strong enough short-term incentives, even extremely smart  
people -- people that no one would ever accuse of malign intent --  
will sometimes drive an industry straight over a plainly visible,  
universally acknowledged cliff.

I'll repeat once more that this is not a criticism -- not of the  
leading industry decision makers of the crash era, nor of the industry  
decision makers of today (many of whom are one and the same people).  
It's a reminder that the system that we largely, collectively define  
dictates the incentives and the opportunities, and that clever people  
are going to do what they always do -- what the system requires them  
to do, what we all count on them to do under "normal" circumstances --  
"good" or "bad," sustainable or suicidal though it might be in this  
particular case. Pretending otherwise won't change things one bit, but  
maybe -- maybe -- by acknowledging that reality and planning ahead,  
e.g., by trying to minimize loopholes and to develop credible  
deterrents and/or counter-incentives, the real, looming, industry-wide  
risk could be minimized.

TV


From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Apr 14 09:49:08 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:49:08 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
Message-ID: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>

I had a thought, maybe we should be equally critical of our ourselves, as we 
have been of the Board and 2009-1, and ask if 2008-6 delivered what the 
board needed in order to do their job in preparing the ARIN Region for IPv4 
scarcity drawing near. 

In reading and thinking about the Board's statement from last week, and 
reviewing 2008-6, I think the Board is correct that 2008-6 doesn't provide the 
predictability and certainty from a network planning point of view the 
community really needs with IPv4 scarcity drawing near.  I believe this is 
caused by the timetable for implementation or more correctly the lack of any 
specific timetable for implementation in 2008-6.  And, the way the sunset 
clause is dependent on that unpredictable timetable for implementation by 
sunsetting 3 years after implementation.

By having 2008-6 dependent on IANA free pool exhaustion or the ARIN 
Region reaching a threshold of scarcity, whatever any of us intended that to 
mean, does nothing to reduce the risk IPv4 scarcity represents to the 
community, does nothing to increase the predictability of the situation, and 
provides no help in network planing. 

The Board's solution is to implement immediately and eliminate the sunset 
clause.  This definitely clears up the unpredictability and uncertainty, and 
makes network planning easier.  However, this solution is inconsistent with 
the compromises within 2008-6 that allowed the community to gain the 
minimal level of consensus that it did.  Further, by eliminating any triggers or 
deadlines this solution eliminates any sense of urgency for adoption of IPv6 
within the community.  The Sunset in 2008-6 makes it clear that allowing 
IPv4 Transfers isn't going to be a long-term solution by itself.

I believe that we can solve the unpredictability and uncertainty while 
remaining mostly consistent with the compromise within 2008-6.  I believe 
the key to solving the unpredictability and uncertainty is to provide a specific 
start and end date for IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients. Then provide a 
safety trigger to start early if IANA exhaustion occurs significantly faster than 
anyone expects and an automatic extension if IANA exhaustion takes 
significantly longer than anyone expects.

For discussion, lets say we could know for a fact that IANA will allocate the 
last /8s per NRPM 10.4.2.2 on June 30th 2011.  So lets pick one year before 
that for the start date and two years after that for the end date, giving us 
June 30th 2010 for the start and June 30th 2013 for the end, the three year 
period in 2008-6.  Currently, it looks like IANA exhaustion will occur 
sometime in mid-2011, but no one know for sure actually when, but it is a 
good bet it will occur sometime in 2011. So lets give ourselves the whole 
year of 2011 to create a good amount of certainty, lets split that equally with 
the start and end date.  So lets pick a new a start date of January 4th 2010, 
the first business day of 2010, and an end date of December 31st, 2013, the 
last business day of 2013.  

This really give us 4 years, but that extra year buys us something, specific 
dates, with enough cushion that we have a fairly high probability we that we 
will start with a minimum of a year before and an end a minimum of two 
years after IANA exhaustion.  These specific dates greatly reduce the 
unpredictability and uncertainty, and allow network planing to begin 
immediately based on these dates, while retaining a sense of urgency for a 
transition.  Further, we have a solution much more consistent with the 
compromises within 2008-6 that provided minimal consensus within the 
community to move forward.

Now lets add that safety trigger at the to the start, in case IANA exhaustion 
accelerates and occurs significantly sooner than anyone expects.  I propose 
if we get to 13 /8s left excluding the /8s reserved in NRPM 10.4.2.1, then we 
start IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients in 30 days.  The 30 days, is to 
allow ARIN to make an announcement.  The 13 /8s is from the fact that IANA 
is currently allocating over 12 /8s to the RIRs per year, plus an extra month 
to make an announcement, this seems like a reasonable safety trigger.  I 
believe it is highly unlikely this would happen prior to January 2010, but if it 
did, I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't time to trigger, things 
would be going way fast than anyone expects.

Now the automatic extension, if IANA exhaustion takes significantly longer 
than anyone thinks it should.  This is much more simple, we simply 
guarantee two years after IANA exhaustion.

Therefore, if IANA exhaustion actually takes place in 2011, which seems 
likely, then neither the safety trigger or the automatic extension will be 
necessary, and IPv4 transfers will be allowed for 4 years.  Given that we 
cannot know for sure when IANA exhaustion with occur, in any case this 
timetable creates a high degree of predictability, while maintaining a sense of 
urgency for IPv6 adoption. 

Some possible policy language;

IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients will begin on the earlier of the 
following two dates; January 4th 2010, or 30 days after the IANA free pool 
reaches 13 /8s available, exclusive of the /8s reserved in 10.4.2.1.

IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients will end on the later of the following 
two dates; December 31st, 2013, or 2 years after ARIN receives its last /8 
per section 10.4.2.2.

An expected end date of December 31st, 2013, provides sufficient time to 
implement a policy that obtains consensus at the Fall 2013 PPM in October 
2013.  Maybe extending IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients or possibly 
making them permanent, and maybe even adding all network resources 
including IPv6 and ASNs.  I believe that by 2013 it should be obvious one 
way or the the other.

Further, delaying implementation to January 2010, would allow ARIN to get a 
good start on POC validations, assuming 2008-7 gains consensus in San 
Antonio, which could help prevent fraudulent transfers.  We would also have 
a chance to complete other IPv4 end-game policies like maybe 2009-2, 
providing a better picture of the whole solution to IPv4 scarcity not just IPv4 
Transfers to Specified Recipients.  While allowing everyone, including ARIN, 
to immediately begin their planing for IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients 
to begin on a well known date.

Personally, I would like to extend the end date to December 31st, 2014, I 
can't provide a good argument for why, but that is what my gut tells me.  
However, I believe the December 31st, 2013 date is much more consistent 
with the compromises within 2008-6, and sticking to the compromise is 
probably more important than my gut.  I could stand to loose some of my gut 
anyway. :)

Does this make sense?  Is it a workable compromise?  Does it provide 
enough certainty?  Does it allow for sufficient network planning?  Does it 
provide a proper sense of urgency for IPv6 adoption?


=======================================================
David Farmer				     Email:	farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-1818
=======================================================



From schnizlein at isoc.org  Tue Apr 14 10:37:01 2009
From: schnizlein at isoc.org (John Schnizlein)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:37:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <B4226E2F-EA52-4889-AA7F-1838259F9055@isoc.org>

Should the start be calculated from exhaustion of IANA's free pool?   
Recall that IANA's exhaustion will happen sooner than otherwise by the  
policy to disperse the last five /8s among the RIRs as soon as the  
normal allocations reach the last 5.  Actual exhaustion of free IPv4  
addresses happens when the RIR exhausts its pool.  Various proposals  
focussed on fairness toward the end might slow consumption of the  
RIR's pool still more.

Your goal of providing less uncertainty is a good one.  Let's not  
arrange a transfer policy experiment to expire just after the lack of  
free addresses makes it more important.

John

On 2009Apr14, at 9:49 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> ...
>
> By having 2008-6 dependent on IANA free pool exhaustion or the ARIN
> Region reaching a threshold of scarcity, whatever any of us intended  
> that to
> mean, does nothing to reduce the risk IPv4 scarcity represents to the
> community, does nothing to increase the predictability of the  
> situation, and
> provides no help in network planing.
>


From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Tue Apr 14 10:50:36 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:50:36 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904140750o5c67f410tae8275a105eb77f0@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 07:49, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I had a thought, maybe we should be equally critical of our ourselves, as we
> have been of the Board and 2009-1, and ask if 2008-6 delivered what the
> board needed in order to do their job in preparing the ARIN Region for IPv4
> scarcity drawing near.
>
> In reading and thinking about the Board's statement from last week, and
> reviewing 2008-6, I think the Board is correct that 2008-6 doesn't provide the
> predictability and certainty from a network planning point of view the
> community really needs with IPv4 scarcity drawing near. ?I believe this is
> caused by the timetable for implementation or more correctly the lack of any
> specific timetable for implementation in 2008-6. ?And, the way the sunset
> clause is dependent on that unpredictable timetable for implementation by
> sunsetting 3 years after implementation.
>
> By having 2008-6 dependent on IANA free pool exhaustion or the ARIN
> Region reaching a threshold of scarcity, whatever any of us intended that to
> mean, does nothing to reduce the risk IPv4 scarcity represents to the
> community, does nothing to increase the predictability of the situation, and
> provides no help in network planing.

It does reduce the risk of IPv4 scarcity to the community as much as
any liberalized transfer policy would/will (the exact amount is
arguable of course).  Predictability on the other hand I will grant
you.  Not knowing when the policy will start and end ahead of time is
not helpful to network planning - agreed.

> The Board's solution is to implement immediately and eliminate the sunset
> clause. ?This definitely clears up the unpredictability and uncertainty, and
> makes network planning easier. ?However, this solution is inconsistent with
> the compromises within 2008-6 that allowed the community to gain the
> minimal level of consensus that it did. ?Further, by eliminating any triggers or
> deadlines this solution eliminates any sense of urgency for adoption of IPv6
> within the community. ?The Sunset in 2008-6 makes it clear that allowing
> IPv4 Transfers isn't going to be a long-term solution by itself.

Agreed on all points.

> I believe that we can solve the unpredictability and uncertainty while
> remaining mostly consistent with the compromise within 2008-6. ?I believe
> the key to solving the unpredictability and uncertainty is to provide a specific
> start and end date for IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients. Then provide a
> safety trigger to start early if IANA exhaustion occurs significantly faster than
> anyone expects and an automatic extension if IANA exhaustion takes
> significantly longer than anyone expects.

I think this is overly complicated and still introduces the
uncertainty and unpredictability you are trying to remove (albeit to a
lesser degree).  You are effectively saying that the transfers will
start on A and end on Z unless X changes, with no perfect way to
predict X.

> For discussion, lets say we could know for a fact that IANA will allocate the
> last /8s per NRPM 10.4.2.2 on June 30th 2011. ?So lets pick one year before
> that for the start date and two years after that for the end date, giving us
> June 30th 2010 for the start and June 30th 2013 for the end, the three year
> period in 2008-6. ?Currently, it looks like IANA exhaustion will occur
> sometime in mid-2011, but no one know for sure actually when, but it is a
> good bet it will occur sometime in 2011. So lets give ourselves the whole
> year of 2011 to create a good amount of certainty, lets split that equally with
> the start and end date. ?So lets pick a new a start date of January 4th 2010,
> the first business day of 2010, and an end date of December 31st, 2013, the
> last business day of 2013.
>
> This really give us 4 years, but that extra year buys us something, specific
> dates, with enough cushion that we have a fairly high probability we that we
> will start with a minimum of a year before and an end a minimum of two
> years after IANA exhaustion. ?These specific dates greatly reduce the
> unpredictability and uncertainty, and allow network planing to begin
> immediately based on these dates, while retaining a sense of urgency for a
> transition. ?Further, we have a solution much more consistent with the
> compromises within 2008-6 that provided minimal consensus within the
> community to move forward.
>
> Now lets add that safety trigger at the to the start, in case IANA exhaustion
> accelerates and occurs significantly sooner than anyone expects. ?I propose
> if we get to 13 /8s left excluding the /8s reserved in NRPM 10.4.2.1, then we
> start IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients in 30 days. ?The 30 days, is to
> allow ARIN to make an announcement. ?The 13 /8s is from the fact that IANA
> is currently allocating over 12 /8s to the RIRs per year, plus an extra month
> to make an announcement, this seems like a reasonable safety trigger. ?I
> believe it is highly unlikely this would happen prior to January 2010, but if it
> did, I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't time to trigger, things
> would be going way fast than anyone expects.
>
> Now the automatic extension, if IANA exhaustion takes significantly longer
> than anyone thinks it should. ?This is much more simple, we simply
> guarantee two years after IANA exhaustion.
>
> Therefore, if IANA exhaustion actually takes place in 2011, which seems
> likely, then neither the safety trigger or the automatic extension will be
> necessary, and IPv4 transfers will be allowed for 4 years. ?Given that we
> cannot know for sure when IANA exhaustion with occur, in any case this
> timetable creates a high degree of predictability, while maintaining a sense of
> urgency for IPv6 adoption.
>
> Some possible policy language;
>
> IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients will begin on the earlier of the
> following two dates; January 4th 2010, or 30 days after the IANA free pool
> reaches 13 /8s available, exclusive of the /8s reserved in 10.4.2.1.
>
> IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients will end on the later of the following
> two dates; December 31st, 2013, or 2 years after ARIN receives its last /8
> per section 10.4.2.2.
>
> An expected end date of December 31st, 2013, provides sufficient time to
> implement a policy that obtains consensus at the Fall 2013 PPM in October
> 2013. ?Maybe extending IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients or possibly
> making them permanent, and maybe even adding all network resources
> including IPv6 and ASNs. ?I believe that by 2013 it should be obvious one
> way or the the other.

My understanding of the lack of a specified start date in 2008-6 is
that it meant to leave the decision of when to pull the trigger up to
the Board.  Since this was part of the proposal that gained consensus
and the BoT obviously thinks that the trigger date/time is NOW, I
think the logical thing to do (if we want to make this process
predictable) is to trust the Boards judgement (as we were doing with
2008-6 already) and make the policy effective immediately.  Then we
set the sunset date at implementation plus 5 years.  This means that
if implemented following ARIN XXIII, the policy would be set to expire
in May of 2014, three years after expected IANA exhaustion.  This
solution provides a release valve now which should help stop or at
least slow the run on the bank as well as a predictable end date that
can be planned for.

> Further, delaying implementation to January 2010, would allow ARIN to get a
> good start on POC validations, assuming 2008-7 gains consensus in San
> Antonio, which could help prevent fraudulent transfers. ?We would also have
> a chance to complete other IPv4 end-game policies like maybe 2009-2,
> providing a better picture of the whole solution to IPv4 scarcity not just IPv4
> Transfers to Specified Recipients. ?While allowing everyone, including ARIN,
> to immediately begin their planing for IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> to begin on a well known date.

While I am obviously in favor of 2008-7 and the gains it will provide
us, as long as we maintain the "authorized resource holders served by
ARIN" language from 2008-6, I think we will be protected from
fraudulent transfers.  As I read it, that text means that ARIN will
vet the transferor before any transfer can take place.

> Personally, I would like to extend the end date to December 31st, 2014, I
> can't provide a good argument for why, but that is what my gut tells me.
> However, I believe the December 31st, 2013 date is much more consistent
> with the compromises within 2008-6, and sticking to the compromise is
> probably more important than my gut. ?I could stand to loose some of my gut
> anyway. :)
>
> Does this make sense? ?Is it a workable compromise? ?Does it provide
> enough certainty? ?Does it allow for sufficient network planning? ?Does it
> provide a proper sense of urgency for IPv6 adoption?
>
>
> =======================================================
> David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email: ? ? farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> Networking & Telecomunication Services
> University of Minnesota ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Phone: ? ? 612-626-0815
> 2218 University Ave SE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Cell: ? ? ? ? ? ? ?612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? FAX: ? ? ? 612-626-1818
> =======================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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.
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Apr 14 11:56:25 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:56:25 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <443de7ad0904140750o5c67f410tae8275a105eb77f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<443de7ad0904140750o5c67f410tae8275a105eb77f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49E46BD9.28482.34A3C8C@farmer.umn.edu>

On 14 Apr 2009 Chris Grundemann wrote:

....

> My understanding of the lack of a specified start date in 2008-6 is
> that it meant to leave the decision of when to pull the trigger up to
> the Board.  Since this was part of the proposal that gained consensus
> and the BoT obviously thinks that the trigger date/time is NOW, I
> think the logical thing to do (if we want to make this process
> predictable) is to trust the Boards judgement (as we were doing with
> 2008-6 already) and make the policy effective immediately.  Then we
> set the sunset date at implementation plus 5 years.  This means that
> if implemented following ARIN XXIII, the policy would be set to expire
> in May of 2014, three years after expected IANA exhaustion.  This
> solution provides a release valve now which should help stop or at
> least slow the run on the bank as well as a predictable end date that
> can be planned for.

I could mostly go for that, but I would like to set that to 
December 31, 2014, I still like a specific sunset date, not tied 
to when the implementation happened.  This is to allow  
planning of any policy changes to happen on a we'll known 
timetable, that has been selected to eliminate any unfortunate 
timing with PPMs.  The end of a calendar year is a good time 
to expire things, for many reasons.

However, while I agree the essence of the compromise for 
2008-6 was the sunset, others seem to believe the specific 
3year timetable played a role to, which is why I was trying to do 
my best to stay true to that as well.  You are correct it makes it 
much more complicated.

What do other think?

================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Apr 14 12:09:46 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:09:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <20090414160946.GA41398@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 08:49:08AM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> The Board's solution is to implement immediately and eliminate the sunset 
> clause.  This definitely clears up the unpredictability and uncertainty, and 
> makes network planning easier.  However, this solution is inconsistent with 

Actually, I think this just traded one form of unpredictability for
another.  When this policy was passed I think most people expected
it "near" IANA run-out.  We can argue a lot about what that means,
but even those with the most aggressive predictions have told me
9-12 months.

However, all the signals the board sent were for immediate
implementation...

https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2009_0219.html

   John stated the policy will already be in effect when it goes
   before the community at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in April,
   in accordance with the 'Emergency Special Policy Actions' outlined
   in the ARIN PDP.

That's really just another form of unpredictability, if the goal
was to have people plan ahead then springing a policy change on
them does not allow that to happen either.  I don't think anyone
expected the Board to both take emergency action and implement it
ASAP, no one had in their plans that next month they might be trading
in IP addresses.

In hindsight, I think we both got it wrong.  I think triggering on
IANA exhaustion is likely a little too late for folks to properly
prepare, and the AC and community should take our knocks for that.
I think the Board's swift action was simply the pendulum on the far
opposite side, catching people off guard just as much.

> I believe that we can solve the unpredictability and uncertainty while 
> remaining mostly consistent with the compromise within 2008-6.  I believe 
> the key to solving the unpredictability and uncertainty is to provide a specific 
> start and end date for IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients. Then provide a 
> safety trigger to start early if IANA exhaustion occurs significantly faster than 
> anyone expects and an automatic extension if IANA exhaustion takes 
> significantly longer than anyone expects.

I'm not necessarily opposed to hard dates, but I feel they make a
lot more sense for the sunset than they do for the initial
implementation.  There has been a lot of speculation about a "run
on the bank", or about particular players who could "request all
remaining IPv4 space".  We would look pretty silly if we picked
what appeared to be a safe date now, and then one of the corner
cases occurred and the Board had to take emergency action again.
Indeed, I think in part the idea of implementing it now was so the
Board was sure there wouldn't be Emergency Round 2.

In the LA meeting, the number report
(https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXII/PDF/wednesday/inr_status_report.pdf)
shows approximately 12 /8's were issued in 2007, which was the
highest year yet (note 2008 is incomplete in this chart due to the
meeting time).

My proposal then would be a trigger date of 17 /8's, the 5 in the
everyone gets one global proposal, plus a "years supply" at the
highest rate we have seen.  For reference we are at 32 available
now.

If all goes well that splits the remaining time in the middle.
People have plenty of time to prepare for a world with transfers,
and it should kick in plenty far before exhaustion.  Should some
wacky corner case kick in where someone shows up and justifies 40
/8's one day it still automatically triggers, keeping the Board
from having to take more Emergency action.

Regarding the sunset, I think it matters a whole lot less.  If
people can prepare for transfers to start in approximately 2 years
they can prepare for them to end in the same time frame.  I think
sunsets of 3-5 years from when transfers start is perfectly acceptable
and provide lots of warning of when the date will be.  I have a
whole lot of trouble reconciling that it's ok to start the transfers
"right now" with no notice, but 3 years to plan for them to possibly
end is not enough time.

The whole problem with the sunset is if we start too early, the
policy ends too soon after IANA exhaustion.  It has nothing to do
with planning or certainty.  To that end I would recommend a sunset
of 3-5 years after the date IANA hands out the last /8.  That should
make the total policy time 4-6 years (given what I proposed above
for an implementation time).  It's extremely rare to see serious,
detailed planning more than 5 years out so that would seem to be
plenty of time.

And, of course, as plenty of people have pointed out, policy can
always be changed.  If a 3 year sunset isn't good enough we can
change it later.  Yes, it's the same argument folks use for why we
don't need a sunset, we can always repeal the policy later.
Both are true, it's all about what signals you want to send...

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090414/d5aa1c4a/attachment.sig>

From jay at impulse.net  Tue Apr 14 14:39:34 2009
From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:39:34 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net>
Message-ID: <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>

We ordered an FE circuit from Verizon at One Wilshire, specified 
dual-stack v4/v6.  Order progressed normally, at the last minute they 
claim that they don't have any IPv6 capability at One Wilshire at all 
and will have to backhaul it from somewhere (unspecified).  This seems 
hard to believe.

Ongoing...


-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV


From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Apr 14 14:53:48 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:53:48 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <443de7ad0904140750o5c67f410tae8275a105eb77f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<443de7ad0904140750o5c67f410tae8275a105eb77f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49E4956C.17536.3ECA266@farmer.umn.edu>

On 14 Apr 2009 Chris Grundemann wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 07:49, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> > Further, delaying implementation to January 2010, would allow ARIN to get a
> > good start on POC validations, assuming 2008-7 gains consensus in San
> > Antonio, which could help prevent fraudulent transfers. ?We would also have
> > a chance to complete other IPv4 end-game policies like maybe 2009-2,
> > providing a better picture of the whole solution to IPv4 scarcity not just IPv4
> > Transfers to Specified Recipients. ?While allowing everyone, including ARIN,
> > to immediately begin their planing for IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> > to begin on a well known date.
> 
> While I am obviously in favor of 2008-7 and the gains it will provide
> us, as long as we maintain the "authorized resource holders served by
> ARIN" language from 2008-6, I think we will be protected from
> fraudulent transfers.  As I read it, that text means that ARIN will
> vet the transferor before any transfer can take place.

While I agree that in theory 2008-7 doesn't add that much that 
would protect from fraud that isn't already in 2008-6 or 2009-1, 
but I have a feeling that in practice it might just add a little 
more.  It coming at the mostly the same issues from a slightly 
different angle, and that has got to be a good thing.  

But, I guess my real point was that delaying a few months 
probably shouldn't hurt much and may actually have a few 
advantages.  But, I believe that starting now or in January is 
mostly a wash either way, and I'm ask how others feel about 
the options.


================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Apr 14 15:09:02 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:09:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <B4226E2F-EA52-4889-AA7F-1838259F9055@isoc.org>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<B4226E2F-EA52-4889-AA7F-1838259F9055@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <49E498FE.16210.3FA9708@farmer.umn.edu>

On 14 Apr 2009 John Schnizlein wrote:

> Should the start be calculated from exhaustion of IANA's free pool?   
> Recall that IANA's exhaustion will happen sooner than otherwise by the  
> policy to disperse the last five /8s among the RIRs as soon as the  
> normal allocations reach the last 5.  Actual exhaustion of free IPv4  
> addresses happens when the RIR exhausts its pool.  Various proposals  
> focussed on fairness toward the end might slow consumption of the  
> RIR's pool still more.

Actually further done in my email I think I deal with that, at 
least for my safety trigger and the automatic extension.  I 
reference NRPM 10.4.2.1 and 10.4.2.2 which is where the /8s 
for the RIR are reserved and handed out.   However, I didn't 
correct for that when basing the projected run on from mid-
2011, on picking the specfic dates.  

Geoff, 

Does projection on potaroo.net, account for the new global 
policy: "End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs" and the 
last /8 that it reserves for each RIR?

Could you add that?  Or is the a different projection that 
accounts for that you can point me to?
 
Thanks

> Your goal of providing less uncertainty is a good one.  Let's not  
> arrange a transfer policy experiment to expire just after the lack of  
> free addresses makes it more important.
> 
> John


================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======



From Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com  Tue Apr 14 15:21:47 2009
From: Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com (Wettling, Fred)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:21:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net> <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
Message-ID: <F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F93EF3FF@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>

Bechtel Internal / Non-Record//


-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Hennigan
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes We ordered an FE circuit
from Verizon at One Wilshire, specified dual-stack v4/v6.  Order progressed
normally, at the last minute they claim that they don't have any IPv6
capability at One Wilshire at all and will have to backhaul it from
somewhere (unspecified).  This seems hard to believe.

----------Reply --------------
Hurricane Electric is doing IPv6 peering at One Wilshire, OCCAID6 is peering
at Wilshire. Oh yes, CRG West (One Wilshire owner) is promoting Any2
Exchanges supporting IPv4 & IPv6 peering.  The Any2 Exchange was initially
launched at One Wilshire and Market Post Tower (San Jose). Equinix's web
site lists IPv6 peering availability in LA...

Bechtel Internal / Non-Record//

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090414/4911addb/attachment.bin>

From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Tue Apr 14 15:38:10 2009
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:38:10 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D030878AB919@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:49 AM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
> 
> I had a thought, maybe we should be equally critical of our 
> ourselves, as we have been of the Board and 2009-1, and ask 
> if 2008-6 delivered what the board needed in order to do 
> their job in preparing the ARIN Region for IPv4 scarcity 
> drawing near. 
> 
> In reading and thinking about the Board's statement from last 
> week, and reviewing 2008-6, I think the Board is correct that 
> 2008-6 doesn't provide the predictability and certainty from 
> a network planning point of view the community really needs 
> with IPv4 scarcity drawing near.  I believe this is caused by 
> the timetable for implementation or more correctly the lack 
> of any specific timetable for implementation in 2008-6.  And, 
> the way the sunset clause is dependent on that unpredictable 
> timetable for implementation by sunsetting 3 years after 
> implementation.

What predictability?  The point of the later...near IANA
runout...implementation expectation and the sunset clause within 2008-6
WAS supposed to provide predictability....

The predictability was that IPv4 was NOT the future of Internet
addressing, but rather a sureness that IPv6 was.  People could predict
with reasonable degree of certainty that in a few years, there would be
less risk in pursuing a v6 as a company strategy than might be found in
v4.  The signal that was sent, and explained at the meeting, was that
ARIN would not support a continuance of v4 over v6.  The transient
nature of 2008-6 was supposed to be an emergency, stop-gap measure to
provide continuity of services to v4 users that hadn't weaned themselves
of v4 or for which the 'complete v6 answers' were not yet available.

2008-6 was never about demonstrating the ever more efficient use of v4
addresses.....it was designed counter to that notion.

So, 2009-1 and 2008-6 have virtually nothing to do with one another
other than they funadmentally create a marketplace for existing v4
addresses...everything else about them is opposed to one another.

bd


> By having 2008-6 dependent on IANA free pool exhaustion or 
> the ARIN Region reaching a threshold of scarcity, whatever 
> any of us intended that to mean, does nothing to reduce the 
> risk IPv4 scarcity represents to the community, does nothing 
> to increase the predictability of the situation, and provides 
> no help in network planing. 
> 
> The Board's solution is to implement immediately and 
> eliminate the sunset clause.  This definitely clears up the 
> unpredictability and uncertainty, and makes network planning 
> easier.  However, this solution is inconsistent with the 
> compromises within 2008-6 that allowed the community to gain 
> the minimal level of consensus that it did.  Further, by 
> eliminating any triggers or deadlines this solution 
> eliminates any sense of urgency for adoption of IPv6 within 
> the community.  The Sunset in 2008-6 makes it clear that allowing
> IPv4 Transfers isn't going to be a long-term solution by itself.
> 
> I believe that we can solve the unpredictability and 
> uncertainty while remaining mostly consistent with the 
> compromise within 2008-6.  I believe the key to solving the 
> unpredictability and uncertainty is to provide a specific 
> start and end date for IPv4 transfers to Specified 
> Recipients. Then provide a safety trigger to start early if 
> IANA exhaustion occurs significantly faster than anyone 
> expects and an automatic extension if IANA exhaustion takes 
> significantly longer than anyone expects.
> 
> For discussion, lets say we could know for a fact that IANA 
> will allocate the last /8s per NRPM 10.4.2.2 on June 30th 
> 2011.  So lets pick one year before that for the start date 
> and two years after that for the end date, giving us June 
> 30th 2010 for the start and June 30th 2013 for the end, the 
> three year period in 2008-6.  Currently, it looks like IANA 
> exhaustion will occur sometime in mid-2011, but no one know 
> for sure actually when, but it is a good bet it will occur 
> sometime in 2011. So lets give ourselves the whole year of 
> 2011 to create a good amount of certainty, lets split that 
> equally with the start and end date.  So lets pick a new a 
> start date of January 4th 2010, the first business day of 
> 2010, and an end date of December 31st, 2013, the last 
> business day of 2013.  
> 
> This really give us 4 years, but that extra year buys us 
> something, specific dates, with enough cushion that we have a 
> fairly high probability we that we will start with a minimum 
> of a year before and an end a minimum of two years after IANA 
> exhaustion.  These specific dates greatly reduce the 
> unpredictability and uncertainty, and allow network planing 
> to begin immediately based on these dates, while retaining a 
> sense of urgency for a transition.  Further, we have a 
> solution much more consistent with the compromises within 
> 2008-6 that provided minimal consensus within the community 
> to move forward.
> 
> Now lets add that safety trigger at the to the start, in case 
> IANA exhaustion accelerates and occurs significantly sooner 
> than anyone expects.  I propose if we get to 13 /8s left 
> excluding the /8s reserved in NRPM 10.4.2.1, then we start 
> IPv4 transfers to Specified Recipients in 30 days.  The 30 
> days, is to allow ARIN to make an announcement.  The 13 /8s 
> is from the fact that IANA is currently allocating over 12 
> /8s to the RIRs per year, plus an extra month to make an 
> announcement, this seems like a reasonable safety trigger.  I 
> believe it is highly unlikely this would happen prior to 
> January 2010, but if it did, I don't think anyone would argue 
> that it wasn't time to trigger, things would be going way 
> fast than anyone expects.
> 
> Now the automatic extension, if IANA exhaustion takes 
> significantly longer than anyone thinks it should.  This is 
> much more simple, we simply guarantee two years after IANA exhaustion.
> 
> Therefore, if IANA exhaustion actually takes place in 2011, 
> which seems likely, then neither the safety trigger or the 
> automatic extension will be necessary, and IPv4 transfers 
> will be allowed for 4 years.  Given that we cannot know for 
> sure when IANA exhaustion with occur, in any case this 
> timetable creates a high degree of predictability, while 
> maintaining a sense of urgency for IPv6 adoption. 
> 
> Some possible policy language;
> 
> IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients will begin on the 
> earlier of the following two dates; January 4th 2010, or 30 
> days after the IANA free pool reaches 13 /8s available, 
> exclusive of the /8s reserved in 10.4.2.1.
> 
> IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients will end on the later 
> of the following two dates; December 31st, 2013, or 2 years 
> after ARIN receives its last /8 per section 10.4.2.2.
> 
> An expected end date of December 31st, 2013, provides 
> sufficient time to implement a policy that obtains consensus 
> at the Fall 2013 PPM in October 2013.  Maybe extending IPv4 
> transfers to Specified Recipients or possibly making them 
> permanent, and maybe even adding all network resources 
> including IPv6 and ASNs.  I believe that by 2013 it should be 
> obvious one way or the the other.
> 
> Further, delaying implementation to January 2010, would allow 
> ARIN to get a good start on POC validations, assuming 2008-7 
> gains consensus in San Antonio, which could help prevent 
> fraudulent transfers.  We would also have a chance to 
> complete other IPv4 end-game policies like maybe 2009-2, 
> providing a better picture of the whole solution to IPv4 
> scarcity not just IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients.  
> While allowing everyone, including ARIN, to immediately begin 
> their planing for IPv4 Transfers to Specified Recipients to 
> begin on a well known date.
> 
> Personally, I would like to extend the end date to December 
> 31st, 2014, I can't provide a good argument for why, but that 
> is what my gut tells me.  
> However, I believe the December 31st, 2013 date is much more 
> consistent with the compromises within 2008-6, and sticking 
> to the compromise is probably more important than my gut.  I 
> could stand to loose some of my gut anyway. :)
> 
> Does this make sense?  Is it a workable compromise?  Does it 
> provide enough certainty?  Does it allow for sufficient 
> network planning?  Does it provide a proper sense of urgency 
> for IPv6 adoption?
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> David Farmer				     Email:	farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> Networking & Telecomunication Services
> University of Minnesota			     Phone:	
> 612-626-0815
> 2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:	
> 	612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-1818
> =======================================================
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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 kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 14 15:45:15 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:45:15 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net> <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B002@mail>

> We ordered an FE circuit from Verizon at One Wilshire, specified
> dual-stack v4/v6.  Order progressed normally, at the last minute they
> claim that they don't have any IPv6 capability at One Wilshire at all
> and will have to backhaul it from somewhere (unspecified).  This seems
> hard to believe.
> 
> Ongoing...
> 
> 
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Welcome to my world..  at least it sounds like they are going to try to
tunnel it for you.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090414/ff79c951/attachment.bin>

From gih at apnic.net  Tue Apr 14 18:33:37 2009
From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:33:37 +1000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <49E498FE.16210.3FA9708@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>,
	<B4226E2F-EA52-4889-AA7F-1838259F9055@isoc.org>
	<49E498FE.16210.3FA9708@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <C6DBF6EA-CE7E-4128-9A29-F44BF4342FFD@apnic.net>

Hi,

Yes, the projection on http://ipv4.potaroo.net does account for the  
new global policy. I added this last year, so that IANA exhaustion  
effectively occurs at the point when there are 5 remaining /8s in the  
IANA unallocated pool.

The consumption of IPv4 addresses continues to decline in relative  
terms, and the projected exhaustion dates continue to push out by a  
few months (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/predict.png shows the  
predicted exhaustion date over time). The current consumption rate of  
around 12 /8s per year looks rather stable at the moment (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4-alloc/fig25.png 
) so the 27 remaining IANA /8s look like taking a little over 2 years  
to be used.

regards,

    Geoff







On 15/04/2009, at 5:09 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2009 John Schnizlein wrote:
>
>> Should the start be calculated from exhaustion of IANA's free pool?
>> Recall that IANA's exhaustion will happen sooner than otherwise by  
>> the
>> policy to disperse the last five /8s among the RIRs as soon as the
>> normal allocations reach the last 5.  Actual exhaustion of free IPv4
>> addresses happens when the RIR exhausts its pool.  Various proposals
>> focussed on fairness toward the end might slow consumption of the
>> RIR's pool still more.
>
> Actually further done in my email I think I deal with that, at
> least for my safety trigger and the automatic extension.  I
> reference NRPM 10.4.2.1 and 10.4.2.2 which is where the /8s
> for the RIR are reserved and handed out.   However, I didn't
> correct for that when basing the projected run on from mid-
> 2011, on picking the specfic dates.
>
> Geoff,
>
> Does projection on potaroo.net, account for the new global
> policy: "End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs" and the
> last /8 that it reserves for each RIR?
>
> Could you add that?  Or is the a different projection that
> accounts for that you can point me to?
>
> Thanks
>
>> Your goal of providing less uncertainty is a good one.  Let's not
>> arrange a transfer policy experiment to expire just after the lack of
>> free addresses makes it more important.
>>
>> John
>
>
> ================================================
> =======
> David Farmer				     Email:	
> farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> Networking & Telecomunication Services
> University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
> 0815
> 2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
> 612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
> 1818
> ================================================
> =======
>



From jorbeton at paypal.com  Tue Apr 14 19:25:51 2009
From: jorbeton at paypal.com (Orbeton, Jon)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:25:51 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
Message-ID: <A24D9435A0B864409CF073998FFD524F0EA9963A@DEN-EXM-03.corp.ebay.com>

All:

I understand most of this discussion has already taken place and I'm
coming late to the game, but I did have a question that was outside the
scope of what had been asked already.

Regarding this policy on the Invalid POCs, the draft makes this
statement:

"If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and permanently abandoned or
otherwise illegitimate, the record shall be deleted."

I understand this policy regards the process to identify an "Invalid
POC" by simply sending an email looking for a response within 60 days.
However, I wanted to focus on the "otherwise illegitimate" phrase in
this policy. 

I investigate cybercrime and constantly find bogus or fake information
placed into ARIN WHOIS IP space information. For example:

CustName:   Viss Technologies
Address:    vissvpn.com
City:       Ho Chi Minh
StateProv:  OH
PostalCode: 12345
Country:    US
RegDate:    2008-11-03
Updated:    2008-11-03
 
NetRange:   208.43.240.160 - 208.43.240.175 
CIDR:      208.43.240.160/28 
NetName:    NET-208-43-240-160
NetHandle:  NET-208-43-240-160-1
Parent:     NET-208-43-0-0-1
NetType:    Reassigned
Comment:    Send abuse issues to abuse at vissvpn.com
RegDate:    2008-11-03
Updated:    2008-11-03

This is obviously "illegitimate" information -- does this policy draft
actually address this type of problem wuth the "otherwise illegitimate"
phrase or is there some other policy that addresses this issue. We've
contact ICANN, they said contact ARIN, ARIN said they contact the net
block owner. However, there are net block owners who are not friendly
and are engaged in questionable activities who have no interest in
fixing or requiring legitimate information in these records.
Furthermore, reporting to the "abuse contact" results in non-action. 

What can be done about this?


Thanks,
Jon Orbeton

Electronic Crime & Threat Intelligence PayPal, an eBay Company


From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 14 21:04:26 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:04:26 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC's
In-Reply-To: <A24D9435A0B864409CF073998FFD524F0EA9963A@DEN-EXM-03.corp.ebay.com>
References: <A24D9435A0B864409CF073998FFD524F0EA9963A@DEN-EXM-03.corp.ebay.com>
Message-ID: <FCB3DBC4F7B5448DB45A80BC6015556F@tedsdesk>

Hi Jon,

  If you read the Rationale's of both the "whois POC e-mail cleanup"
proposal from me, posted 9/19/2008 and the "Annual WHOIS POC Validation"
proposal posted 10/3/2008 from Chris, both Chris and I emphasize
repeatedly how the clearing of criminals and hijackers from WHOIS is
of paramount importance.  This topic was also discussed in "Whois
Authentication Alternatives" from Michael, posted 8/19/2008.  These
3 proposals were merged with 2008-7 on 11/25/2008, by the ARIN
advisory council, which originally was titled "Whois Integrity Proposal"
from Heather, and that proposal ALSO mentioned hijacking.

  So without question, one of the major issues that the 4 of us
were concerned with, was fraudulent use of the WHOIS database.
This is why the phrase "otherwise illegitimate" was deliberately and 
intentionally inserted in 2008-7.

  Now, with regards to your situation with  208.43.240.160 - 208.43.240.175 
and ARIN.

   208.43.240.160 - 208.43.240.175 is a SWIP entry, meaning that
the actual block owner (the actual block is  208.43.0.0/16) is
 SoftLayer Technologies Inc.  ARIN is correct to refer you to
the block owner.   Now, it so happens that if you query
 WHOIS you will note that  SoftLayer Technologies Inc. runs a
rwhois server that according to the POC for the main block,
is authoritative.

  This means that the SWIP entry 208.43.240.160 - 208.43.240.175
is superseded by whatever rwhois.softlayer.com hands out.

  If you query Softlayer's rwhois server, you will get this:

class-name network 
id NETBLK-SOFTLAYER.208.43.224.0/19 
auth-area 208.43.224.0/19 
network-name SOFTLAYER-208.43.224.0 
ip-network 208.43.240.160/28 
ip-network-block 208.43.240.160-208.43.240.175 
organization Private Residence 
street-address 1950 Stemmons Freeway Suite 2043 
city Dallas 
state TX 
postal-code 75207 
country-code US 
tech-contact sysadmins at softlayer.com 
abuse-contact admin at vissvpn.com 
admin-contact IPADM258-ARIN 
created 20081025 
updated 20081025 
updated-by ipadmin at softlayer.com 

So as you can see, the SWIP entry your getting from ARIN's WHOIS
shouldn't even be IN the ARIN whois server at all, not just because
it's bogus, but because Softlayer's rwhois server supersedes it.
It is merely useless and misdirecting clutter.

Our proposal aims to blow this kind of rubbish right out of
WHOIS.  It is confusing, and if that bogus SWIP hadn't been in
ARIN's WHOIS, when you queried on 208.43.240.160 you would
have got the response for block  208.43.0.0/16  and never got
sidetracked to begin with.

  As a final statement on this, I will say that it definitely
was our intention to open the door, so to speak,
to ARIN getting more aggressive about expelling fake entries in
WHOIS. However, 2008-7 is subject to interpretation and provides
wide leeway to ARIN staff to implement, so whether they decide to
take up the opportunity and go after the criminals is anyone's
guess.  But, after IPv4-runout it's clear that the value of IPv4 blocks will
rise, and there will be demands on ARIN staff to supply IPv4 allocations.
Right now, the cheapest way to respond to IPv4 allocations is to
just go to virgin blocks and assign from those - thus, ARIN has
a financial disincentive to identify cheaters and expel them from
blocks they have hijacked.  But post-IPv4 runout, that economic
disincentive will be reversed.  At that time I would expect ARIN staff
to be very aggressive at identifying abandoned or illegitimate
IPv4 and putting them in the free pool.  This may call for further
policy proposals to the NRPM.


Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Orbeton, Jon
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:26 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify 
> Invalid WHOIS POC's
> 
> All:
> 
> I understand most of this discussion has already taken place 
> and I'm coming late to the game, but I did have a question 
> that was outside the scope of what had been asked already.
> 
> Regarding this policy on the Invalid POCs, the draft makes this
> statement:
> 
> "If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and permanently 
> abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the record shall be deleted."
> 
> I understand this policy regards the process to identify an 
> "Invalid POC" by simply sending an email looking for a 
> response within 60 days.
> However, I wanted to focus on the "otherwise illegitimate" 
> phrase in this policy. 
> 
> I investigate cybercrime and constantly find bogus or fake 
> information placed into ARIN WHOIS IP space information. For example:
> 
> CustName:   Viss Technologies
> Address:    vissvpn.com
> City:       Ho Chi Minh
> StateProv:  OH
> PostalCode: 12345
> Country:    US
> RegDate:    2008-11-03
> Updated:    2008-11-03
>  
> NetRange:   208.43.240.160 - 208.43.240.175 
> CIDR:      208.43.240.160/28 
> NetName:    NET-208-43-240-160
> NetHandle:  NET-208-43-240-160-1
> Parent:     NET-208-43-0-0-1
> NetType:    Reassigned
> Comment:    Send abuse issues to abuse at vissvpn.com
> RegDate:    2008-11-03
> Updated:    2008-11-03
> 
> This is obviously "illegitimate" information -- does this 
> policy draft actually address this type of problem wuth the 
> "otherwise illegitimate"
> phrase or is there some other policy that addresses this 
> issue. We've contact ICANN, they said contact ARIN, ARIN said 
> they contact the net block owner. However, there are net 
> block owners who are not friendly and are engaged in 
> questionable activities who have no interest in fixing or 
> requiring legitimate information in these records.
> Furthermore, reporting to the "abuse contact" results in non-action. 
> 
> What can be done about this?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon Orbeton
> 
> Electronic Crime & Threat Intelligence PayPal, an eBay 
> Company _______________________________________________
> 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 ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com  Wed Apr 15 12:52:11 2009
From: ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com (Stacy Hughes)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:52:11 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Did 2008-6 provide what Board needed?
In-Reply-To: <C6DBF6EA-CE7E-4128-9A29-F44BF4342FFD@apnic.net>
References: <49E44E04.27550.2D5B271@farmer.umn.edu>
	<B4226E2F-EA52-4889-AA7F-1838259F9055@isoc.org>
	<49E498FE.16210.3FA9708@farmer.umn.edu>
	<C6DBF6EA-CE7E-4128-9A29-F44BF4342FFD@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <24c86a5f0904150952x6c3b658ap9aa5499fb8f4d04d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,Also, we have to remember in the ARIN region a /10 out of the Last /8 is
reserved for facilitating IPv6 deployment under NRPM section 4.10.
Stacy

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes, the projection on http://ipv4.potaroo.net does account for the
> new global policy. I added this last year, so that IANA exhaustion
> effectively occurs at the point when there are 5 remaining /8s in the
> IANA unallocated pool.
>
> The consumption of IPv4 addresses continues to decline in relative
> terms, and the projected exhaustion dates continue to push out by a
> few months (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/predict.png shows the
> predicted exhaustion date over time). The current consumption rate of
> around 12 /8s per year looks rather stable at the moment (
> http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4-alloc/fig25.png
> ) so the 27 remaining IANA /8s look like taking a little over 2 years
> to be used.
>
> regards,
>
>    Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 15/04/2009, at 5:09 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr 2009 John Schnizlein wrote:
> >
> >> Should the start be calculated from exhaustion of IANA's free pool?
> >> Recall that IANA's exhaustion will happen sooner than otherwise by
> >> the
> >> policy to disperse the last five /8s among the RIRs as soon as the
> >> normal allocations reach the last 5.  Actual exhaustion of free IPv4
> >> addresses happens when the RIR exhausts its pool.  Various proposals
> >> focussed on fairness toward the end might slow consumption of the
> >> RIR's pool still more.
> >
> > Actually further done in my email I think I deal with that, at
> > least for my safety trigger and the automatic extension.  I
> > reference NRPM 10.4.2.1 and 10.4.2.2 which is where the /8s
> > for the RIR are reserved and handed out.   However, I didn't
> > correct for that when basing the projected run on from mid-
> > 2011, on picking the specfic dates.
> >
> > Geoff,
> >
> > Does projection on potaroo.net, account for the new global
> > policy: "End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs" and the
> > last /8 that it reserves for each RIR?
> >
> > Could you add that?  Or is the a different projection that
> > accounts for that you can point me to?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >> Your goal of providing less uncertainty is a good one.  Let's not
> >> arrange a transfer policy experiment to expire just after the lack of
> >> free addresses makes it more important.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >
> > ================================================
> > =======
> > David Farmer                               Email:
> > farmer at umn.edu
> > Office of Information Technology
> > Networking & Telecomunication Services
> > University of Minnesota                            Phone:     612-626-
> > 0815
> > 2218 University Ave SE                             Cell:
> > 612-812-9952
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029                 FAX:       612-626-
> > 1818
> > ================================================
> > =======
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090415/62508ad3/attachment.htm>

From kmedcalf at dessus.com  Sat Apr 18 09:48:54 2009
From: kmedcalf at dessus.com (Keith Medcalf)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:48:54 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
	IPv4Recovery
In-Reply-To: <57971A56164F41D1A6B87E267E270E18@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <6c439d23ca21204fa763ea0a3915969e@mail.dessus.com>


> > I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the 
> > automotive title group in the state governmnent (at least 
> > like they do it in MD)  Party A wants to sell a car, party B 
> > want to buy.  Party A signs over his title to Party B and the 
> > state, upon deciding the party A title is valid, issues a new 
> > title to party B and collects the appropriate sales tax (ARIN 
> > fees)  Let the free market work within the confines of ARIN 
> > validating the legitimacy of the two parties claims. (i.e. 
> > the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B justified 
> > their need per standard ARIN policy)

> The problem here is that the automotive title group in the state
> government does NOT own the cars that it's titling.  Thus this is
> a very flawed analogy.

> A more accurate analogy is that ARIN is the owner of a large,
> desirable (maybe the rents are cheap) apartment complex with many
> apartments.  Apartment dwellers may want very much to "sell"
> their apartments when they are moving out to new would-be apartment
> dwellers who want to live there, and the would-be apartment
> dwellers may be very willing to "buy" them.  But, the dwellers don't
> own or have control over the apartments.

It is an ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESSLY PERFECT analogy as you just pointed out.  The Car title registrar does not and never did own the cars -- all they have an interest in is the registering and ensuring that each Car is uniquely registered to only one responsible owner.  That is precisely how IP Addresses work.  ARIN does not own them (in fact, no one owns them).  ARINs job is simply to ensure that the "not their property" is uniquely registered to the party who is resposible for it.

As for worrying about selling the same thing multiple times over to different parties, this happens in the meatspace world all the time.  In fact, it has been a meatspace problem for such a loooong loooong time that there is an expression for it in ancient and long dead romance languages:  CAVEAT EMPTOR

Schmucks and schmeels sell the same HOUSE multiple times to different parties and take deposits from all the simultaneous buyers and then abscond with the proceeds.  Usually they didn't even own the thing being sold in the first place.

This analogy is also flawless!

CAVEAT EMPTOR!

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org 
 





From stephen at sprunk.org  Sat Apr 18 14:42:26 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:42:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery
 Fund
In-Reply-To: <406A33B862BC4448A8E981A504809188@tedsdesk>
References: <49DE3167.4030008@arin.net>,
	<32A52853BE414239940847B84F4BD9AA@tedsdesk><49E3567F.1218.EF1CA19@farmer.umn.edu>
	<49E3A454.1050104@sprunk.org>
	<406A33B862BC4448A8E981A504809188@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49EA1F12.5050304@sprunk.org>

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 1:45 PM
>> To: David Farmer
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: 
>> IPv4 Recovery Fund
>>
>>
>> I think that, regardless of the exact mechanism of transfers or bidding, ARIN should operate a voluntary listing service, as is done in the real estate industry.  Sure, you can buy and sell property outside that system if you have a good reason, but the vast majority of buyers and sellers (at least in arms-length transactions) choose to use the listing service because it will provide them the best price.  And, after a bit of data accumulates, we will _all_ have a much better idea of the fair market value of various size blocks, and there will be even less incentive to go outside the listing system.
>>     
>
> However the people with the IPv4 blocks do not own them, the people with real estate do own it.  It's a different paradigm.
>   

Not entirely.  With a few minor exceptions, only the sovereign can own 
land; "estate in land" aka real estate is the _right to use_ land, and 
that is what individuals buy and sell.  Individuals cannot own numbers, 
either, but they can buy and sell the _right to use_ numbers on the 
Internet.  A slot in the county deed recorder's office and a slot in 
ARIN's registry aren't that different -- and a listing service for 
buyers and sellers to meet would be little different either, except that 
we assume most buyers don't care _which_ numbers they get, while most 
buyers of real estate certainly do.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090418/0d8e64a9/attachment.bin>

From tvest at pch.net  Sat Apr 18 16:00:20 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:00:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
	IPv4Recovery
In-Reply-To: <6c439d23ca21204fa763ea0a3915969e@mail.dessus.com>
References: <6c439d23ca21204fa763ea0a3915969e@mail.dessus.com>
Message-ID: <42334888-3354-4810-ABD1-5CEFCA74BED5@pch.net>


On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:

>>> I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the
>>> automotive title group in the state governmnent (at least
>>> like they do it in MD)  Party A wants to sell a car, party B
>>> want to buy.  Party A signs over his title to Party B and the
>>> state, upon deciding the party A title is valid, issues a new
>>> title to party B and collects the appropriate sales tax (ARIN
>>> fees)  Let the free market work within the confines of ARIN
>>> validating the legitimacy of the two parties claims. (i.e.
>>> the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B justified
>>> their need per standard ARIN policy)
>
>> The problem here is that the automotive title group in the state
>> government does NOT own the cars that it's titling.  Thus this is
>> a very flawed analogy.
>
>> A more accurate analogy is that ARIN is the owner of a large,
>> desirable (maybe the rents are cheap) apartment complex with many
>> apartments.  Apartment dwellers may want very much to "sell"
>> their apartments when they are moving out to new would-be apartment
>> dwellers who want to live there, and the would-be apartment
>> dwellers may be very willing to "buy" them.  But, the dwellers don't
>> own or have control over the apartments.
>
> It is an ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESSLY PERFECT analogy as you just pointed  
> out.  The Car title registrar does not and never did own the cars --  
> all they have an interest in is the registering and ensuring that  
> each Car is uniquely registered to only one responsible owner.  That  
> is precisely how IP Addresses work.  ARIN does not own them (in  
> fact, no one owns them).  ARINs job is simply to ensure that the  
> "not their property" is uniquely registered to the party who is  
> resposible for it.
>
> As for worrying about selling the same thing multiple times over to  
> different parties, this happens in the meatspace world all the  
> time.  In fact, it has been a meatspace problem for such a loooong  
> loooong time that there is an expression for it in ancient and long  
> dead romance languages:  CAVEAT EMPTOR
>
> Schmucks and schmeels sell the same HOUSE multiple times to  
> different parties and take deposits from all the simultaneous buyers  
> and then abscond with the proceeds.  Usually they didn't even own  
> the thing being sold in the first place.
>
> This analogy is also flawless!
>
> CAVEAT EMPTOR!

The apartment complex is a perfect analogy IFF:

1. The numbered apartments have no fixed geographic coordinates, and  
can move at will, in whole or independently on a room by room basis,  
and do so invisibly to all but a handful of the residents of other,  
equally invisible apartment and apartment fragments -- i.e., those who  
are willing to permit one of the free-floating chunks to "settle down"  
again next-door.

2. The apartment dwellers themselves may only have visibility into the  
specific room(s) that they're actively occupying  at any given time;  
squatters may take up residence in one of the spare rooms at any time,  
or room pirates may attempt to unilaterally relocate their occupied  
fragment to another part of the complex, or another building altogether.

3. Once the property parts ways, in whole or in part, with its last  
"authoritatively known" coordinates, the only assurance that a  
potential buyer -- or potential neighbor -- will be able to obtain on  
that property at any time thereafter will have to come via --  
literally -- *blind* trust, i.e., willing acceptance of non- 
verifiable, non-falsifiable self-assertions and heresay.

4. It's a rowdy building, with known crooks in residence (somewhere),  
and quite a few residents who occasionally leave the bath water  
running or leave something cooking on their stovetop all night. When  
your own apartment fills with smoke or water, or something worse, if  
it's not coming from one of your known immediate neighbors, the exact  
source may be unknowable. Of course, being a fully sovereign unit  
yourself, you  can always just cut your own neighbor off... unless  
that neighbor happens to provide you with the only exit out of your  
own unit.

The apartment analogy does have one important feature in common with  
the auto registration analogy: in either case there is no independent  
mechanism or authority capable of monitoring levels of compliance with  
any registration rules that are still deemed to be important, and no  
insightful (i.e., capable of seeing/determining the facts  
independently) entity to act has a *passive* deterrent, much less as  
an active authority capable of investigating  and, if/when necessary,  
enforcing rules.

Bottom line: analogies, even self-serving ones, have to make sense.  
This one missies the mark by a mile.

TV



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 20 18:07:04 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:07:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
	IPv4Recovery
In-Reply-To: <42334888-3354-4810-ABD1-5CEFCA74BED5@pch.net>
References: <6c439d23ca21204fa763ea0a3915969e@mail.dessus.com>
	<42334888-3354-4810-ABD1-5CEFCA74BED5@pch.net>
Message-ID: <FB8C6A8E2E8E4CC18F2624644CA17DD6@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:00 PM
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; Cliff; Jeff Aitken; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 
> 2009-4: IPv4Recovery
> 
> 
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> 
> >>> I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the 
> automotive 
> >>> title group in the state governmnent (at least like they do it in 
> >>> MD)  Party A wants to sell a car, party B want to buy.  Party A 
> >>> signs over his title to Party B and the state, upon deciding the 
> >>> party A title is valid, issues a new title to party B and 
> collects 
> >>> the appropriate sales tax (ARIN
> >>> fees)  Let the free market work within the confines of ARIN 
> >>> validating the legitimacy of the two parties claims. (i.e.
> >>> the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B 
> justified their 
> >>> need per standard ARIN policy)
> >
> >> The problem here is that the automotive title group in the state 
> >> government does NOT own the cars that it's titling.  Thus 
> this is a 
> >> very flawed analogy.
> >
> >> A more accurate analogy is that ARIN is the owner of a large, 
> >> desirable (maybe the rents are cheap) apartment complex with many 
> >> apartments.  Apartment dwellers may want very much to "sell"
> >> their apartments when they are moving out to new would-be 
> apartment 
> >> dwellers who want to live there, and the would-be 
> apartment dwellers 
> >> may be very willing to "buy" them.  But, the dwellers don't own or 
> >> have control over the apartments.
> >
> > It is an ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESSLY PERFECT analogy as you just pointed 
> > out.  The Car title registrar does not and never did own 
> the cars -- 
> > all they have an interest in is the registering and 
> ensuring that each 
> > Car is uniquely registered to only one responsible owner.  That is 
> > precisely how IP Addresses work.  ARIN does not own them 
> (in fact, no 
> > one owns them).  ARINs job is simply to ensure that the "not their 
> > property" is uniquely registered to the party who is resposible for 
> > it.
> >
> > As for worrying about selling the same thing multiple times over to 
> > different parties, this happens in the meatspace world all 
> the time.  
> > In fact, it has been a meatspace problem for such a loooong loooong 
> > time that there is an expression for it in ancient and long dead 
> > romance languages:  CAVEAT EMPTOR
> >
> > Schmucks and schmeels sell the same HOUSE multiple times to 
> different 
> > parties and take deposits from all the simultaneous buyers and then 
> > abscond with the proceeds.  Usually they didn't even own the thing 
> > being sold in the first place.
> >
> > This analogy is also flawless!
> >
> > CAVEAT EMPTOR!
> 
> The apartment complex is a perfect analogy IFF:
> 
> 1. The numbered apartments have no fixed geographic 
> coordinates, and can move at will, in whole or independently 
> on a room by room basis, and do so invisibly to all but a 
> handful of the residents of other, equally invisible 
> apartment and apartment fragments -- i.e., those who are 
> willing to permit one of the free-floating chunks to "settle down"  
> again next-door.
> 
> 2. The apartment dwellers themselves may only have visibility 
> into the specific room(s) that they're actively occupying  at 
> any given time; squatters may take up residence in one of the 
> spare rooms at any time, or room pirates may attempt to 
> unilaterally relocate their occupied fragment to another part 
> of the complex, or another building altogether.
> 
> 3. Once the property parts ways, in whole or in part, with 
> its last "authoritatively known" coordinates, the only 
> assurance that a potential buyer -- or potential neighbor -- 
> will be able to obtain on that property at any time 
> thereafter will have to come via -- literally -- *blind* 
> trust, i.e., willing acceptance of non- verifiable, 
> non-falsifiable self-assertions and heresay.
> 
> 4. It's a rowdy building, with known crooks in residence 
> (somewhere), and quite a few residents who occasionally leave 
> the bath water running or leave something cooking on their 
> stovetop all night. When your own apartment fills with smoke 
> or water, or something worse, if it's not coming from one of 
> your known immediate neighbors, the exact source may be 
> unknowable. Of course, being a fully sovereign unit yourself, 
> you  can always just cut your own neighbor off... unless that 
> neighbor happens to provide you with the only exit out of 
> your own unit.
>

Hum.. Well, you just described a typical college dormitory... ;-)
 
> The apartment analogy does have one important feature in 
> common with the auto registration analogy: in either case 
> there is no independent mechanism or authority capable of 
> monitoring levels of compliance with any registration rules 
> that are still deemed to be important, and no insightful 
> (i.e., capable of seeing/determining the facts
> independently) entity to act has a *passive* deterrent, much 
> less as an active authority capable of investigating  and, 
> if/when necessary, enforcing rules.
>

Huh?  Incorrect by all counts both in the analogies and with ARIN.
 
> Bottom line: analogies, even self-serving ones, have to make sense.  
> This one missies the mark by a mile.
> 

As I said, a "more accurate" analogy.  I never claimed it was perfect.

Ted



From tvest at pch.net  Mon Apr 20 18:46:34 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:46:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
	IPv4Recovery
In-Reply-To: <FB8C6A8E2E8E4CC18F2624644CA17DD6@tedsdesk>
References: <6c439d23ca21204fa763ea0a3915969e@mail.dessus.com>
	<42334888-3354-4810-ABD1-5CEFCA74BED5@pch.net>
	<FB8C6A8E2E8E4CC18F2624644CA17DD6@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <66982E21-C805-4336-BBE1-8A57D5986980@pch.net>


On Apr 20, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:00 PM
>> To: Keith Medcalf
>> Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt; Cliff; Jeff Aitken; arin ppml
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal
>> 2009-4: IPv4Recovery
>>
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>>
>>>>> I agree.  I have said before that ARIN should be like the
>> automotive
>>>>> title group in the state governmnent (at least like they do it in
>>>>> MD)  Party A wants to sell a car, party B want to buy.  Party A
>>>>> signs over his title to Party B and the state, upon deciding the
>>>>> party A title is valid, issues a new title to party B and
>> collects
>>>>> the appropriate sales tax (ARIN
>>>>> fees)  Let the free market work within the confines of ARIN
>>>>> validating the legitimacy of the two parties claims. (i.e.
>>>>> the numbers were party A's to transfer and party B
>> justified their
>>>>> need per standard ARIN policy)
>>>
>>>> The problem here is that the automotive title group in the state
>>>> government does NOT own the cars that it's titling.  Thus
>> this is a
>>>> very flawed analogy.
>>>
>>>> A more accurate analogy is that ARIN is the owner of a large,
>>>> desirable (maybe the rents are cheap) apartment complex with many
>>>> apartments.  Apartment dwellers may want very much to "sell"
>>>> their apartments when they are moving out to new would-be
>> apartment
>>>> dwellers who want to live there, and the would-be
>> apartment dwellers
>>>> may be very willing to "buy" them.  But, the dwellers don't own or
>>>> have control over the apartments.
>>>
>>> It is an ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESSLY PERFECT analogy as you just pointed
>>> out.  The Car title registrar does not and never did own
>> the cars --
>>> all they have an interest in is the registering and
>> ensuring that each
>>> Car is uniquely registered to only one responsible owner.  That is
>>> precisely how IP Addresses work.  ARIN does not own them
>> (in fact, no
>>> one owns them).  ARINs job is simply to ensure that the "not their
>>> property" is uniquely registered to the party who is resposible for
>>> it.
>>>
>>> As for worrying about selling the same thing multiple times over to
>>> different parties, this happens in the meatspace world all
>> the time.
>>> In fact, it has been a meatspace problem for such a loooong loooong
>>> time that there is an expression for it in ancient and long dead
>>> romance languages:  CAVEAT EMPTOR
>>>
>>> Schmucks and schmeels sell the same HOUSE multiple times to
>> different
>>> parties and take deposits from all the simultaneous buyers and then
>>> abscond with the proceeds.  Usually they didn't even own the thing
>>> being sold in the first place.
>>>
>>> This analogy is also flawless!
>>>
>>> CAVEAT EMPTOR!
>>
>> The apartment complex is a perfect analogy IFF:
>>
>> 1. The numbered apartments have no fixed geographic
>> coordinates, and can move at will, in whole or independently
>> on a room by room basis, and do so invisibly to all but a
>> handful of the residents of other, equally invisible
>> apartment and apartment fragments -- i.e., those who are
>> willing to permit one of the free-floating chunks to "settle down"
>> again next-door.
>>
>> 2. The apartment dwellers themselves may only have visibility
>> into the specific room(s) that they're actively occupying  at
>> any given time; squatters may take up residence in one of the
>> spare rooms at any time, or room pirates may attempt to
>> unilaterally relocate their occupied fragment to another part
>> of the complex, or another building altogether.
>>
>> 3. Once the property parts ways, in whole or in part, with
>> its last "authoritatively known" coordinates, the only
>> assurance that a potential buyer -- or potential neighbor --
>> will be able to obtain on that property at any time
>> thereafter will have to come via -- literally -- *blind*
>> trust, i.e., willing acceptance of non- verifiable,
>> non-falsifiable self-assertions and heresay.
>>
>> 4. It's a rowdy building, with known crooks in residence
>> (somewhere), and quite a few residents who occasionally leave
>> the bath water running or leave something cooking on their
>> stovetop all night. When your own apartment fills with smoke
>> or water, or something worse, if it's not coming from one of
>> your known immediate neighbors, the exact source may be
>> unknowable. Of course, being a fully sovereign unit yourself,
>> you  can always just cut your own neighbor off... unless that
>> neighbor happens to provide you with the only exit out of
>> your own unit.
>>
>
> Hum.. Well, you just described a typical college dormitory... ;-)

Agreed, if you live in an invisible, n-dimensional, dynamically self- 
(re)-organizing dormitory...

>> The apartment analogy does have one important feature in
>> common with the auto registration analogy: in either case
>> there is no independent mechanism or authority capable of
>> monitoring levels of compliance with any registration rules
>> that are still deemed to be important, and no insightful
>> (i.e., capable of seeing/determining the facts
>> independently) entity to act has a *passive* deterrent, much
>> less as an active authority capable of investigating  and,
>> if/when necessary, enforcing rules.
>>
>
> Huh?  Incorrect by all counts both in the analogies and with ARIN.

Incorrect on all counts for ARIN *today.*

ARIN currently has no active enforcement power that is not contingent  
on its centrality in the (subsequent) allocation process. But that's  
not as important as the passive "pro-compliance" mechanisms that are  
also fundamentally tied up with ARIN's central place in the allocation  
process...

Without that centrality, ARIN also has no capability to act as a nice,  
passive but effective deterrent -- e.g., the dorm proctor who often  
sees/knows when something "really bad" is going on, and who can remind  
the rowdier residents that they need to follow the safety rules or  
else "somebody might call the cops."

Also, given the independent mobility of the individual "dorm rooms,"  
ARIN will no longer possess, or be able to claim to possess, an  
authoritative view of the dorm's floorplan or residents; nobody will.  
Perhaps someone from each room will always, accurately, and promptly  
report any/every relevant change that takes place, and do this  
consistently forevermore, but how would ARIN know? How would anybody  
know?  All you can hope for is the perpetual non-occurrence of some  
bad thing that would reveal the truth (c.f., the way we recently  
learned about how the financial sector works).

You already clearly indicated that you know how rowdy the building is;  
would you bet on it?

All I'm saying is if the community wants to support transfers, then  
the community might want to find something more effective that faith  
in a sudden, selective, and vast improvement in human nature to make  
them work.

TV


>> Bottom line: analogies, even self-serving ones, have to make sense.
>> This one missies the mark by a mile.
>>
>
> As I said, a "more accurate" analogy.  I never claimed it was perfect.
>
> Ted
>



From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Apr 20 19:39:53 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:39:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4:
	IPv4Recovery
In-Reply-To: <66982E21-C805-4336-BBE1-8A57D5986980@pch.net>
References: <6c439d23ca21204fa763ea0a3915969e@mail.dessus.com>
	<42334888-3354-4810-ABD1-5CEFCA74BED5@pch.net>
	<FB8C6A8E2E8E4CC18F2624644CA17DD6@tedsdesk>
	<66982E21-C805-4336-BBE1-8A57D5986980@pch.net>
Message-ID: <C4FCE067894B45B090C6D15A574143BE@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net] 
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:47 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Keith Medcalf'; 'Cliff'; 'Jeff Aitken'; 'arin ppml'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 
> 2009-4: IPv4Recovery
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> >

> >
> > Huh?  Incorrect by all counts both in the analogies and with ARIN.
> 
> Incorrect on all counts for ARIN *today.*
> 
> ARIN currently has no active enforcement power that is not 
> contingent on its centrality in the (subsequent) allocation 
> process.

That isn't true.  If ARIN reallocates IPv4 (or IPv6) then
the original holders of the numbering will have a lot of
problems.

If I get a ticket for going 80 on the highway, it isn't
going to prevent me from continuing to go 80 on the
highway.  But it will cause a lot of problems for me
(specifically, for my pocketbook)

That's enforcement.  Just because the cops aren't cutting my
head off for doing 80 doesn't mean there's no enforcement.

> But that's not as important as the passive 
> "pro-compliance" mechanisms that are also fundamentally tied 
> up with ARIN's central place in the allocation process...
> 

alternic.net and opennic.net make the same arguments about
ICANN but until you get the majority of people believing them,
they are nothing more than "crank" status.

Since the "passive" mechanisms that ARIN has for compliance
are and have been effective, the community has been unwilling
to push ARIN to use more "active" tools.  This -is- changing,
but slowly.  I don't think many in the community want to
see it change any faster as long as the "passive" tools are
effective, and they will be effective until IPv4-runout.

After that, I personally think a more "militant" approach
will be called for.  IAB also felt so about the alternate
root system in RFC 2826.  In the DNS system, they
long-ago reached the point of "cool-sounding domain name
runout" and are currently in a mode of restricted 
"cool-sounding, desirable domain names" availability.

> 
> You already clearly indicated that you know how rowdy the 
> building is; would you bet on it?
>

Yes, I would.  The reason why is that if the rowdy people
make any serious trouble, they will be sat on.

There's many orgs out there who have sunk hundreds of millions
of USD into the current existing Internet infrastructure and they
are going to side with ARIN simply because ARIN has money and
has been around for a while.

If a case comes up where Joe Schmoe Inc. "sells" his IPv4
to Sally Howe Inc., and ARIN says that Sally hasn't met
requirements for portable numbering, and refuses to grant
a change in WHOIS, then turns around and assigns Joe's
IPv4 to the Coca Cola company, then Sally is screwed.  She
will have to get her numbering from her ISP and just stuff
it.  If she tries routing the block she "bought" then
she will be bankrupted.

This is just how things are done in business.  I'm not saying
it's right, or good, or moral.  I'm saying this is how it is
when there is a lot of money involved.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you have a chat with
Eugene Kashpureff
 
> All I'm saying is if the community wants to support 
> transfers, then the community might want to find something 
> more effective that faith in a sudden, selective, and vast 
> improvement in human nature to make them work.
>

Transfers "working" are dependent on how they are viewed
by this very same community that you think it flawed for
relying on "faith".  If the admin of AOL for example feels
that the IPv4 I'm advertising was illegally got, then
nothing is going to make him remove the blocks he puts in
his routers against me.

As I've said before I've been neutral to this
proposal with the exception of publicizing the "going rate"
which I think merely politicizes the entire operation. But,
I do think that if we are going to move IPv4 between orgs then
the moves will not be accepted by the community unless they
are done through ARIN.

Ted



From info at arin.net  Tue Apr 21 10:07:00 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:07:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN XXIII Policy Discussions
Message-ID: <49EDD304.7000302@arin.net>

The ARIN XXIII Public Policy and Members Meeting will be held next week 
in San Antonio. Whether you?re attending in person or participating 
remotely, be sure to review the agenda so you don?t miss you chance to 
share your thoughts during the draft policy discussions:

Monday, 27 April

* 2009-1: Transfer Policy
* 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC?s
* 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund

Tuesday, 28 April

* 2009-3 (Global): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries
* 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 Reserves
* 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment

View the agenda for specific times:
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/agenda.html

Complete information on the text of the draft policies being discussed 
is available at:

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

If you won?t be attending in person, you can still take advantage of 
remote participation features that will allow your voice to be heard 
during critical policy discussions. In addition to viewing the webcast, 
you can read along with the live transcript and submit questions and 
comments and vote in straw polls via Jabber chat.

To register as a remote participant, learn more about the remote 
participation services, and access the meeting materials please go to:

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/remote.html

We look forward to your participation.


Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com  Tue Apr 21 10:14:25 2009
From: heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com (Heather Schiller)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:14:25 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net> <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
Message-ID: <49EDD4C1.9010306@verizonbusiness.com>


Apologies for any problems you are having.. feel free to ping me 
privately if you would like some assistance running this down.

That goes for anyone with questions about or trying to work through the 
VZB/UUnet/MCI process of getting v6 connectivity.

  --Heather

====================================================
  Heather Schiller	Verizon Business
  Customer Security	1.800.900.0241
  IP Address Management	help4u at verizonbusiness.com
=====================================================


Jay Hennigan wrote:
> We ordered an FE circuit from Verizon at One Wilshire, specified 
> dual-stack v4/v6.  Order progressed normally, at the last minute they 
> claim that they don't have any IPv6 capability at One Wilshire at all 
> and will have to backhaul it from somewhere (unspecified).  This seems 
> hard to believe.
> 
> Ongoing...
> 
> 



From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Apr 21 10:23:55 2009
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:23:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49ECDAE4.2000500@arin.net>
References: <49ECDAE4.2000500@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49ED90AB.18281.31EF36E@farmer.umn.edu>

On 20 Apr 2009 Member Services wrote:

> Beginning 18 May 2009, ARIN will require that all applications for IPv4 
> address space include an attestation of accuracy from an officer of the 
> organization. For information on this requirement, please see:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html

Since this attestation will become part of the standard for justifying need for 
IPv4 addresses as of May 18, 2009.  Therefore, I assume that since the new 
Transfer Policy, either 2008-6 or 2009-1, requires justified need, and this will 
soon be part of the standard for justifying the need for IPv4 addresses.  To 
me It follows that this requirement would apply to transfers too, at least until 
the requirement is eliminated. 

I think I like it.  It legitimately raises the bar for obtaining IPv4 resource during 
a scarcity, without raising it to far.  Further it will be hard for any CEO to 
claim "I didn't know", if or when this gets to the point Congress gets involved.

So just to clarify, does this apply to transfers too?

Thanks


===============================================
David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota		       Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE		       Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029	       FAX: 612-626-1818
===============================================



From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Apr 21 10:30:54 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:30:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49ED90AB.18281.31EF36E@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49ECDAE4.2000500@arin.net> <49ED90AB.18281.31EF36E@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <5D43CF78-E84B-4B86-94E8-9DDDBA43CAA2@istaff.org>


On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:23 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> On 20 Apr 2009 Member Services wrote:
>
>> Beginning 18 May 2009, ARIN will require that all applications for  
>> IPv4
>> address space include an attestation of accuracy from an officer of  
>> the
>> organization. For information on this requirement, please see:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html
>
> Since this attestation will become part of the standard for  
> justifying need for
> IPv4 addresses as of May 18, 2009.  Therefore, I assume that since  
> the new
> Transfer Policy, either 2008-6 or 2009-1, requires justified need,  
> and this will
> soon be part of the standard for justifying the need for IPv4  
> addresses.  To
> me It follows that this requirement would apply to transfers too, at  
> least until
> the requirement is eliminated.
>
> I think I like it.  It legitimately raises the bar for obtaining  
> IPv4 resource during
> a scarcity, without raising it to far.  Further it will be hard for  
> any CEO to
> claim "I didn't know", if or when this gets to the point Congress  
> gets involved.
>
> So just to clarify, does this apply to transfers too?

Yes.

/John

John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN



From Dan.Thorson at seagate.com  Tue Apr 21 10:38:42 2009
From: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com (Dan.Thorson at seagate.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:38:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49ED90AB.18281.31EF36E@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <OFD238072C.296DC79C-ON8625759F.00504BFB-8625759F.00507244@seagate.com>

David Farmer said:

> Further it will be hard for any CEO to claim "I didn't know",
> if or when this gets to the point Congress gets involved.

Huh?  You think the CEO of any large company would actually be involved in
an IP addr request or transfer?

d



From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 21 11:29:28 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:29:28 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49ED90AB.18281.31EF36E@farmer.umn.edu>
References: <49ECDAE4.2000500@arin.net> <49ED90AB.18281.31EF36E@farmer.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B056@mail>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:24 AM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> On 20 Apr 2009 Member Services wrote:
> 
> > Beginning 18 May 2009, ARIN will require that all applications for IPv4
> > address space include an attestation of accuracy from an officer of the
> > organization. For information on this requirement, please see:
> >
> > https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html
> 
> Since this attestation will become part of the standard for justifying
> need for
> IPv4 addresses as of May 18, 2009.  Therefore, I assume that since the new
> Transfer Policy, either 2008-6 or 2009-1, requires justified need, and
> this will
> soon be part of the standard for justifying the need for IPv4 addresses.
> To
> me It follows that this requirement would apply to transfers too, at least
> until
> the requirement is eliminated.
> 
> I think I like it.  It legitimately raises the bar for obtaining IPv4
> resource during
> a scarcity, without raising it to far.  Further it will be hard for any
> CEO to
> claim "I didn't know", if or when this gets to the point Congress gets
> involved.

I don't mind this, and will have no problem at all taking the extra step
when the time comes, but I do not think it really raises the bar for anyone
other than legitimate users.  

Criminals will have no problem responding with "CEO" letterhead, just as
laws prohibiting gun ownership doesn't seem to bother criminals.  They still
have their guns - rules only affect those who follow the rules.

Attestation of accuracy is implied in actions taken by net admins. While the
other stuff rolls downhill responsibility rolls up the chain of command.


> 
> So just to clarify, does this apply to transfers too?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090421/b0c73c02/attachment.bin>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Apr 21 11:31:56 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:31:56 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <OFD238072C.296DC79C-ON8625759F.00504BFB-8625759F.00507244@seagate.com>
References: <OFD238072C.296DC79C-ON8625759F.00504BFB-8625759F.00507244@seagate.com>
Message-ID: <8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org>

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
> Huh?  You think the CEO of any large company would actually be  
> involved in
> an IP addr request or transfer?

If the organization wants to receive an allocation of an increasingly
scarce global resource, they'll need to make some officer available to
state that the application is accurate.  While this may be difficult
in larger organizations, the importance of insuring accurate need-based
applications is paramount.

/John

John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN


From Dan.Thorson at seagate.com  Tue Apr 21 11:54:42 2009
From: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com (Dan.Thorson at seagate.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:54:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <OFDB73BBCA.683AC644-ON8625759F.0055FCB9-8625759F.00577335@seagate.com>

John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote on 04/21/2009 10:31:56 AM:

> On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
> > Huh?  You think the CEO of any large company would actually be
> > involved in an IP addr request or transfer?
>
> If the organization wants to receive an allocation of an increasingly
> scarce global resource, they'll need to make some officer available to
> state that the application is accurate.  While this may be difficult
> in larger organizations, the importance of insuring accurate need-based
> applications is paramount.

I guess it all comes down to how we define "officer."  Reading through
https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html I'm not sure
I would know who ARIN would deem an acceptable "officer" of my company.
Please understand that executives won't sign anything unless they
understand it (under the guise of SOX)... and I would be hard-pressed to
find an executive of most any large corporation who would be able "to
attest to the validity of the information provided to ARIN." (I suppose the
CEO of an ISP might be cluefull about IP allocations, but no others.)

You say difficult... I say impossible.

So do we forge a signature?  No.
So do we pretend that a manager who understands the request is an
"officer"?  No.
Rock --> us <-- Hard-place

danT



From mksmith at adhost.com  Tue Apr 21 11:56:34 2009
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:56:34 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org>
References: <OFD238072C.296DC79C-ON8625759F.00504BFB-8625759F.00507244@seagate.com>
	<8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605EC0C2D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>

Hello John:

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:32 AM
To: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com
Cc: ARIN PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
> Huh?  You think the CEO of any large company would actually be  
> involved in
> an IP addr request or transfer?

If the organization wants to receive an allocation of an increasingly
scarce global resource, they'll need to make some officer available to
state that the application is accurate.  While this may be difficult
in larger organizations, the importance of insuring accurate need-based
applications is paramount.

/John

John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost] 

What if the person requesting the block is an Officer in the company?
We're small and I'm the CTO/CISO and I do the requests for space.  Would
I be a valid respondent to the secondary inquiry or is this a matter of
vetting through a second, discrete individual?

Regards,

Mike


From Robert.Smales at cw.com  Tue Apr 21 12:07:58 2009
From: Robert.Smales at cw.com (Smales, Robert)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:07:58 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <OFDB73BBCA.683AC644-ON8625759F.0055FCB9-8625759F.00577335@seagate.com>
Message-ID: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F014E531C@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com>

Hi All,

> On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
> > Huh?  You think the CEO of any large company would actually be
> > involved in an IP addr request or transfer?

I'm at the bottom of the food chain in an organisation with around 8,000 employees, I'm pretty sure that if I thought we needed more space from ARIN, the CEO would take my word for it and wouldn't ask to see my workings. I would expect this attestation to be in the pile of things that the CEO would just sign before moving on to the stuff which required some thought.

Robert

Robert Smales 
IP Provide Engineer 
Cable&Wireless 
Europe, Asia & US 
www.cw.com 


This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ 

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
 
Cable and Wireless plc 
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 
Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ


From jcurran at istaff.org  Tue Apr 21 12:13:44 2009
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:13:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605EC0C2D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
References: <OFD238072C.296DC79C-ON8625759F.00504BFB-8625759F.00507244@seagate.com>
	<8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org>
	<17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605EC0C2D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <FFF6F9BD-E981-4245-8D5C-2E2742E3C288@istaff.org>


On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
>
> [Michael K. Smith - Adhost]
>
> What if the person requesting the block is an Officer in the company?
> We're small and I'm the CTO/CISO and I do the requests for space.   
> Would
> I be a valid respondent to the secondary inquiry or is this a matter  
> of
> vetting through a second, discrete individual?

Michael -

   There are additional details are available here:
   <https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html>
   If that doesn't address your circumstances, send a message to
   ARIN Registration Services <hostmaster at arin.net> for assistance.

/John

John Curran
Acting CEO
ARIN




From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 21 12:54:56 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:54:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <OFDB73BBCA.683AC644-ON8625759F.0055FCB9-8625759F.00577335@seagate.com>
References: <8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org>
	<OFDB73BBCA.683AC644-ON8625759F.0055FCB9-8625759F.00577335@seagate.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Dan.Thorson at seagate.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:55 AM
> To: jcurran at istaff.org
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote on 04/21/2009 10:31:56 AM:
> 
> > On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
> > > Huh?  You think the CEO of any large company would actually be
> > > involved in an IP addr request or transfer?
> >
> > If the organization wants to receive an allocation of an increasingly
> > scarce global resource, they'll need to make some officer available to
> > state that the application is accurate.  While this may be difficult
> > in larger organizations, the importance of insuring accurate need-based
> > applications is paramount.
> 
> I guess it all comes down to how we define "officer."  Reading through
> https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html I'm not sure
> I would know who ARIN would deem an acceptable "officer" of my company.
> Please understand that executives won't sign anything unless they
> understand it (under the guise of SOX)... and I would be hard-pressed to
> find an executive of most any large corporation who would be able "to
> attest to the validity of the information provided to ARIN." (I suppose
> the
> CEO of an ISP might be cluefull about IP allocations, but no others.)
> 
> You say difficult... I say impossible.
> 
> So do we forge a signature?  No.
> So do we pretend that a manager who understands the request is an
> "officer"?  No.
> Rock --> us <-- Hard-place
> 
> danT

What it will boil down to is that some executive will call the NetAdmin in
to his office look him in the eye and say "Are you absolutely darned sure
this is accurate" and the NetAdmin will say "Yes, I wouldn't have written it
down if it weren't." and the (COO or some such) will sign the affidavit
based on the word of the NetAdmin who the COO trusts.  

One of the basics of good business is that the top guys don't know
everything, but they rely on people who do. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090421/b8934ac8/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 21 13:02:55 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:02:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <FFF6F9BD-E981-4245-8D5C-2E2742E3C288@istaff.org>
References: <OFD238072C.296DC79C-ON8625759F.00504BFB-8625759F.00507244@seagate.com><8526E063-A117-4210-8E99-42B851663E71@istaff.org><17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D52031605EC0C2D@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
	<FFF6F9BD-E981-4245-8D5C-2E2742E3C288@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B059@mail>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:14 AM
> To: Michael K.Smith - Adhost
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> 
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> >
> > [Michael K. Smith - Adhost]
> >
> > What if the person requesting the block is an Officer in the company?
> > We're small and I'm the CTO/CISO and I do the requests for space.
> > Would
> > I be a valid respondent to the secondary inquiry or is this a matter
> > of
> > vetting through a second, discrete individual?
> 
> Michael -
> 
>    There are additional details are available here:
>    <https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html>
>    If that doesn't address your circumstances, send a message to
>    ARIN Registration Services <hostmaster at arin.net> for assistance.
> 
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> Acting CEO
> ARIN
> 
One thing that I do find interesting is that the way it is written ARIN will
initiate the correspondence with the "Officer".  In our registrations the
Admin POC happens to be our COO, who happens to be very aware and educated
and would be able to make this call, but I can see that for a lot of
organizations ARIN will have trouble identifying an appropriate officer,
unless they just ask the Tech POC who they should call to verify his
submission.  

That would be sort of like asking your teenage daughter who you should call
to see if she really was at the library all night, rather a pointless
exercise IMHO.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090421/4f7a1257/attachment.bin>

From Dan.Thorson at seagate.com  Tue Apr 21 13:33:21 2009
From: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com (Dan.Thorson at seagate.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:33:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>
Message-ID: <OFA2F58920.CF2BDBA2-ON8625759F.006006FE-8625759F.00607B6C@seagate.com>

>
> What it will boil down to is that some executive will call the NetAdmin
in
> to his office look him in the eye and say "Are you absolutely darned sure
> this is accurate" and the NetAdmin will say "Yes, I wouldn't have written
it
> down if it weren't." and the (COO or some such) will sign the affidavit
> based on the word of the NetAdmin who the COO trusts.
>

In some smaller companies, sure... but if the COO has never heard of the
NetAdmin?  Another very real scenario is that the exec's admin sends a
reply-to-all terse email from the corporate HQ facility (1000 miles away)
saying "WTF is this? Who are these guys?"... then legal gets called in to
review the documentation, and 400 billable hours go by and by the time
legal determines that they don't have any comment we will have converted
all the desktops to IPv6.  Ah Ha!  I know see the motivation for the
Attestation!  :/

d



From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 21 13:44:56 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:44:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <OFA2F58920.CF2BDBA2-ON8625759F.006006FE-8625759F.00607B6C@seagate.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>
	<OFA2F58920.CF2BDBA2-ON8625759F.006006FE-8625759F.00607B6C@seagate.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B05B@mail>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com [mailto:Dan.Thorson at seagate.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 12:33 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> >
> > What it will boil down to is that some executive will call the NetAdmin
> in
> > to his office look him in the eye and say "Are you absolutely darned
> sure
> > this is accurate" and the NetAdmin will say "Yes, I wouldn't have
> written
> it
> > down if it weren't." and the (COO or some such) will sign the affidavit
> > based on the word of the NetAdmin who the COO trusts.
> >
> 
> In some smaller companies, sure... but if the COO has never heard of the
> NetAdmin?  Another very real scenario is that the exec's admin sends a
> reply-to-all terse email from the corporate HQ facility (1000 miles away)
> saying "WTF is this? Who are these guys?"... then legal gets called in to
> review the documentation, and 400 billable hours go by and by the time
> legal determines that they don't have any comment we will have converted
> all the desktops to IPv6.  Ah Ha!  I know see the motivation for the
> Attestation!  :/
> 
> d

In bigger companies it is just a longer chain of command.  The tech attests
to the Admin, the Admin attests to the department head, the department head
attests to the CTO, the CTO attests to the COO, and the COO attests to the
CEO, the CEO signs the affidavit.  Does that remind you of serial security
certificates?

So long as everybody (except the poor admin) has someone else to point the
fickle finger at then everyone is happy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090421/2c1b0b41/attachment.bin>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 13:48:26 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:48:26 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B05B@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>	<OFA2F58920.CF2BDBA2-ON8625759F.006006FE-8625759F.00607B6C@seagate.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B05B@mail>
Message-ID: <49EE06EA.4060700@gmail.com>

Kevin Kargel wrote:
>
> In bigger companies it is just a longer chain of command.  The tech attests
> to the Admin, the Admin attests to the department head, the department head
> attests to the CTO, the CTO attests to the COO, and the COO attests to the
> CEO, the CEO signs the affidavit.  Does that remind you of serial security
> certificates?

It's worth noting that the attestation requirement is for "an officer" 
to sign it, not for "the CEO".  So in this example (and in companies 
like ours), you would probably want to give ARIN the CTO as the officer 
to contact for attestation.

-Scott


From michael.dillon at bt.com  Tue Apr 21 14:02:07 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:02:07 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B67847@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> What it will boil down to is that some executive will call 
> the NetAdmin in to his office look him in the eye and say 
> "Are you absolutely darned sure this is accurate" and the 
> NetAdmin will say "Yes, I wouldn't have written it down if it 
> weren't." and the (COO or some such) will sign the affidavit 
> based on the word of the NetAdmin who the COO trusts.  

What world are you living in? The executives who did that in 
Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and others, are now sitting in jail.
The Sarbanes-Oxley act is not just law, but common corporate
practice even for companies that are not incorporated under
U.S. jusrisdiction.

I don't expect any corporate officer to sign off on this
kind of attestation until after the stock of IP addresses
is audited by someone competetent, i.e. an accountant who
has audit training. This means that if you work in a network
group that has been flying under the radar for years,
managing IP addresses as some minor netops technical detail,
life is about to get interesting.

And don't bother sneering at those accountants and making
smart remarks about how little they understand networks.
They don't need to. They will want to see your records,
understand your recordkeeping procedures, and make sure that
you really do know how many IP addresses are in use, how
many are unavoidably wasted for technical reasons, and how
many are in limbo due to customer churn or network redesign.

In fact it would be useful if ARIN would produce some documentation
targeted at CPA auditors, that explains how to audit IPv4 addresses.

--Michael Dillon

Oh, by the way, the last time our finance audit committee audited
IP addresses, they produced a report with about a dozen recommendations
that had to be implemented, some of them requiring significant 
effort. So expect life to get very, very interesting for some people.




From Dan.Thorson at seagate.com  Tue Apr 21 14:07:42 2009
From: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com (Dan.Thorson at seagate.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:07:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49EE06EA.4060700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>


> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >
>
> It's worth noting that the attestation requirement is for "an officer"
> to sign it, not for "the CEO".  So in this example (and in companies
> like ours), you would probably want to give ARIN the CTO as the officer
> to contact for attestation.

Scott,
Replace all instances of CEO in my previous email with CTO.  Same applies.



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 14:20:38 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:20:38 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>
Message-ID: <49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>

Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
>>     
>> It's worth noting that the attestation requirement is for "an officer"
>> to sign it, not for "the CEO".  So in this example (and in companies
>> like ours), you would probably want to give ARIN the CTO as the officer
>> to contact for attestation.
>>     
>
> Scott,
> Replace all instances of CEO in my previous email with CTO.  Same applies.
>   

Agreed.  In larger companies, the process of getting an officer's 
attention long enough to explain this whole IP request thing will be 
more difficult. In many cases, the difficulty will in fact be roughly 
proportional to the size of the IP request.  In any event, ARIN won't be 
sending the officer anything until you (the requestor) give them the 
officer's e-mail address, though, so you should be able to go through 
whatever internal procedure is required to appropriately escalate the 
issue and get the officer (and his admin, if necessary) up to speed 
before the e-mail from ARIN comes in.  But as John put it, "the 
importance of insuring accurate need-based applications is paramount", 
and this new procedure should help reduce waste and inefficient use of 
IPv4 addresses as we approach exhaustion.

-Scott


From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 21 14:39:06 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:39:06 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B67847@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>
	<28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B67847@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B05F@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: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> > What it will boil down to is that some executive will call
> > the NetAdmin in to his office look him in the eye and say
> > "Are you absolutely darned sure this is accurate" and the
> > NetAdmin will say "Yes, I wouldn't have written it down if it
> > weren't." and the (COO or some such) will sign the affidavit
> > based on the word of the NetAdmin who the COO trusts.
> 
> What world are you living in? The executives who did that in
> Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and others, are now sitting in jail.
> The Sarbanes-Oxley act is not just law, but common corporate
> practice even for companies that are not incorporated under
> U.S. jusrisdiction.
> 

I agree 100% that there will (should?) need to be changes in the way
accounting is done, at a very minimum for those companies subject to SOX.  I
also agree that the "officer" should double check with his audit team (if
such exists).  That should happen now.  I suspect it rarely does (or rarely
even exists).

This is one reason that there will be more CTO chairs in the executive
boardrooms in the future.

I live in the small business world.  And I like it here.  It is a nice
world.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090421/a5cbc52f/attachment.bin>

From craig.finseth at state.mn.us  Tue Apr 21 14:27:41 2009
From: craig.finseth at state.mn.us (Craig Finseth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:27:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B67847@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	(michael.dillon@bt.com)
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B67847@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <200904211827.n3LIRf37030051@inana.itg.state.mn.us>

	...
   I don't expect any corporate officer to sign off on this
   kind of attestation until after the stock of IP addresses
   is audited by someone competetent, i.e. an accountant who
   has audit training. This means that if you work in a network
   group that has been flying under the radar for years,
   managing IP addresses as some minor netops technical detail,
   life is about to get interesting.

   And don't bother sneering at those accountants and making
   smart remarks about how little they understand networks.
   They don't need to. They will want to see your records,
   understand your recordkeeping procedures, and make sure that
   you really do know how many IP addresses are in use, how
   many are unavoidably wasted for technical reasons, and how
   many are in limbo due to customer churn or network redesign.

   In fact it would be useful if ARIN would produce some documentation
   targeted at CPA auditors, that explains how to audit IPv4 addresses.
	...

I am excerpting and repeating this message from Michael Dillon because
it is all but impossible to underemphasize how important it is.

If you're operating with full ITIL-level processes and complete
recordkeeping, you're fine.  This will cover about 10 organizations
out there.

If you're like the rest of us, your IP address management is not up to
par.  You're going to spend a lot of time with auditors going over
what you are doing and why you are doing it.

Also, when was the last time you audited your routing tables against
your IP address management database (err, spreadsheet)?  Yup, you get
to do that, too.

And I would like to underscore the request for ARIN to produce the
documentation for auditors.  It will help us all immensely.

Craig



From kkargel at polartel.com  Tue Apr 21 14:47:35 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:47:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>
	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:21 PM
> To: Dan.Thorson at seagate.com
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> Dan.Thorson at seagate.com wrote:
> >>
> >> It's worth noting that the attestation requirement is for "an officer"
> >> to sign it, not for "the CEO".  So in this example (and in companies
> >> like ours), you would probably want to give ARIN the CTO as the officer
> >> to contact for attestation.
> >>
> >
> > Scott,
> > Replace all instances of CEO in my previous email with CTO.  Same
> applies.
> >
> 
> Agreed.  In larger companies, the process of getting an officer's
> attention long enough to explain this whole IP request thing will be
> more difficult. In many cases, the difficulty will in fact be roughly
> proportional to the size of the IP request.  In any event, ARIN won't be
> sending the officer anything until you (the requestor) give them the
> officer's e-mail address, though, so you should be able to go through
> whatever internal procedure is required to appropriately escalate the
> issue and get the officer (and his admin, if necessary) up to speed
> before the e-mail from ARIN comes in.  But as John put it, "the
> importance of insuring accurate need-based applications is paramount",
> and this new procedure should help reduce waste and inefficient use of
> IPv4 addresses as we approach exhaustion.
> 
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________

The issue here is that any less than scrupulous admin probably also has the
ability to create any email address he wants to and pass that on to ARIN as
the contact.  Because of this I really don't see this step adding any real
world security or fidelity.  Or are you saying that the dishonest people
would be unlikely to cheat like that?

I believe though, that the contact will be made by certified postal mail,
not by email.  

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090421/7bcb1781/attachment.bin>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 15:00:49 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:00:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>
Message-ID: <49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com>

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> The issue here is that any less than scrupulous admin probably also has the
> ability to create any email address he wants to and pass that on to ARIN as
> the contact.  Because of this I really don't see this step adding any real
> world security or fidelity.  Or are you saying that the dishonest people
> would be unlikely to cheat like that?
>   

As an employee of a US public corporation, such an admin likely would 
not face any penalties under today's rules if he stretched the truth on 
an application to ARIN.  But if he also impersonated an officer of the 
company, he would likely face termination, and likely additional 
penalties as well.  Since the benefit of additional address space goes 
to the corporation, rather than to the individual admin, the new set of 
incentives makes it far less likely for such an admin to want to cheat.

In the case of smaller companies where the requestor would personally 
benefit from getting more addresses from ARIN, the requestor likely *is* 
an officer, so the only effect of this new policy would be to possibly 
make it slightly easier for ARIN to go after the requestor for fraud.

> I believe though, that the contact will be made by certified postal mail,
> not by email.  
>   

That is true for the outreach contact, but not for the attestation 
stuff.  According to 
https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/officer_attest.html, "ARIN 
will send a summary of the request (via e-mail) to the officer with a 
cc: to the requesting POC (Tech or Admin) and ask the officer to attest 
to the validity of the information provided to ARIN", and "The 
certifying officer will be asked to reply to the e-mail and certify the 
data is valid and accurate."

-Scott


From sethm at rollernet.us  Tue Apr 21 15:07:05 2009
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:07:05 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>
	<49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 
> In the case of smaller companies where the requestor would personally 
> benefit from getting more addresses from ARIN, the requestor likely *is* 
> an officer, so the only effect of this new policy would be to possibly 
> make it slightly easier for ARIN to go after the requestor for fraud.
> 

Some day I hope that new and exciting ways for small orgs to be raped by
the system will apply equally to everyone, regardless of size, money, or
lawyers.

~Seth


From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 15:10:00 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:10:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>	<49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com>
	<49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com>

Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> Some day I hope that new and exciting ways for small orgs to be raped by
> the system will apply equally to everyone, regardless of size, money, or
> lawyers.
>   

I would actually think that this new procedure is much easier on small 
orgs than on large ones, because there are far fewer layers of 
bureaucracy between the requestor and an officer...

-Scott


From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 21 15:27:47 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:27:47 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <OFA2F58920.CF2BDBA2-ON8625759F.006006FE-8625759F.00607B6C@seagate.com>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B058@mail>
	<OFA2F58920.CF2BDBA2-ON8625759F.006006FE-8625759F.00607B6C@seagate.com>
Message-ID: <131CDABFF55E4BEF8F573573C5042AB6@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of 
> Dan.Thorson at seagate.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:33 AM
> To: kkargel at polartel.com
> Cc: ARIN PPML; arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> >
> > What it will boil down to is that some executive will call the 
> > NetAdmin
> in
> > to his office look him in the eye and say "Are you 
> absolutely darned 
> > sure this is accurate" and the NetAdmin will say "Yes, I 
> wouldn't have 
> > written
> it
> > down if it weren't." and the (COO or some such) will sign the 
> > affidavit based on the word of the NetAdmin who the COO trusts.
> >
> 
> In some smaller companies, sure... but if the COO has never 
> heard of the NetAdmin?  Another very real scenario is that 
> the exec's admin sends a reply-to-all terse email from the 
> corporate HQ facility (1000 miles away) saying "WTF is this? 
> Who are these guys?"... then legal gets called in to review 
> the documentation, and 400 billable hours go by and by the 
> time legal determines that they don't have any comment we 
> will have converted all the desktops to IPv6.

You must be talking about General Motors....  ;-)


Ted



From info at arin.net  Tue Apr 21 15:40:56 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:40:56 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Staff Assessment
In-Reply-To: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net>
References: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>

Draft Policy 2009-1
Title: Transfer Policy
Date Submitted: 24 March 2009
Date of Assessment: 21 April 2009


ARIN Staff Assessment

The assessment of this draft policy includes comments from ARIN staff
and the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal,
and resource concerns regarding the implementation of this draft policy
as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language may necessitate
further analysis by staff and Counsel.

I. Draft Policy

Available below and at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html

II. Summary

ARIN staff understands that this policy provides a new definition in
NRPM for the term organization, modifies the structure of the Transfer
policy (NRPM 8), adds a new condition to the Transfer policy that allows
an authorized resource holder to transfer number resources via ARIN to a
recipient who can justify the resource(s) under a current ARIN policy,
and changes the criteria established by 2008-6 to include: opens
transfers to all number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs), removes the
sunset clause, and requires that the resource holder and recipient be
within the ARIN region.

III. Comments

A. ARIN Staff

1. In section 2.8, the term organization is defined as one ?parent?
organization be responsible for all of its associated companies? or
subsidiaries? interactions with ARIN. Today ARIN allows companies and
their subsidiaries to open multiple accounts in order to accommodate
their network needs, completely independent of their organization/legal
structure. If this definition is applied exactly as written, it could
affect many policies in NRPM that contain the term organization and
could also affect ARIN?s customers ability to manage their networks
independently.
2. In Section 8.2, the word ?affecting? should be changed back to
?effecting?.
3. In Section 8.3, we recommend changing "by any authorized resource
holder" to "by the authorized resource holder," for additional clarity.
4. Section 8.3 states that the recipient must ?demonstrate the need for
such resources in the exact amount which they can justify under current
ARIN policies.? (This criterion was initially defined in 2008-6 and was
carried over into 2009-1). Current ARIN policies do not allow the
issuance of /23s and /24s with the exception of the micro-allocation
policy. As written, this policy would exclude /23s and /24s from being
transferred.

B. ARIN General Counsel

The core of 2009-1 is an NRPM friendly restatement of the policy sent to
the Board by the AC. It contains several language changes suggested by
counsel and others from Board members. The proposed policy significantly
reduces legal risks, fees and expenses for ARIN. Facts available
indicate a nascent black market in number resource transfers has begun,
transfers are being made in contravention of ARIN policy, and these
would continue to expand in number and importance absent immediate
implementation of a policy like 2009-1. By providing a clear transfer
policy, consistent with RFC 2008 and RFC 2050, 2009-1 will also result
in the appropriate and useful transfer of unused or under utilized IPV4
number resources to organizations who need them. Therefore, it may
provide a critical cushion of time for recipients of resources who
utilize the policy in the period when exhaustion of new IPV4 resources
is becoming imminent or is occurring. This is consistent with ARIN's
mission with regard to fair allocation. The new policy also provides a
substantial beneficial reason for legacy holders to sign LRSAs, which,
in turn, will provide important benefits to ARIN, the law enforcement
community, and Internet community.

One aspect of 2009-1 is materially different from 2008-6 ? specifically
the three year sunset provision in 2008-6 has not been included. Counsel
did not ask for this change, but believes it is useful from a legal
perspective. The deletion of the sunset provision means a mandatory
review of the policy does not have to be undertaken at a single fixed
point in time chosen now. I believe this policy is likely to be
reconsidered and amended several times before the three year sunset
provision is reached, assuming it is adopted. This three year sunset
provision was not tied to a specific rationale, such as the date of
expected exhaustion of RIR issuance of IPV4 space, or a year after that
date. The stability of a transfer policy without such a predetermined
sunset provision is legally preferable, absent a compelling and
particular reason why the sunset date chosen is important. The sunset
provision did not further any legal objective. Since this policy, if
completed , can be amended or repealed at any point, and sunset
provisions have not been routinely utilized to require reevaluation of
controversial ARIN policies, the absence of a sunset provision is
legally preferable.' Counsel has no position on the definition of
organization.

IV. Resource Impact ? Moderate

The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as minimal. It
is estimated that this policy may require up to 90 days to implement
following ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. It may require the
following:

? Guidelines Changes
? Staff training
? All internal registration procedures to be rewritten in order to
accommodate the new definition of organization.

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


##*##


> Draft Policy 2009-1
> Transfer Policy
>
> Originator: ARIN Board of Trustees (using the Emergency PDP provision in
> the ARIN Policy Development Process)
>
> Date: 24 March 2009
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Insert into the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual as follows:
>
> Add Section 2.8:
>
> ?Organization. An Organization is one or more legal entities under
> common control or ownership.?
>
> Replace Section 8 as follows:
>
> 8. Transfers
>
> 8.1. Principles
> Number resources are non-transferable and are not assignable to any
> other organization unless ARIN has expressly and in writing approved a
> request for transfer. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions on
> whether to approve the transfer of number resources.
>
> It should be understood that number resources are not "sold" under ARIN
> administration. Rather, number resources are assigned to an organization
> for its exclusive use for the purpose stated in the request, provided
> the terms of the Registration Services Agreement continue to be met and
> the stated purpose for the number resources remains the same. Number
> resources are administered and assigned according to ARIN's published
> policies.
>
> Number resources are issued, based on justified need, to organizations,
> not to individuals representing those organizations. Thus, if a company
> goes out of business, regardless of the reason, the point of contact
> (POC) listed for the number resource does not have the authority to
> sell, transfer, assign, or give the number resource to any other person
> or organization. The POC must notify ARIN if a business fails so the
> assigned number resources can be returned to the available pool of
> number resources if a transfer is not requested and justified.
>
> 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions
> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the
> case of mergers and acquisitions upon receipt of evidence that the new
> entity has acquired the assets which had, as of the date of the
> acquisition or proposed reorganization, justified the current entity's
> use of the number resource. Examples of assets that justify use of the
> number resource include, but are not limited to:
>
> ? Existing customer base
> ? Qualified hardware inventory
> ? Specific software requirements.
>
> In evaluating a request for transfer, ARIN may require the requesting
> organization to provide any of the following documents, as applicable,
> plus any other documents deemed appropriate:
>
> ? An authenticated copy of the instrument(s) affecting the transfer of
> assets, e.g., bill of sale, certificate of merger, contract, deed, or
> court decree.
> ? A detailed inventory of all assets utilized by the requesting party in
> maintaining and using the number resource.
> ? A list of the requesting party's customers using the number resource.
>
> If further justification is required, the requesting party may be asked
> to provide any of the following, or other supporting documentation, as
> applicable:
>
> ? A general listing of the assets or components acquired
> ? A specific description of acquisitions, including:
>
> o Type and quantity of equipment
> o Customer base
>
> ? A description of how number resources are being utilized
> ? Network engineering plans, including:
>
> o Host counts
> o Subnet masking
> o Network diagrams
> o Reassignments to customers
>
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
> Number resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN for
> transfer to another specified organizational recipient, by any
> authorized resource holder within the ARIN region. Such transferred
> number resources may only be received by organizations that are within
> the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the
> exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>
> #####
>
> Notes:
>
> Most of the existing Section 8 is left unchanged. List of changes:
>
> 2.8 New.
> 8.1 Changes from ?Transfers? to ?Principles.?
> 8.2 Changes from ?Transfer Requirements? to ?Mergers and Acquisitions.?
> 8.2 The word ?only? is removed.
> 8.3 Merged up into 8.2.
> 8.3 Edited version of the adopted 2008-6.
>
>   





From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 21 15:40:34 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:40:34 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <200904211827.n3LIRf37030051@inana.itg.state.mn.us>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458B67847@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<200904211827.n3LIRf37030051@inana.itg.state.mn.us>
Message-ID: <8376C4D9D64145228C122A630DEC5BAF@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Craig Finseth
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:28 AM
> To: michael.dillon at bt.com
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
> 
> 	...
>    I don't expect any corporate officer to sign off on this
>    kind of attestation until after the stock of IP addresses
>    is audited by someone competetent, i.e. an accountant who
>    has audit training. This means that if you work in a network
>    group that has been flying under the radar for years,
>    managing IP addresses as some minor netops technical detail,
>    life is about to get interesting.
> 
>    And don't bother sneering at those accountants and making
>    smart remarks about how little they understand networks.
>    They don't need to. They will want to see your records,
>    understand your recordkeeping procedures, and make sure that
>    you really do know how many IP addresses are in use, how
>    many are unavoidably wasted for technical reasons, and how
>    many are in limbo due to customer churn or network redesign.
> 
>    In fact it would be useful if ARIN would produce some documentation
>    targeted at CPA auditors, that explains how to audit IPv4 
> addresses.
> 	...
> 
> I am excerpting and repeating this message from Michael 
> Dillon because it is all but impossible to underemphasize how 
> important it is.
> 
> If you're operating with full ITIL-level processes and 
> complete recordkeeping, you're fine.  This will cover about 
> 10 organizations out there.
> 
> If you're like the rest of us, your IP address management is 
> not up to par.  You're going to spend a lot of time with 
> auditors going over what you are doing and why you are doing it.
> 
> Also, when was the last time you audited your routing tables 
> against your IP address management database (err, 
> spreadsheet)?  Yup, you get to do that, too.
> 
> And I would like to underscore the request for ARIN to 
> produce the documentation for auditors.  It will help us all 
> immensely.
> 

Many years ago I worked in A/P in a publically-held corporation and
WAS under auditing.  This was pre-SOX but the fact of the matter is that
SOX really only codified what any GAAP-compliant and well-run
publically-held company was already doing.  It really is no big deal
if your corporate culture already demands accountability.

I also feel compelled to point out that all those US banks that
we bailed out with TARP last year were under Sarbanes-Oxley for the
last 6 years and yet they still had to be bailed out due to outright
lying and cheating on their financials.  And how many convictions
have we seen from the SEC to any of those CEO's?

I would like to believe that the requirement will cause the rest
of the crowd who are under SOX but aren't compliant with it to
clean up their IP act, but I think the reality is that it's not
going to make a difference.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 21 15:48:42 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:48:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
In-Reply-To: <49EDD4C1.9010306@verizonbusiness.com>
References: <49DD26CC.8020301@usfamily.net> <49E4D866.9020908@impulse.net>
	<49EDD4C1.9010306@verizonbusiness.com>
Message-ID: <EEBC0664F3B6417685B768DC0BF520D4@tedsdesk>


"...ordered ... from Verizon ... specified 
dual-stack v4/v6....Order progressed normally..."

Just consider the above statement for a moment - sure they
ran into problems later, but aside from that, this represents
tremendous progress in the industry

2 years ago, most providers were at the "Ipv-what" stage...

Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Heather Schiller
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:14 AM
> To: Jay Hennigan
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Backbone Anecdotes
> 
> 
> Apologies for any problems you are having.. feel free to ping 
> me privately if you would like some assistance running this down.
> 
> That goes for anyone with questions about or trying to work 
> through the VZB/UUnet/MCI process of getting v6 connectivity.
> 
>   --Heather
> 
> ====================================================
>   Heather Schiller	Verizon Business
>   Customer Security	1.800.900.0241
>   IP Address Management	help4u at verizonbusiness.com
> =====================================================
> 
> 
> Jay Hennigan wrote:
> > We ordered an FE circuit from Verizon at One Wilshire, specified 
> > dual-stack v4/v6.  Order progressed normally, at the last 
> minute they 
> > claim that they don't have any IPv6 capability at One 
> Wilshire at all 
> > and will have to backhaul it from somewhere (unspecified).  
> This seems 
> > hard to believe.
> > 
> > Ongoing...
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Tue Apr 21 16:45:01 2009
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:45:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Staff
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>
References: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net> <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0904211345h24f5289o22964e1d3b696c4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Draft Policy 2009-1
> Title: Transfer Policy
> III. Comments
>
> A. ARIN Staff
>
> 1. In section 2.8, the term organization is defined as one ?parent?
> organization be responsible for all of its associated companies? or
> subsidiaries? interactions with ARIN. Today ARIN allows companies and
> their subsidiaries to open multiple accounts in order to accommodate
> their network needs, completely independent of their organization/legal
> structure. If this definition is applied exactly as written, it could
> affect many policies in NRPM that contain the term organization and
> could also affect ARIN?s customers ability to manage their networks
> independently.

Does this mean that if Berkshire Hathaway owns three ISPs and a phone
company, Warren Buffet will have to attest to the accuracy of their
IPv4 requests?

:-P

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


From jaitken at aitken.com  Wed Apr 22 10:02:09 2009
From: jaitken at aitken.com (Jeff Aitken)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:02:09 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Staff
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>
References: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net> <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>
Message-ID: <20090422140209.GA3083@eagle.aitken.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 03:40:56PM -0400, Member Services wrote:
> 1. In section 2.8, the term organization is defined as one ?parent?
> organization be responsible for all of its associated companies? or
> subsidiaries? interactions with ARIN. 
> [...]
> Counsel has no position on the definition of organization.

This last sentence is surprising.  A number of folks have posted to PPML 
raising issues with this change and the staff assessment highlights one of
them as well.  I'm surprised that counsel "has no position" since this is
at least as "material" a change as the removal of the sunset clause.

I haven't heard anyone argue *in favor* of this change beyond point (6) in
the board's statement on 4/6/2009.  IMO, two of the biggest flaws are that:

- it is difficult or impossible to enforce for privately-held companies
  whose ownership details may not be a matter of public record, and

- it forces the "parent" organization to take on the burden of managing
  IP number resources for each subsidiary.

I understand the desire to protect against folks gaming the system, but the
second issue in particular seems like a pretty big unintended consequence.
The definition is also vague.  Which takes precedence, "common control" or
"ownership"?  Does Chrysler manage its own IP resources, or does Cerberus
Capital?  Or to use my former employer as an example: would Time Warner
be responsible for handling all ARIN interaction on behalf of AOL, Turner,
Time Inc., Warner Bros., et. al.?  If so, does that mean that the parent
organization pays a single fee for all resources used by all subsidiaries?

The word "organization" occurs over 100 times in the NRPM.  Is the board
satisfied that this new definition is appropriate in every case?

I do not support 2009-1, as written.


--Jeff



From jmp at safe.ca  Wed Apr 22 17:51:31 2009
From: jmp at safe.ca (Jean-Marc Pigeon)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:51:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>
	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>	<49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com>
	<49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>  <49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1240437091.6320.198.camel@Mercier.safe.ca>

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 12:10 -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote: 
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >
> > Some day I hope that new and exciting ways for small orgs to be raped by
> > the system will apply equally to everyone, regardless of size, money, or
> > lawyers.
> >   
> 
> I would actually think that this new procedure is much easier on small 
> orgs than on large ones, because there are far fewer layers of 
> bureaucracy between the requestor and an officer...

Agreed... but even in a small orgs, involving "officers" 
doesn't mean using IPV4 resources wisely.

A real anecdote, year 1990, an exchange I heard between
a techy and a medium size company very top officer.

Techy: to be connected to the Internet we can have IP number 
       assigned to us, according current and forecast needs, 
       one Class C is needed, maybe 2 at most.
       (company was using 3 VAX and a couple of Unix super-micro,
         and those were used to support main activity (accounting 
	 service type))

Manager: What is Class-C?

Techy: Class-C is the lowest group of IP you can get, you
	have class-B and class-A, class-A is a huge amount
	of IP, above 500000 IP.

Manager: What is the Class-A cost?

Techy: Free.

Manager: Get a Class-A!

Techy: There is no need for us and there is no way we
	could convince someone to assign a Class-A
	to us.

Manager: Could you get a Class-B?

Techy: We still have no need, but if I twist reality a little
	bit, yes I can have a class-B assigned to us.
	But why?

Manager: With big class-B own by us, we can say we are serious
	about the Internet!.

   
The techy got the class B assigned, soon enough the
class-B was not used, the company ceased to exist around
1998 but this class B is still not available to the
community (I am ready to bet it is not the only one).

Top manager was requesting a Big Internet Crunch to
satisfied its ego, regardless of real needs, same way 
some top manager are asking huge salary and Fringe Benefits
not to feed their child but rather to show off above
the crowd.

So asking to officer to validate a request and tell
them in same time the resource is depleted is a good
way to have the request over inflated; 
and sure enough; with all plausible excuses to fill up
at max.

While I don't believe involving officer will resolve
the IPV4 depletion at all, it is a move in the right
direction, "who is charge, who is taking responsibility",
but ARIN move is still too shy.

Lets move boldly...

IPV6 was sold to me and other as THE solution to get ENOUGH IP,
in fact there enough IPV6 to give one not only to everyone on
Earth but to its cat, dog, pig and parrot too, then there is
plenty enough to assign an IP to every single star in the milky way.

So why it is so difficult and expensive to have an IPV6?
no wonder IPV6 is still not real life!.

Lets propose and play with simple "IPV6 rules of acquisition".

#1: 	IPV6 are "allocated in trust" to a POC, POC is
	responsible for his IP "good behavior" before the
	the whole network. POC is not a company
	POC is a unique human "in charge".
	POC reference (signature keys), could be 
	controlled by a company (but this is
	something between company and the human POC)

#2:	New IPV6 allocation request are granted
	no question asked,  provided all previously
	allocated IP to POC are routed, have a reverse
	address and 80% are answering to "ping" (ie
	IP are used for real).

#3:	IP is allocated to a POC, transfer to
	another POC is NOT an option (I can
	explain why later.)

#4:	POC is probed (lets say every 3 month)
	to make sure there's a human in charge.
	if after 15 month nobody is in charge
	and/or POC maintenance fee are not paid
	ARIN will remove POC's IP from the
	IP to "be routed" list and could
	allocate IP to another POC after a latency time.

#5:	If POC is not handling his IP 
	in the right way (ie: used to
	make DOS, making network at risk, etc..) for the good 
	of the physical network, other POC could be called
	to vote against the faulty POC privileges (peers review). 

#6:	POC human details (phone number, personal Email..)
	are available to other POC only (to resolve technical
	issue).

#7:	Getting POC from ARIN will be a cumbersome process
	by purpose (ie getting 2 others good POC
	agreement, etc..), we do not want "night by fly" POC
	but POC can be requested by anyone (able to manage
	IP :-}).

Comments?

I have for my say, Internet was possible because getting
IPV4 was easy at the beginning (not too easy but easy enough
to have a critical mass).
With such simple rules, low maintenance fee, I would request
a small IPV6 (only what I need) on the spot and start to apply pressure on
my upstream provider to have IPV6 routed....

We must reach an IPV6 critical mass quick, lets forget about red-tape...

My 3 cents.

  
     

-- 
A bient?t
==========================================================================
Jean-Marc Pigeon                                   Internet: jmp at safe.ca
SAFE Inc.                                          Phone: (514) 493-4280
                                                   Fax:   (514) 493-1946
        Clement, 'a kiss solution' to get rid of SPAM (at last)
           Clement' Home base <"http://www.clement.safe.ca">
==========================================================================





From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Thu Apr 23 01:00:34 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:00:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <1240437091.6320.198.camel@Mercier.safe.ca>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>
	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>
	<49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com> <49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>
	<49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com>
	<1240437091.6320.198.camel@Mercier.safe.ca>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904222200m63e711eeme1aecf8c2fceb974@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon <jmp at safe.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 12:10 -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> >
>> > Some day I hope that new and exciting ways for small orgs to be raped by
>> > the system will apply equally to everyone, regardless of size, money, or
>> > lawyers.
>> >
>>
>> I would actually think that this new procedure is much easier on small
>> orgs than on large ones, because there are far fewer layers of
>> bureaucracy between the requestor and an officer...
>
> Agreed... but even in a small orgs, involving "officers"
> doesn't mean using IPV4 resources wisely.
>
> A real anecdote, year 1990, an exchange I heard between
> a techy and a medium size company very top officer.
>
[ clip sock puppet exchange ]

>
> Comments?
>


I don't think it's that hard. Has anyone received one of these yet or
can RSD post one so that we can see what they  actually look like?

I support the concept, but the process to get it done seems like it
could be more efficient. This sounds manual and it has to be costly.
ARIN could consider charging a fee for this. I'd rather not have to
pay an inordinate amount of processing (I need one executed, they need
10 executed) through payment of my fees.

Best,

Martin


From lear at cisco.com  Thu Apr 23 09:20:00 2009
From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:20:00 +0200
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>	<49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com>	<49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>
	<49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49F06B00.7020506@cisco.com>

On 4/21/09 9:10 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> I would actually think that this new procedure is much easier on small
> orgs than on large ones, because there are far fewer layers of
> bureaucracy between the requestor and an officer...
>    

Indeed, but I do not see this policy really having much impact on large 
enterprises.  Large enterprises have many options.

It is VERY EASY for a large enterprise to come up with a justification 
that would sufficiently pass muster for just about any amount of address 
space.  All it requires is that they demonstrate (a) they are growing, 
and (b) there exists some new personal technology (like, say, an iPhone 
or the like) that will make use of the block.  That could justify a 50% 
increase in allocations right there, because they will be relying on 
statistics that say that over 50% of phones will be so-called 
smartphones by the end of next year.

Of course there will be some organizations that will no doubt find such 
paperwork bothersome and expensive, and may choose a different route.  
That route includes IPv6, but quite frankly more likely would be more 
use of NAT, and where possible acquisition of address space on the grey 
market.  I say "grey" because ARIN probably cannot enforce anything upon 
the organizations that had space before they existed.  In fact it hasn't 
been shown that ARIN can enforce anything on organizations that have 
acquired addresses since.

The organizations that this will truly impact are service providers, 
because they acquire addresses all the time, and I won't presume to 
speak to the difficulty of introducing a new paperwork path, or 
requiring officers to make attestations.  You can bet, however, that 
where the root of that term appears, so do many lawyers.

I do wonder what would happen if someone in a government organization 
made an address request.  "Mr. Governor, would you mind signing this?"

Eliot


From info at arin.net  Thu Apr 23 14:31:31 2009
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:31:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Understanding ARIN's Policy Development Process
Message-ID: <49F0B403.8050706@arin.net>

On 7 January 2009, ARIN said goodbye to the Internet Resource Policy 
Evaluation Process (IRPEP) and adopted the Policy Development Process 
(PDP). To help answer your questions, ARIN is pleased to announce a new 
Flash-based presentation that provides a guided tour of the PDP. The 
first half of the presentation explains the purpose, scope, principles, 
and philosophy behind the Policy Development Process. The second half is 
an interactive tour of the specific steps and rules that guide policy 
ideas from proposal to implementation.

The PDP presentation is available at: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/pdp

Regards,
Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From BillD at cait.wustl.edu  Thu Apr 23 15:06:04 2009
From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:06:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Understanding ARIN's Policy
	Development Process
In-Reply-To: <49F0B403.8050706@arin.net>
References: <49F0B403.8050706@arin.net>
Message-ID: <EACF8B735E9CBA4B8BAF9E4165D030878E6008@ex1.cait.wustl.edu>

This new flash tutorial is great! Concise, interesting and
informative.... Kudos to all involved. 
Now, if it were only that simple....and, that more of the community
would get involved!

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-announce-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-announce-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: arin-announce at arin.net; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-announce] Understanding ARIN's Policy 
> Development Process
> 
> On 7 January 2009, ARIN said goodbye to the Internet Resource 
> Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP) and adopted the Policy 
> Development Process (PDP). To help answer your questions, 
> ARIN is pleased to announce a new Flash-based presentation 
> that provides a guided tour of the PDP. The first half of the 
> presentation explains the purpose, scope, principles, and 
> philosophy behind the Policy Development Process. The second 
> half is an interactive tour of the specific steps and rules 
> that guide policy ideas from proposal to implementation.
> 
> The PDP presentation is available at: 
> https://www.arin.net/knowledge/pdp
> 
> Regards,
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 



From stephen at sprunk.org  Thu Apr 23 15:22:15 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:22:15 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Staff
	Assessment
In-Reply-To: <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>
References: <49C911A8.5020009@arin.net> <49EE2148.3050301@arin.net>
Message-ID: <49F0BFE7.2060901@sprunk.org>

Member Services wrote:
> 1. In section 2.8, the term organization is defined as one ?parent? organization be responsible for all of its associated companies? or subsidiaries? interactions with ARIN. Today ARIN allows companies and their subsidiaries to open multiple accounts in order to accommodate their network needs, completely independent of their organization/legal structure. If this definition is applied exactly as written, it could affect many policies in NRPM that contain the term organization and could also affect ARIN?s customers ability to manage their networks independently.
>   

This change is sufficient reason for me to oppose 2009-1 as written.  
The term "organization" is used liberally in the NRPM and all of those 
past policies were adopted expecting a very different meaning of that 
word than the one this proposal assigns it.  As a consequence, this 
radically changes the meaning and effect of virtually every policy in 
the NRPM.  The Board's statement says that this change was intended to 
prevent "gaming of the transfer policy", but I can neither see how it 
would do so nor fathom how anyone would think that such a benefit (if we 
accept the BoT's claims as true) is worth the staggering costs to the 
community (and ARIN staff).

I agree that the ambiguity today in the meaning of "organization" is not 
ideal, and it probably should be clarified.  However, I do not think 
that this proposal is the right place to do it, nor do I think that this 
new definition is the one we want.  At minimum, it demands its own proposal.

> The core of 2009-1 is an NRPM friendly restatement of the policy sent to the Board by the AC.

With all due respect, I find this very misleading.  A "restatement" 
implies that the changes are editorial, not material, and 2009-1 
contains several material changes in addition to a few that appear to be 
editorial.  I don't hear anyone complaining about the editorial ones.

> It contains several language changes suggested by counsel and others from Board members. The proposed policy significantly reduces legal risks, fees and expenses for ARIN.

I think I've established a long record of deferring to counsel's 
expertise and would lean heavily toward accepting any changes (whether 
editorial or material) that were in keeping with the general spirit of 
the proposal, but without knowing which specific changes counsel is 
referring to here and what the legal justification is for each, I'm 
having a very hard time in this case.

> Facts available indicate a nascent black market in number resource transfers has begun, transfers are being made in contravention of ARIN policy, and these would continue to expand in number and importance absent immediate implementation of a policy like 2009-1. By providing a clear transfer policy, consistent with RFC 2008 and RFC 2050, 2009-1 will also result in the appropriate and useful transfer of unused or under utilized IPV4 number resources to organizations who need them. Therefore, it may provide a critical cushion of time for recipients of resources who utilize the policy in the period when exhaustion of new IPV4 resources is becoming imminent or is occurring. This is consistent with ARIN's mission with regard to fair allocation. The new policy also provides a substantial beneficial reason for legacy holders to sign LRSAs, which, in turn, will provide important benefits to ARIN, the law enforcement community, and Internet community.
>   

While I agree with these comments, AFAICT, they also apply to 2008-6 as 
adopted and, therefore, are not relevant to the discussion of 2009-1.

> One aspect of 2009-1 is materially different from 2008-6 ? specifically
> the three year sunset provision in 2008-6 has not been included. Counsel
> did not ask for this change, but believes it is useful from a legal perspective.

Thanks for the specific example and justification; after reading the 
various PPML threads I have come to support this specific change, and 
for the same reasons that counsel finds it "useful".  However, due to 
all of the other baggage in 2009-1, I still cannot support this 
particular proposal as written.

> Counsel has no position on the definition of organization.
>   

Again, thanks for the specificity.

However, that does beg the question of what change counsel _did_ 
request, since it was neither of the two most controversial parts of the 
proposal...

> IV. Resource Impact ? Moderate
>
> ...
> ? All internal registration procedures to be rewritten in order to accommodate the new definition of organization.
>   

See above (top).

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090423/902796d8/attachment.bin>

From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Thu Apr 23 22:51:50 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:51:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Does this apply to Transfers too?
In-Reply-To: <49F06B00.7020506@cisco.com>
References: <OF03447228.AA522C19-ON8625759F.006393A2-8625759F.0063A070@seagate.com>
	<49EE0E76.8030407@gmail.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B060@mail>
	<49EE17E1.70408@gmail.com> <49EE1959.9010104@rollernet.us>
	<49EE1A08.3020208@gmail.com> <49F06B00.7020506@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904231951p5e9a217am34749c295ec7b72e@mail.gmail.com>

I agree, and as someone who works mainly for large corporations.
(Public, private, and/or evil YMMV) I don't think that I will (or
would) have difficulty with assuring compliance with this
administrative directive.

Best,

Martin


On 4/23/09, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/09 9:10 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> I would actually think that this new procedure is much easier on small
>> orgs than on large ones, because there are far fewer layers of
>> bureaucracy between the requestor and an officer...
>>
>
> Indeed, but I do not see this policy really having much impact on large
> enterprises.  Large enterprises have many options.
>
> It is VERY EASY for a large enterprise to come up with a justification
> that would sufficiently pass muster for just about any amount of address
> space.  All it requires is that they demonstrate (a) they are growing,
> and (b) there exists some new personal technology (like, say, an iPhone
> or the like) that will make use of the block.  That could justify a 50%
> increase in allocations right there, because they will be relying on
> statistics that say that over 50% of phones will be so-called
> smartphones by the end of next year.
>
> Of course there will be some organizations that will no doubt find such
> paperwork bothersome and expensive, and may choose a different route.
> That route includes IPv6, but quite frankly more likely would be more
> use of NAT, and where possible acquisition of address space on the grey
> market.  I say "grey" because ARIN probably cannot enforce anything upon
> the organizations that had space before they existed.  In fact it hasn't
> been shown that ARIN can enforce anything on organizations that have
> acquired addresses since.
>
> The organizations that this will truly impact are service providers,
> because they acquire addresses all the time, and I won't presume to
> speak to the difficulty of introducing a new paperwork path, or
> requiring officers to make attestations.  You can bet, however, that
> where the root of that term appears, so do many lawyers.
>
> I do wonder what would happen if someone in a government organization
> made an address request.  "Mr. Governor, would you mind signing this?"
>
> Eliot
> _______________________________________________
> 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 ccope at ncf.ca  Fri Apr 24 11:37:46 2009
From: ccope at ncf.ca (Christopher Cope)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:37:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
Message-ID: <2885fd289f5b.289f5b2885fd@ncf.ca>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090424/e91c4c30/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri Apr 24 12:20:55 2009
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:20:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
In-Reply-To: <2885fd289f5b.289f5b2885fd@ncf.ca>
References: <2885fd289f5b.289f5b2885fd@ncf.ca>
Message-ID: <9E013A14-34EC-4A64-A5E2-3CF2E6CDC664@gmail.com>

Chris,

Thanks for the feedback. Do you see NCF having any trouble getting an  
IPv6 /32 under the existing policy and fee schedule? I have a lot of  
respect for networks like that, but I'd need more data to be convinced  
that the policy need extends to larger networks.

Thanks,
Scott

On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Christopher Cope <ccope at ncf.ca> wrote:

> I wish to comment on section 2.8, the definition of a Community  
> Network.  In my opinion, the stated definition is woefully  
> inadequate to describe  many of the community networks that exist in  
> Canada and elsewhere.  Limiting the definition to organizations with  
> annual budgets less than  $250,000 may encompass community networks  
> in developing nations, but is far too limiting to include mature  
> organizations in North America such  as the National Capital  
> FreeNet. NCF was incorporated as a  not-for-profit community network  
> in 1992 and our budget for 2009 exceeds  $1 Million. Even the  
> portion of our revenue that represents donations  exclusively  
> related to dial-up service is approaching this arbitrary  $250,000  
> threshold. The fact is that we have more than 10,000 members  now  
> and continue to grow. In order to provide this much needed service   
> in our community, we also engage in other activities beyond being a   
> sim ple dial-up provider in order to ensure that we can continue to  
> offer connectivity to those who are unable to pay.
>
> Nor would this definition work for many of the modern community  
> owned fibre networks, where costs and revenues are typically higher,  
> but nonetheless, where services and connectivity is offered to  
> community agencies on a not-for profit basis, and by where by any  
> other definition would indeed be community networks.
>
> Limiting the definition of a Community Network by imposing a limit  
> on budget size onerously limits the playing field to those  
> organizations that have not grown up yet and that employ the  
> technologies of yesterday and in some cases tomorrow, but most  
> definitely not tomorrow. The whole reason for IPv6 is to provide for  
> growth. Why allow growth in addresses while disregarding growth in  
> costs and revenue.
>
> Chris Cope
> President, National Capital FreeNet
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 jmaimon at chl.com  Sun Apr 26 16:38:10 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:38:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Remote participation chat rooms
Message-ID: <49F4C632.4050100@chl.com>

Is the hands-up room supposed to be working already?


From susanh at arin.net  Sun Apr 26 17:12:53 2009
From: susanh at arin.net (Susan Hamlin)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:12:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Remote participation chat rooms
In-Reply-To: <49F4C632.4050100@chl.com>
References: <49F4C632.4050100@chl.com>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB23640352AED@EDAMAME.arin.net>

Joe,

The description of the various chat rooms and their hours is available here: 

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/remote.html

Note: "The "Hands-up" polling room and "on-record" chat will be available during the public policy sessions on Monday and Tuesday; "on-record" will also be available during the Members Meeting on Wednesday.  They will open 15-30 before the meeting begins each day. The "community" chat room will be available during the Open Policy Hour and for all Public Policy and Members Meeting sessions."

Susan Hamlin
ARIN Member Services



-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:38 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Remote participation chat rooms

Is the hands-up room supposed to be working already?
_______________________________________________
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 heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com  Mon Apr 27 12:25:10 2009
From: heather.schiller at verizonbusiness.com (Heather Schiller)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:25:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Jean Camp presentation
Message-ID: <49F5DC66.2040501@verizonbusiness.com>


  Can someone make this presentation available for download later?  It's 
not available at 
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/agenda.html right now.

  Thanks,
--Heather

-- 
====================================================
  Heather Schiller	Verizon Business
  Customer Security	1.800.900.0241
  IP Address Management	help4u at verizonbusiness.com
=====================================================



From susanh at arin.net  Mon Apr 27 12:39:22 2009
From: susanh at arin.net (Susan Hamlin)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:39:22 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Jean Camp presentation
In-Reply-To: <49F5DC66.2040501@verizonbusiness.com>
References: <49F5DC66.2040501@verizonbusiness.com>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB23640352BF1@EDAMAME.arin.net>

Heather,

Jean Camp's presentation is available now as part of the agenda matrix at: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/agenda.html

Regards,

Susan Hamlin
ARIN Member Services


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Heather Schiller
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:25 PM
To: ARIN PPML
Subject: [arin-ppml] Jean Camp presentation


  Can someone make this presentation available for download later?  It's 
not available at 
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXIII/agenda.html right now.

  Thanks,
--Heather

-- 
====================================================
  Heather Schiller	Verizon Business
  Customer Security	1.800.900.0241
  IP Address Management	help4u at verizonbusiness.com
=====================================================

_______________________________________________
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 kc at caida.org  Mon Apr 27 18:02:56 2009
From: kc at caida.org (k claffy)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:02:56 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using the
	Emergency PDP)
Message-ID: <20090427220256.GA21702@rommie.caida.org>



i wrote a few weeks back, should have posted here: http://blog.caida.org/best_available_data/2009/04/06/a-part-of-hell-breaks-loose-in-the-arin-community/

(disclosure at end of: http://blog.caida.org/best_available_data/2009/03/29/icannrir-research-agenda-writ-large/)

the positive reception to jean's presentation today (go jean!)
suggests there might even be room for a dedicated annual policy
research workshop series.  anyway i'll make sure there's a caida 
update on address-related research for the fall meeting. hopefully
you have all tested http://spoofer.csail.mit.edu/ from a bunch 
of strange places..)

remote participation support greatly appreciated,
k


From ccope at ncf.ca  Mon Apr 27 18:05:20 2009
From: ccope at ncf.ca (Christopher Cope)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:05:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
Message-ID: <2e81aa2e85d0.2e85d02e81aa@ncf.ca>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090427/0f3ad77a/attachment.htm>

From jmp at safe.ca  Mon Apr 27 18:43:34 2009
From: jmp at safe.ca (Jean-Marc Pigeon)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:43:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
In-Reply-To: <2e81aa2e85d0.2e85d02e81aa@ncf.ca>
References: <2e81aa2e85d0.2e85d02e81aa@ncf.ca>
Message-ID: <1240872214.18936.95.camel@Mercier.safe.ca>


On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 18:05 -0400, Christopher Cope wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> The National Capital FreeNet monitors its operational costs very
[...]

>  savings can be re-directed towards providing connectivity on a
> cost-free basis to disadvantaged members who otherwise would not enjoy
> Internet access. Should NCF be required to pay the current fee
> schedule charges of $2,250/yr for an IPv6 /32 and/or IPv4 /20 the
> additional cost would equate to our not providing access for about 90
> or 100 people per block without finding a new source of funding.
	You are right....
	But you can go even further
	There is 2^56 /32 avail within IPV6, lets say
	there is need for 2^28 worldwide, revenue for ARIN would be
	around 500 Billion PER year, please tell me I am wrong
	in my estimation (I must be wrong somewhere).
	Such price could be explainable for IPV4 (to
	force people to move to IPV6).
	My understanding, the effective current ARIN policy
	is to avoid a future to IPV6.
	
	It is not a question of small or big organization, if
	IPV4 is too short in IP number and the future need
	far more IP then lets say current IPV6 asked prices
	are just plain "amazing".
> 
> It seems to me that the same level of assistance which would be
> provided to Community networks below the threshold of $250K ought to
> be extended to organizations such as FreeNet, who, incidentally, tries
> very hard not to be seen as an ?ISP? but rather an organization
> providing enabling technology to people who otherwise would be
> marginalized. We accomplish through support of those of our members
> with sufficient means to donate beyond the cost of their own
> connectivity, and in so-doing help provide services to those who are
> unable to pay.
> 
> Chris Cope
> President, National Capital FreeNet
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 
> 
> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:48 am 
> 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3 
> 
> > Sorry, my question was a bit unclear. 
> > 
> > Current policy allows an ISP to acquire IPv6 address space if they 
> > are 
> > "an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for 
> > making at 
> > least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations within 5 
> > years." 
> > (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six5) The current fee 
> > schedule 
> > charges $2,250/yr for small organizations (those with an IPv6 /32 
> > and/or 
> > IPv4 /20, for example). 
> > 
> > I presume an organization like NCF would qualify for IPv6 under 
> > existing 
> > policy, as an ISP that happens to be non-profit. Do you believe 
> > that 
> > ARIN fees of $2,250/yr would be a hardship for an organization of 
> > NCF's 
> > size? 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > Scott 
> > 
> > Christopher Cope wrote: 
> > > 
> > > *Hi Scott,* 
> > > 
> > > *Yes. Unless the definition isamended to remove the budget cap, 
> > most 
> > > succesful community networks in Canada and the US will be 
> > excluded by 
> > > definition. Budget size does not in any way reflect "community." 
> > It 
> > > does however restrict technology (you won't have any fibre-based 
> > > comnets) and size, NCF and others like it will be excluded. A 
> > > definition of community net should reflect the activities and 
> > purpose 
> > > of the organization; not the scope of the operation or 
> > technology used.* 
> > > 
> > > *Thanks for yout interest.* 
> > > 
> > > *Chris* 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > *----- Original Message -----* 
> > > 
> > > *From*: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> *Date*: Friday, 
> > April 
> > > 24, 2009 12:20 pm *Subject*: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3 
> > > Chris, 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the feedback. Do you see NCF having any trouble
> getting 
> > > > an 
> > > > IPv6 /32 under the existing policy and fee schedule? I have a
> lot 
> > > > of 
> > > > respect for networks like that, but I'd need more data to be 
> > > > convinced 
> > > > that the policy need extends to larger networks. 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, 
> > > > Scott 
> > > > 
> > > > On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Christopher Cope <ccope at ncf.ca> 
> > wrote:> > 
> > > > > I wish to comment on section 2.8, the definition of a
> Community 
> > > > > Network. In my opinion, the stated definition is woefully 
> > > > > inadequate to describe many of the community networks that 
> > > > exist in 
> > > > > Canada and elsewhere. Limiting the definition to
> organizations 
> > > > with 
> > > > > annual budgets less than $250,000 may encompass community 
> > > > networks 
> > > > > in developing nations, but is far too limiting to include 
> > matu re 
> > > > 
> > > > > organizations in North America such as the National Capital 
> > > > > FreeNet. NCF was incorporated as a not-for-profit community 
> > > > network 
> > > > > in 1992 and our budget for 2009 exceeds $1 Million. Even the 
> > > > > portion of our revenue that represents donations exclusively 
> > > > > related to dial-up service is approaching this arbitrary 
> > > > $250,000 
> > > > > threshold. The fact is that we have more than 10,000 members 
> > > > now 
> > > > > and continue to grow. In order to provide this much needed 
> > > > service 
> > > > > in our community, we also engage in other activities beyond 
> > > > being a 
> > > > > sim ple dial-up provider in order to ensure that we can
> continue 
> > > > to 
> > > > > offer connectivity to those who are unable to pay. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nor would this definition work for many of the modern
> community 
> > > > > owned fibre networks, where costs and reve nues are typically 
> > > > higher, 
> > > > > but nonetheless, where services and connectivity is offered
> to 
> > > > > community agencies on a not-for profit basis, and by where by 
> > > > any 
> > > > > other definition would indeed be community networks. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Limiting the definition of a Community Network by imposing a 
> > > > limit 
> > > > > on budget size onerously limits the playing field to those 
> > > > > organizations that have not grown up yet and that employ the 
> > > > > technologies of yesterday and in some cases tomorrow, but
> most 
> > > > > definitely not tomorrow. The whole reason for IPv6 is to
> provide 
> > > > for 
> > > > > growth. Why allow growth in addresses while disregarding
> growth 
> > > > in 
> > > > > costs and revenue. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Chris Cope 
> > > > > President, National Capital FreeNet 
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________ 
> > > > &g t; 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.
-- 
A bient?t
==========================================================================
Jean-Marc Pigeon                                   Internet: jmp at safe.ca
SAFE Inc.                                          Phone: (514) 493-4280
                                                   Fax:   (514) 493-1946
        Clement, 'a kiss solution' to get rid of SPAM (at last)
           Clement' Home base <"http://www.clement.safe.ca">
==========================================================================




From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Tue Apr 28 15:10:01 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:10:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using the
	Emergency PDP)
In-Reply-To: <20090427220256.GA21702@rommie.caida.org>
References: <20090427220256.GA21702@rommie.caida.org>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904281210t65cc18abha0a49eef77ce1c05@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:02 PM, k claffy <kc at caida.org> wrote:
>
>
> i wrote a few weeks back, should have posted here: http://blog.caida.org/best_available_data/2009/04/06/a-part-of-hell-breaks-loose-in-the-arin-community/
>
> (disclosure at end of: http://blog.caida.org/best_available_data/2009/03/29/icannrir-research-agenda-writ-large/)
>
> the positive reception to jean's presentation today (go jean!)
> suggests there might even be room for a dedicated annual policy
> research workshop series. ?anyway i'll make sure there's a caida
> update on address-related research for the fall meeting. hopefully
> you have all tested http://spoofer.csail.mit.edu/ from a bunch
> of strange places..)
>
> remote participation support greatly appreciated,
> k

I wouldn't classify the response to Jeans presentation as positive. We
were polite.

Best,

Martin


From bicknell at ufp.org  Tue Apr 28 15:45:40 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:45:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] RIPE Policy 2008-03 (May be useful about ARIN 2009-02)
Message-ID: <20090428194540.GA27301@ussenterprise.ufp.org>


Several speakers at the meeting spoke about reducing the timeperiod for
allocations from 12 months to some lower number.  RIPE policy 2009-03
attempts to do this, in the RIPE region.

The RIPE policy is at
http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html if anyone wants to
read it.

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090428/21c29994/attachment.sig>

From ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com  Tue Apr 28 16:39:04 2009
From: ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com (Stacy Hughes)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:39:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
Message-ID: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>

Ted Mittelstaedt
12:25

comment - let's quit dancing around this small/large ISP issue, the heart of
it is that flexibility aside, most smaller ISP's don't have as much money to
put into capital improvements like new routers.  Because of this, most of
them will want to delay purchase of new IPv6-compliant routing equipment as
long as possible to take advantage of falling prices.  Frankly, a surprising
number of small ISP's are almost certainly  buying used routers off -Ebay
(SOMEONE is buying those 7200's that are all over Ebay) so the longer they
can delay the move to IPv6 the less cost it will be for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090428/5d97cc5d/attachment.htm>

From steve at ibctech.ca  Tue Apr 28 17:00:29 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:00:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49F76E6D.70301@ibctech.ca>

Stacy Hughes wrote:
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt
> 12:25
> 
> comment - let's quit dancing around this small/large ISP issue, the
> heart of it is that flexibility aside, most smaller ISP's don't have as
> much money to put into capital improvements like new routers.  Because
> of this, most of them will want to delay purchase of new IPv6-compliant
> routing equipment as long as possible to take advantage of falling
> prices.  Frankly, a surprising number of small ISP's are almost
> certainly  buying used routers off -Ebay (SOMEONE is buying those 7200's
> that are all over Ebay) so the longer they can delay the move to IPv6
> the less cost it will be for them.

I totally disagree.

I've communicated with numerous small ISPs who are at the point where
they've got v6 deployed from core to edge, and are awaiting their larger
transit providers to provide native access.

Some (including myself) even have certain clients testing it.

Smaller organizations don't have nearly as much red tape to get through
to test and deploy new technologies, especially when testing can be done
on existing commodity hardware (Quagga on FreeBSD for example, or even
on existing very low-end gear eg: Cisco 2691's).

I find IPv6 to be less costly hardware-wise, as it takes far less memory
to hold a v6 table than a v4 table. I highly doubt that the size of the
v6 routing table will grow to an un-scalable size before the next round
of routers appear on eBay ;)

I don't think that we've got a single piece of gear that can't either
route or pass IPv6 traffic (other than our old PM3's).

Steve




From ptimmins at clearrate.com  Tue Apr 28 17:31:55 2009
From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul G. Timmins)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:31:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49F76E6D.70301@ibctech.ca>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F76E6D.70301@ibctech.ca>
Message-ID: <B98837F93D40A74D8656EAE7C1F57C56798BA3@EXCHANGE1.corp.clearrate.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> I don't think that we've got a single piece of gear that can't either
> route or pass IPv6 traffic (other than our old PM3's).

Put the PM3s into LAC mode, and point them at an IOS based router
running as an LNS. Instant IPv6 on your PM3s. Have done this.

Of course, the PM3s crashed a lot. Don't know if using it as a LAC had
anything to do with that.

-Paul


Paul Timmins
Clear Rate Communications, Inc.
24700 Northwestern Hwy
Suite 340
Southfield, MI 48075
Office: 248-556-4532
Fax: 248-556-4501
www.ClearRate.com



From cboyd at gizmopartners.com  Tue Apr 28 17:44:12 2009
From: cboyd at gizmopartners.com (Chris Boyd)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:44:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
Message-ID: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>

Since some people expressed concern for contact maintenace, address  
tracking etc.

There's clearly a demand for such services, as witnessed by http://www.wiana.org/ 
   Please, no debates about the wisdom of their use of 1.0.0.0/8 -  
It's clearly not a good thing.  It would be far better to bring such  
activists and enthusiasts into the ARIN fold and ensure that they use  
globally unique addresses in the future.  Past history shows that  
somehow, some way these networks will wind up getting connected to the  
global network.  Might as well make life in the future better for all.

--Chris



From steve at ibctech.ca  Tue Apr 28 19:05:20 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:05:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <B98837F93D40A74D8656EAE7C1F57C56798BA3@EXCHANGE1.corp.clearrate.net>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F76E6D.70301@ibctech.ca>
	<B98837F93D40A74D8656EAE7C1F57C56798BA3@EXCHANGE1.corp.clearrate.net>
Message-ID: <49F78BB0.4030807@ibctech.ca>

Paul G. Timmins wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I don't think that we've got a single piece of gear that can't either
>> route or pass IPv6 traffic (other than our old PM3's).
> 
> Put the PM3s into LAC mode, and point them at an IOS based router
> running as an LNS. Instant IPv6 on your PM3s. Have done this.

Thanks for the tip, I never thought about doing that.

> Of course, the PM3s crashed a lot. Don't know if using it as a LAC had
> anything to do with that.

Well, I've never had an issue with the stability of our PM3s. I'll test
it on a spare, and see how it works.

Cheers,

Steve


From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Apr 28 19:30:45 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:30:45 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>



Stacy Hughes wrote:
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt
> 12:25
> 
> comment - let's quit dancing around this small/large ISP issue, the 
> heart of it is that flexibility aside, most smaller ISP's don't have as 
> much money to put into capital improvements like new routers.  Because 
> of this, most of them will want to delay purchase of new IPv6-compliant 
> routing equipment as long as possible to take advantage of falling 
> prices.  Frankly, a surprising number of small ISP's are almost 
> certainly  buying used routers off -Ebay (SOMEONE is buying those 7200's 
> that are all over Ebay) so the longer they can delay the move to IPv6 
> the less cost it will be for them.


The other side to look at is that large ISP's moving to ipv6 for their
end users legitimizes the market for the rest.

Small orgs do not have the option of pushing ipv6 onto end users.

Large orgs may fear losing customers to small orgs for the year or so
that small orgs are able to turn up ipv4 while they may not be able to do.




From randy at psg.com  Tue Apr 28 19:32:22 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:32:22 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] RIPE Policy 2008-03 (May be useful about ARIN
	2009-02)
In-Reply-To: <20090428194540.GA27301@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20090428194540.GA27301@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <m2iqkos6bd.wl%randy@psg.com>

> Several speakers at the meeting spoke about reducing the timeperiod
> for allocations from 12 months to some lower number.  RIPE policy
> 2009-03 attempts to do this, in the RIPE region.

an attempt at something analogous in the apnic policy sig (see
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-063-v002.html) did not gain
consensus and was abandoned at the recent meeting in manila.

randy


From terry.l.davis at boeing.com  Tue Apr 28 19:00:15 2009
From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:00:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
Message-ID: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>

Chris

Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:

- International Civil Aviation Organization 
- Railway associations both in North America and Europe
- North American Power Companies
- Shipping companies
- City and County governments
- Fire Districts

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Boyd
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:44 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
> 
> Since some people expressed concern for contact maintenace, address
> tracking etc.
> 
> There's clearly a demand for such services, as witnessed by
> http://www.wiana.org/
>    Please, no debates about the wisdom of their use of 1.0.0.0/8 -
> It's clearly not a good thing.  It would be far better to bring such
> activists and enthusiasts into the ARIN fold and ensure that they use
> globally unique addresses in the future.  Past history shows that
> somehow, some way these networks will wind up getting connected to the
> global network.  Might as well make life in the future better for all.
> 
> --Chris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 28 19:54:11 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:54:11 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
Message-ID: <49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:31 PM
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
> Large orgs may fear losing customers to small orgs for the 
> year or so that small orgs are able to turn up ipv4 while 
> they may not be able to do.
> 

I'm under no illusions that qwest.net is the slightest bit concerned
about losing DSL customers to us. ;-)

Keep in mind that it's NOT the small orgs who were at the ARIN meeting
who are the ones I'm concerned about.  THEY are among the ones who will be
up
and willing and ready for IPv6.  It's the ones who are completely oblivious
to
what's going on right now - many of these may not even have their own
portable numbers yet.

I really fear that if we do not have the dribs and drabs of IPv4 that are
left after runout available for these orgs, or if available but priced in
the stratosphere, that some of them will be harmed.


Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Apr 28 20:15:24 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:15:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
Message-ID: <48023B1C408E4400AD579F57B50E29A9@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Boyd
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:44 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
> 
> Since some people expressed concern for contact maintenace, 
> address tracking etc.
> 
> There's clearly a demand for such services, as witnessed by 
> http://www.wiana.org/ 

I disagee that there is demand.  wiana is free and their software is
free and basically everything about them - except the hardware
that locusworld loads with their software - is free.

The second they start charging real money that will be the end of it.

It's not -real- demand.

Wiana is like the people who are out there claiming that since Linux has 2
million
installs and that Windows has 10 million installs, that Linux is 20%
of the operating system market, so dammit, why isn't Nvidia releasing
graphics drivers for Linux?

Well the answer is that Nvidia didn't start doing this until RedHat
got significant share in the Linux market - because RedHat costs money.
The ironic thing, though, is that RedHat is almost a swear word in the
Linux community and many that are forced to run commercial Linux software
will go out of their way to run it on CentOS.

Wiana fills a need for the enthusiast, that's why it exists.  But, what
they are doing doesn't map to the public Internet in any way and it
is misleading to draw parallels here.  The activists and enthusiasts
that are using it WON'T come into the ARIN fold - any more than I would
ever pay money for a Windows OS to run on a server - and I've been
running FreeBSD servers in commercial settings for the last 15 years.
They don't want to pay money to ARIN and won't do it, no matter what
we try.

When the day comes that IPv4 is dead, the wiana people will likely be
among the first to invent address translation for IPv6.

Ted



From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Apr 28 20:27:05 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:27:05 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49F79ED9.6050400@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I'm under no illusions that qwest.net is the slightest bit concerned
> about losing DSL customers to us. ;-)
>   
I used to think so, but now I am not quite as certain.


From randy at psg.com  Tue Apr 28 20:48:45 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:48:45 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <m263gos2s2.wl%randy@psg.com>

> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
> organizations

really?  please explain the contiguous issue.  because, when coupled
with large, it becomes "we'll need X 20 years out, and since it needs to
be contiguous, we need X now."  they and their upstreams don't plan to
have bgp speaking routers?

randy


From michael.dillon at bt.com  Wed Apr 29 04:53:15 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:53:15 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458DB3FE0@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> comment - let's quit dancing around this small/large ISP 
> issue, the heart of it is that flexibility aside, most 
> smaller ISP's don't have as much money to put into capital 
> improvements like new routers.  Because of this, most of them 
> will want to delay purchase of new IPv6-compliant routing 
> equipment as long as possible to take advantage of falling 
> prices.  Frankly, a surprising number of small ISP's are 
> almost certainly  buying used routers off -Ebay (SOMEONE is 
> buying those 7200's that are all over Ebay) so the longer 
> they can delay the move to IPv6 the less cost it will be for them.

You don't have to delay supporting IPv6 just because 99% of your
routers have no support. There are things like GRE tunnels,
MPLS with 6PE and MPLS with 6VPE which can be used to carry IPv6
packets over v4. And there are various gateway services like 
Teredo, 6to4, NAT-PT and the new v6 NAT which is not quite baked yet,
all of which allow some degree of interworking. Obviously an
ISP needs some devices to support IPv6 in order to make this
work, but not all devices.

That's why I suggest that all smaller ISPs should go to ARIN's
v6 wiki <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Main_Page>, get educated 
about v6, and figure out a plan of action.

There is more than one way to skin this cat.

--Michael Dillon


From randy at psg.com  Wed Apr 29 10:08:05 2009
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:08:05 +0900
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA5@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
Message-ID: <m2bpqfr1ru.wl%randy@psg.com>

> - Would it really be a great idea to have something like several 1000
>   individual IPv6 allocations to build the new global ATM on, if we
>   include 200 nations, 500+ aircraft operating entities, a 1000 or so
>   airports, plus aviation service providers of various types around
>   the globe?  To me, that would be a nightmare scenario to try to
>   design and secure a network to support any critical infrastructure.
>> 
>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>> organizations
>> 
>> really?  please explain the contiguous issue.  because, when coupled
>> with large, it becomes "we'll need X 20 years out, and since it needs to
>> be contiguous, we need X now."  they and their upstreams don't plan to
>> have bgp speaking routers?

thanks for showing my guess to be true.

you big important organizations definitely deserve a bunch of whatever
we think of as class A allocations in ipv6.

have we seen this movie before?  i think the popcorn got stale rather
quickly.

randy


From terry.l.davis at boeing.com  Wed Apr 29 09:55:08 2009
From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:55:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <m263gos2s2.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com><2557049
	CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<m263gos2s2.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA5@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>

Randy

I can only speak to design work going on for the Next Generation of Global Air Traffic Management Systems.

- Aviation has already agreed to use our air-to-ground link layer to isolate aircraft movements from the Internet routing should that ever be needed.

- At present the ATM network is being designed as a closed network (as our existing OSI network is) but our intent is to stay fully compatible and compliant with IPv6 standards.  So I don't see that as impacting nor do I see it ever be opened to Internet routing.

- Would it really be a great idea to have something like several 1000 individual IPv6 allocations to build the new global ATM on, if we include 200 nations, 500+ aircraft operating entities, a 1000 or so airports, plus aviation service providers of various types around the globe?  To me, that would be a nightmare scenario to try to design and secure a network to support any critical infrastructure.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:49 PM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: 'Chris Boyd'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
> 
> > Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
> > permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
> > organizations
> 
> really?  please explain the contiguous issue.  because, when coupled
> with large, it becomes "we'll need X 20 years out, and since it needs to
> be contiguous, we need X now."  they and their upstreams don't plan to
> have bgp speaking routers?
> 
> randy


From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Wed Apr 29 10:49:39 2009
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:49:39 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F791A5.8080005@chl.com> <49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <443de7ad0904290749x7ff64325h564d65f57c4d14f9@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 17:54, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:31 PM
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
>>
>>
>> Large orgs may fear losing customers to small orgs for the
>> year or so that small orgs are able to turn up ipv4 while
>> they may not be able to do.
>>
>
> I'm under no illusions that qwest.net is the slightest bit concerned
> about losing DSL customers to us. ;-)
>
> Keep in mind that it's NOT the small orgs who were at the ARIN meeting
> who are the ones I'm concerned about. ?THEY are among the ones who will be
> up
> and willing and ready for IPv6. ?It's the ones who are completely oblivious
> to
> what's going on right now - many of these may not even have their own
> portable numbers yet.
>
> I really fear that if we do not have the dribs and drabs of IPv4 that are
> left after runout available for these orgs, or if available but priced in
> the stratosphere, that some of them will be harmed.

To play the devils advocate; if an ISP of any size is truly oblivious
to what's going on right now do they deserve to be protected at the
detriment of orgs who _are_ clueful?  Or does responsibility for this
ignorance fall back to us who are "in the know" for not spreading the
word?  I guess my question is:  If a couple sheep run headlong off the
cliff, is that the fault of the shepherd or of the sheep?

IMHO, the answer is that it depends.  Did the shepherd do everything
(s)he should have to protect/guide the sheep?  Probably the more
important question though is who will be asking that question, by whom
will we be judged?  If we are judged by the big (and powerful) orgs
the answer will be much different than if we are judged by the small
ones who ran off the cliff (or were saved from said cliff)...

>
>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com


From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr 29 11:11:55 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:11:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <m2bpqfr1ru.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA5@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<m2bpqfr1ru.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904290811s5bae9c55kba0df995c4017fc4@mail.gmail.com>

Does anyone have a list of community networks that are interested in
this policy? I'd like to take a look and see if I can make an actual
case for this policy. I thought that the slides that we saw yesterday
didn't really do it. I think that there's a need based on extensions
of the network and utilizations like UUCP and store and forward
applications, but if noone is actually asking for that maybe we should
abandon this policy after all.

Best,

Martin


On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> - Would it really be a great idea to have something like several 1000
>> ? individual IPv6 allocations to build the new global ATM on, if we
>> ? include 200 nations, 500+ aircraft operating entities, a 1000 or so
>> ? airports, plus aviation service providers of various types around
>> ? the globe? ?To me, that would be a nightmare scenario to try to
>> ? design and secure a network to support any critical infrastructure.
>>>
>>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>>> organizations
>>>
>>> really? ?please explain the contiguous issue. ?because, when coupled
>>> with large, it becomes "we'll need X 20 years out, and since it needs to
>>> be contiguous, we need X now." ?they and their upstreams don't plan to
>>> have bgp speaking routers?
>
> thanks for showing my guess to be true.
>
> you big important organizations definitely deserve a bunch of whatever
> we think of as class A allocations in ipv6.
>
> have we seen this movie before? ?i think the popcorn got stale rather
> quickly.
>
> randy


From joelja at bogus.com  Wed Apr 29 11:34:26 2009
From: joelja at bogus.com (Joel Jaeggli)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:34:26 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <49F87382.10403@bogus.com>



Davis, Terry L wrote:
> Chris
> 
> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
> 
> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts

Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir allocation
policy? None as far as I can tell.

> Take care Terry
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Boyd Sent:
>> Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:44 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject:
>> [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>> 
>> Since some people expressed concern for contact maintenace, address
>>  tracking etc.
>> 
>> There's clearly a demand for such services, as witnessed by 
>> http://www.wiana.org/ Please, no debates about the wisdom of their
>> use of 1.0.0.0/8 - It's clearly not a good thing.  It would be far
>> better to bring such activists and enthusiasts into the ARIN fold
>> and ensure that they use globally unique addresses in the future.
>> Past history shows that somehow, some way these networks will wind
>> up getting connected to the global network.  Might as well make
>> life in the future better for all.
>> 
>> --Chris
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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 andrew.dul at quark.net  Wed Apr 29 11:38:46 2009
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:38:46 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?iso-8859-1?q?Demand_for_community_networking?=
Message-ID: <20090429153846.28694.qmail@hoster908.com>


For those community networks out there.  I'd like to understand why "community networks" cannot receive IPv6 allocations or assignments under the current policy.  During these discussions I have found there to be a very loose linkage for why a community network cannot qualify for a allocation/assignment under existing policy.  

The issue of cost here should be considered separately.

Andrew

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Martin Hannigan <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs>
>  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>  Sent: 29 Apr '09 08:11
>  
>  Does anyone have a list of community networks that are interested in
>  this policy? I'd like to take a look and see if I can make an actual
>  case for this policy. I thought that the slides that we saw yesterday
>  didn't really do it. I think that there's a need based on extensions
>  of the network and utilizations like UUCP and store and forward
>  applications, but if noone is actually asking for that maybe we should
>  abandon this policy after all.
>  
>  Best,
>  
>  Martin
>  
>  
>  On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>  >> - Would it really be a great idea to have something like several 1000
>  >> ? individual IPv6 allocations to build the new global ATM on, if we
>  >> ? include 200 nations, 500+ aircraft operating entities, a 1000 or so
>  >> ? airports, plus aviation service providers of various types around
>  >> ? the globe? ?To me, that would be a nightmare scenario to try to
>  >> ? design and secure a network to support any critical infrastructure.
>  >>>
>  >>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>  >>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>  >>>> organizations
>  >>>
>  >>> really? ?please explain the contiguous issue. ?because, when coupled
>  >>> with large, it becomes "we'll need X 20 years out, and since it needs to
>  >>> be contiguous, we need X now." ?they and their upstreams don't plan to
>  >>> have bgp speaking routers?
>  >
>  > thanks for showing my guess to be true.
>  >
>  > you big important organizations definitely deserve a bunch of whatever
>  > we think of as class A allocations in ipv6.
>  >
>  > have we seen this movie before? ?i think the popcorn got stale rather
>  > quickly.
>  >
>  > 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 spiffnolee at yahoo.com  Wed Apr 29 11:46:22 2009
From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] organization size of meeting participants
Message-ID: <246383.29127.qm@web63302.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


Joe Maimon asked during open mike yesterday what size organizations were represented at the public policy meeting.  Based on registrations given at 
https://www.arin.net/app/meeting/registration/?action=list_attendees&meeting_id=21
and using only my guess as to size, I find the following number of people registered, by size of organization:

Large                               33
Medium/Small                   48
Edu, Research, RIR           35
Government                       14

Again, this is number of people, not number of organizations.  Time Warner Cable, for instance, has several people listed.

A few years ago, I looked at all posts to PPML and did a similar count by size, and found that large organizations were really not posting much.  I hope this is useful.

Lee



      



From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr 29 11:58:47 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:58:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
>
>
> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>> Chris
>>
>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>
>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>
> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir allocation
> policy? None as far as I can tell.
>

I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or
even a good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.

-M<


From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Apr 29 12:08:46 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:08:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] organization size of meeting participants
In-Reply-To: <246383.29127.qm@web63302.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <246383.29127.qm@web63302.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49F87B8E.8010209@chl.com>

Lee,

A big thank you for the followup.

I will send you my own effort direct.

Thanks,

Joe

Lee Howard wrote:
> Joe Maimon asked during open mike yesterday what size organizations were represented at the public policy meeting.  Based on registrations given at 
> https://www.arin.net/app/meeting/registration/?action=list_attendees&meeting_id=21
> and using only my guess as to size, I find the following number of people registered, by size of organization:
> 
> Large                               33
> Medium/Small                   48
> Edu, Research, RIR           35
> Government                       14
> 
> Again, this is number of people, not number of organizations.  Time Warner Cable, for instance, has several people listed.
> 
> A few years ago, I looked at all posts to PPML and did a similar count by size, and found that large organizations were really not posting much.  I hope this is useful.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Apr 29 12:16:18 2009
From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:16:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <49F87D52.3070408@sprunk.org>

Davis, Terry L wrote:
> Chris
>
> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>
> - International Civil Aviation Organization 
> - Railway associations both in North America and Europe
> - North American Power Companies
> - Shipping companies
> - City and County governments
> - Fire Districts
>   

AFAICT, none of these organizations meet the definition of "community 
network" in 2008-3.  If you think that these orgs are not well served by 
current policy, please start a new thread describing what specifically 
you think needs to be changed to accommodate them.  Or, write your own 
policy proposal -- but please don't hijack someone else's 
proposal/discussion that has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090429/5561c6e5/attachment.bin>

From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Apr 29 12:27:47 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:27:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] organization size of meeting participants
In-Reply-To: <246383.29127.qm@web63302.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <246383.29127.qm@web63302.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49F88003.1030607@chl.com>

Lee,

I think also of interest is to see what percentage of that size of 
organization is represented.

Thanks,

Joe

Lee Howard wrote:
> Joe Maimon asked during open mike yesterday what size organizations were represented at the public policy meeting.  Based on registrations given at 
> https://www.arin.net/app/meeting/registration/?action=list_attendees&meeting_id=21
> and using only my guess as to size, I find the following number of people registered, by size of organization:
> 
> Large                               33
> Medium/Small                   48
> Edu, Research, RIR           35
> Government                       14
> 
> Again, this is number of people, not number of organizations.  Time Warner Cable, for instance, has several people listed.
> 
> A few years ago, I looked at all posts to PPML and did a similar count by size, and found that large organizations were really not posting much.  I hope this is useful.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Wed Apr 29 12:33:29 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:33:29 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

> I'm under no illusions that qwest.net is the slightest bit concerned
> about losing DSL customers to us. ;-)

Almost all big orgs are concerned about losing customers to anyone else,
big or small, because customer retention is what makes them a successful
and therefore large company. Any company not concerned about losing
customers to their competition will pay the price eventually. Don't kid
yourself into thinking big companies are foolish and naive.

> Keep in mind that it's NOT the small orgs who were at the ARIN meeting
> who are the ones I'm concerned about.  THEY are among the ones who
will
> be
> up
> and willing and ready for IPv6.  It's the ones who are completely
> oblivious
> to
> what's going on right now - many of these may not even have their own
> portable numbers yet.

ARIN have a lot of work on the go to spread the word about IPv6 to
the industry. It's not the responsibility of the larger networks to bear
the burden for organizations who aren't paying attention to the
industry. Not to mention that such organizations are not limited to
small (< /20 using) anyway, and a /9 set aside is extremely excessive
for such a purpose. Creating an unfair market that favors new entrants
above existing participants is setting ARIN up for a lawsuit.

To be honest, it's hard to see these arguments as anything other than
an excuse for small orgs supporting this policy to reserve IP space for
themselves, until such purposes are reflected in the policy proposal.

If this is your actual intention in supporting this policy,
then put it in writing and develop a policy that reserves this space
for companies that haven't received IP space from ARIN since 2007. If
that were written into the policy, I'd find this argument much more
credible. In my opinion, any responsible ARIN community member should
not support policy proposals with major unintended consequences outside
of the consequences you support. That, to me, is a policy ripe to be
sent back to the author to be refined.

> 
> I really fear that if we do not have the dribs and drabs of IPv4 that
> are
> left after runout available for these orgs, or if available but priced
> in
> the stratosphere, that some of them will be harmed.

Everyone will be harmed when exhaustion hits, there's no way around
that.
The idea is that we're all in this together, and any attempts to change
that sabotage the chances of the community working in unison to get IPv6
off the ground in time.

First of all, withholding IPv4 doesn't motivate companies to IPv6.
At this point, you need to deploy IPv6 so that your customers have
access to new content and applications, regardless of whether you have
some IPv4 address space left. Windows 7 will have functionality in it
that will only work with IPv6; will your customers be able to use it?
Anyone who can't see that their need to deploy IPv6 has been decoupled
from their IPv4 supply needs to pay closer attention to the industry.

Second of all, large ISPs do not drive IPv6 adoption. If you recall,
the saying is "If you build it, they will come", not the other way
around. A major reason our customers do not have IPv6 today is because
if we gave it to them they'd ask "what is this useful for?" and we
couldn't give them a good answer. Did your less technical savvy friends
and family buy an HDTV before or after HD channels came to market? The
content providers, who give Joe and Mary Public a use for this confusing
new IPv6 thing, are oft recipients of /20 or smaller. We need them in
this game with us, and as concerned about deploying IPv6 as they can be.

- Scott Beuker
 


From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com  Wed Apr 29 12:38:41 2009
From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:38:41 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>

We really need to pull the fee part of this out and the community definition out.  Those should be treated separately in the more appropriate manner.  And as far as those having issues getting address space under the various policies that already exist, the only place that has a valid case that I've heard is in the Caribbean.

I also hear that the main community request remaining is regarding experimentation. And if that is the case then use the policy for that. ARIN allocates Numbering Resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous System numbers) to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under terms of recognized experimental activity.

~Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:59 AM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
>
>
> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>> Chris
>>
>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>
>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>
> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir allocation
> policy? None as far as I can tell.
>

I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or even a good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.

-M<
_______________________________________________
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 tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 12:41:46 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:41:46 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <443de7ad0904290749x7ff64325h564d65f57c4d14f9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
	<443de7ad0904290749x7ff64325h564d65f57c4d14f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1AE4C3DB8AAD4A7194A3B2677BAA892E@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:50 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: Joe Maimon; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 17:54, Ted Mittelstaedt 
> <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:31 PM
> >> Cc: ARIN PPML
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> >>
> >>
> >> Large orgs may fear losing customers to small orgs for the 
> year or so 
> >> that small orgs are able to turn up ipv4 while they may 
> not be able 
> >> to do.
> >>
> >
> > I'm under no illusions that qwest.net is the slightest bit 
> concerned 
> > about losing DSL customers to us. ;-)
> >
> > Keep in mind that it's NOT the small orgs who were at the 
> ARIN meeting 
> > who are the ones I'm concerned about. ?THEY are among the ones who 
> > will be up and willing and ready for IPv6. ?It's the ones who are 
> > completely oblivious to what's going on right now - many of 
> these may 
> > not even have their own portable numbers yet.
> >
> > I really fear that if we do not have the dribs and drabs of 
> IPv4 that 
> > are left after runout available for these orgs, or if available but 
> > priced in the stratosphere, that some of them will be harmed.
> 
> To play the devils advocate; if an ISP of any size is truly 
> oblivious to what's going on right now do they deserve to be 
> protected at the detriment of orgs who _are_ clueful? 

No.  However, I have yet to see a logical argument that throwing
them this bone is a detriment to clueful ISP's.

> Or 
> does responsibility for this ignorance fall back to us who 
> are "in the know" for not spreading the word?  I guess my 
> question is:  If a couple sheep run headlong off the cliff, 
> is that the fault of the shepherd or of the sheep?
> 
> IMHO, the answer is that it depends.  Did the shepherd do 
> everything (s)he should have to protect/guide the sheep?  
> Probably the more important question though is who will be 
> asking that question, by whom will we be judged?  If we are 
> judged by the big (and powerful) orgs the answer will be much 
> different than if we are judged by the small ones who ran off 
> the cliff (or were saved from said cliff)...
>

I think the answer is a lot simpler than that.  What would YOU want
if you were in that ISP's shoes?

Every one of us is unaware of things going on that will affect us
at some point.  I picked up the newspaper this morning and discovered
our local state legislature is considering let cities charge a per-mile
tax on personal auto registrations.  This is an idea that's been cooking
down there for a while.  I trust my representatives to do the right thing
in the absense of me knowing about it, and kill this stupid idea.

I think anyone advocating for the small clueless ISP's to become roadkill
on the Internet due to the shift to IPv6 is asking for some very, very
bad karma.
 
Ted



From terry.l.davis at boeing.com  Wed Apr 29 11:53:10 2009
From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:53:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DAE@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>

Joel

ICAO will not provide any services directly.  The Internet services for the ATM Network will actually be provided by "navigation service providers" (FAA, CAA, Eurocontrol, etc), aviation "communication service providers" (SITA, ARINC, INMARSAT, etc), airports, etc.  ICAO will provide high level design guidance and address allocations.

6.2.2 RIR  -- ICAO is not

6.2.4 LIR  -- ICAO is not providing the services directly

6.5.1 Initial allocation -- Again ICAO is not providing services directly.

6.2.4 and 6.5.1 Are almost NITs, but a few words of change there to make it clear how this type of entity fits in probably need to be discussed eventually.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:34 AM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: 'Chris Boyd'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
> 
> 
> 
> Davis, Terry L wrote:
> > Chris
> >
> > Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
> > permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
> > organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
> >
> > - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
> > both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
> > Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
> 
> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir allocation
> policy? None as far as I can tell.
> 
> > Take care Terry
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Boyd Sent:
> >> Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:44 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject:
> >> [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
> >>
> >> Since some people expressed concern for contact maintenace, address
> >>  tracking etc.
> >>
> >> There's clearly a demand for such services, as witnessed by
> >> http://www.wiana.org/ Please, no debates about the wisdom of their
> >> use of 1.0.0.0/8 - It's clearly not a good thing.  It would be far
> >> better to bring such activists and enthusiasts into the ARIN fold
> >> and ensure that they use globally unique addresses in the future.
> >> Past history shows that somehow, some way these networks will wind
> >> up getting connected to the global network.  Might as well make
> >> life in the future better for all.
> >>
> >> --Chris
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ 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 martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr 29 12:45:52 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:45:52 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904290945x46864aacqc35394463e1e90c8@mail.gmail.com>

I would like to suggest that we get a chance to solidify the weak
justifications or +abandon and submit a new proposal next meeting.



On 4/29/09, Azinger, Marla <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com> wrote:
> We really need to pull the fee part of this out and the community definition
> out.  Those should be treated separately in the more appropriate manner.
> And as far as those having issues getting address space under the various
> policies that already exist, the only place that has a valid case that I've
> heard is in the Caribbean.
>
> I also hear that the main community request remaining is regarding
> experimentation. And if that is the case then use the policy for that. ARIN
> allocates Numbering Resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous System numbers) to
> entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time
> under terms of recognized experimental activity.
>
> ~Marla
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:59 AM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>>
>>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>>
>> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
>> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir allocation
>> policy? None as far as I can tell.
>>
>
> I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or even a
> good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.
>
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 13:01:48 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:01:48 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Beuker [mailto:Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:33 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> > I'm under no illusions that qwest.net is the slightest bit 
> concerned 
> > about losing DSL customers to us. ;-)
> 
> Almost all big orgs are concerned about losing customers to 
> anyone else, big or small, because customer retention is what 
> makes them a successful and therefore large company. Any 
> company not concerned about losing customers to their 
> competition will pay the price eventually. Don't kid yourself 
> into thinking big companies are foolish and naive.
> 

I never said they were.  Since we provision DSL over Qwest phone lines,
Qwest is in the position of being able to -significantly- undercut us
on price, which they do all the time.  I know Qwest has already done the
analysis and they don't want to have anything to do with the type of
customers
we serve.  But they have absolutely set things up so that they hoover up
the cherry customers.

> > Keep in mind that it's NOT the small orgs who were at the 
> ARIN meeting 
> > who are the ones I'm concerned about.  THEY are among the ones who
> will
> > be
> > up
> > and willing and ready for IPv6.  It's the ones who are completely 
> > oblivious to what's going on right now - many of these may not even 
> > have their own portable numbers yet.
> 
> ARIN have a lot of work on the go to spread the word about 
> IPv6 to the industry. It's not the responsibility of the 
> larger networks to bear the burden for organizations who 
> aren't paying attention to the industry. Not to mention that 
> such organizations are not limited to small (< /20 using) 
> anyway, and a /9 set aside is extremely excessive for such a 
> purpose. Creating an unfair market that favors new entrants 
> above existing participants is setting ARIN up for a lawsuit.
> 
> To be honest, it's hard to see these arguments as anything 
> other than an excuse for small orgs supporting this policy to 
> reserve IP space for themselves, until such purposes are 
> reflected in the policy proposal.
> 
> If this is your actual intention in supporting this policy, 
> then put it in writing and develop a policy that reserves 
> this space for companies that haven't received IP space from 
> ARIN since 2007. If that were written into the policy, I'd 
> find this argument much more credible. In my opinion, any 
> responsible ARIN community member should not support policy 
> proposals with major unintended consequences outside of the 
> consequences you support. That, to me, is a policy ripe to be 
> sent back to the author to be refined.
> 

As I said in the meeting comment I made, I thought this policy
needed tweaking.  However I support the philosophy of it.

> > 
> > I really fear that if we do not have the dribs and drabs of 
> IPv4 that 
> > are left after runout available for these orgs, or if available but 
> > priced in the stratosphere, that some of them will be harmed.
> 
> Everyone will be harmed when exhaustion hits, there's no way 
> around that.
> The idea is that we're all in this together, and any attempts 
> to change that sabotage the chances of the community working 
> in unison to get IPv6 off the ground in time.
> 
> First of all, withholding IPv4 doesn't motivate companies to IPv6.
> At this point, you need to deploy IPv6 so that your customers 
> have access to new content and applications, regardless of 
> whether you have some IPv4 address space left. Windows 7 will 
> have functionality in it that will only work with IPv6; will 
> your customers be able to use it?
> Anyone who can't see that their need to deploy IPv6 has been 
> decoupled from their IPv4 supply needs to pay closer 
> attention to the industry.
> 
> Second of all, large ISPs do not drive IPv6 adoption. If you 
> recall, the saying is "If you build it, they will come", not 
> the other way around. A major reason our customers do not 
> have IPv6 today is because if we gave it to them they'd ask 
> "what is this useful for?" and we couldn't give them a good 
> answer. Did your less technical savvy friends and family buy 
> an HDTV before or after HD channels came to market? The 
> content providers, who give Joe and Mary Public a use for 
> this confusing new IPv6 thing, are oft recipients of /20 or 
> smaller. We need them in this game with us, and as concerned 
> about deploying IPv6 as they can be.
> 

This isn't about driving IPv6.  It's about blocking IPv6.  Right now
there's ISPs ready and willing to deploy IPv6 and they can't - because
they are single-homed and their upstream - a larger ISP - isn't ready
and isn't routing IPv6.  We see these complaints all of the time on
the mailing lists, so I don't buy the argument that we are all in this
together.  Some of us are ready, others aren't.  If it's an end-node
AS that isn't ready, I don't care.  If it's a transit AS that isn't
ready, I do care - espically when there's end-node AS's connected to it
that are chomping at the bit to get rolling.

Clearly, the transit AS's need to get IPv6 deployed first.  Since the
largest ISP's with the highest IP consumption rates are all in this club,
and since they can't use the small IPv4 blocks that will be available
after the larger IPv4 blocks are assigned anyway, it's a no-brainer to
tell the largest ISPs - who need to be routing IPv6 first - that they will
lose access to IPv4 block requests first, before small orgs do - as we
approach IPv4 runout.

Ted



From owen at delong.com  Wed Apr 29 13:01:23 2009
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:01:23 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <07F448BE-DD04-4087-84E5-0B3385562B05@delong.com>

> I also hear that the main community request remaining is regarding  
> experimentation. And if that is the case then use the policy for  
> that. ARIN allocates Numbering Resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous  
> System numbers) to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources  
> for a fixed period of time under terms of recognized experimental  
> activity.
>
There are different forms of experimentation.  The experimentation you  
refer to is formal
research with defined tests and fixed periods.

The experimentation being described in the discussion is not that. It  
is the ongoing tinkering
and organic experimentation that occurs when you get enthusiasts  
together and they
start to ask interesting questions. Community networks, in addition to  
the connectivity
they provide for otherwise under-served groups of users, provide an  
environment where
such experiments can occur and be nurtured by a unique collaborative  
process.

Owen

> ~Marla
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]  
> On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:59 AM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>>
>>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>>
>> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
>> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir  
>> allocation
>> policy? None as far as I can tell.
>>
>
> I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or  
> even a good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.
>
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090429/7a3baaf0/attachment.p7s>

From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com  Wed Apr 29 13:16:06 2009
From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:16:06 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <07F448BE-DD04-4087-84E5-0B3385562B05@delong.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<07F448BE-DD04-4087-84E5-0B3385562B05@delong.com>
Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9930@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>

Still sounds like a mix of PI and Expirementation to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:01 AM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: Martin Hannigan; Joel Jaeggli; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking

> I also hear that the main community request remaining is regarding
> experimentation. And if that is the case then use the policy for that.
> ARIN allocates Numbering Resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous System
> numbers) to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources for a
> fixed period of time under terms of recognized experimental activity.
>
There are different forms of experimentation.  The experimentation you refer to is formal research with defined tests and fixed periods.

The experimentation being described in the discussion is not that. It is the ongoing tinkering and organic experimentation that occurs when you get enthusiasts together and they start to ask interesting questions. Community networks, in addition to the connectivity they provide for otherwise under-served groups of users, provide an environment where such experiments can occur and be nurtured by a unique collaborative process.

Owen

> ~Marla
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:59 AM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>>
>>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>>
>> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
>> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir
>> allocation policy? None as far as I can tell.
>>
>
> I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or
> even a good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.
>
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Wed Apr 29 13:27:42 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:27:42 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364A@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

> I never said they were.  Since we provision DSL over Qwest phone
lines,
> Qwest is in the position of being able to -significantly- undercut us
> on price, which they do all the time.  I know Qwest has already done
the
> analysis and they don't want to have anything to do with the type of
> customers
> we serve.  But they have absolutely set things up so that they hoover
up
> the cherry customers.

Fair enough, I don't know the backgrounds of posters on this list and
the situations their various businesses are in, so that you are in a
unique situation of using their infrastructure was not apparent.


> As I said in the meeting comment I made, I thought this policy
> needed tweaking.  However I support the philosophy of it.

And as I said in the comments I made, I could support a policy like
this if it were modified to be fair to all users of IP space,
regardless of size. But it sounds like you and I have vastly
different ideas on what the philosophy is here. 

> This isn't about driving IPv6.  It's about blocking IPv6.  Right now
> there's ISPs ready and willing to deploy IPv6 and they can't - because
> they are single-homed and their upstream - a larger ISP - isn't ready
> and isn't routing IPv6.  We see these complaints all of the time on
> the mailing lists, so I don't buy the argument that we are all in this
> together.  Some of us are ready, others aren't.  If it's an end-node
> AS that isn't ready, I don't care.  If it's a transit AS that isn't
> ready, I do care - espically when there's end-node AS's connected to
it
> that are chomping at the bit to get rolling.

Then might I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree, and need to
start looking at your upstream options or better ways to get the
attention of your upstream provider. ARIN is not the place to try to
force a single transit provider to provide a service you want, even if
you feel it's 

> Clearly, the transit AS's need to get IPv6 deployed first.  Since the
> largest ISP's with the highest IP consumption rates are all in this
> club,
> and since they can't use the small IPv4 blocks that will be available
> after the larger IPv4 blocks are assigned anyway, it's a no-brainer to
> tell the largest ISPs - who need to be routing IPv6 first - that they
> will
> lose access to IPv4 block requests first, before small orgs do - as we
> approach IPv4 runout.

As I've said, many do, and many others are just around the corner. Why
aren't you using your transit budget to reward the organizations that
provide the services you need, if you need it right now?

I do not buy your argument that you can't get IPv6 transit. That's an
excuse. It was mentioned during the tutorials on Sunday that you can get
free IPv6 transit from companies like Hurricane Electric, and that there
are companies providing transit via a tunnel right now. There's no
reason
to believe that native IPv6 transit, for optimal performance, will not
be available soon.

- Scott


From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Apr 29 13:38:19 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:38:19 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49F8908B.1070805@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>  

> 
> This isn't about driving IPv6.  It's about blocking IPv6.  Right now
> there's ISPs ready and willing to deploy IPv6 and they can't - because
> they are single-homed and their upstream - a larger ISP - isn't ready
> and isn't routing IPv6. 

To reiterate, I dont view it in quite those technical terms. As I see 
it, a smaller organization cannot or will not take the risks of pushing 
an ipv6 product until the larger organizations are doing so.

Smaller organizations get their money from selling a better product than 
large organizations and at this point from a customers point of view, 
ipv6 is barely a value add to ipv4, forget about replacement.

> Since the
> largest ISP's with the highest IP consumption rates are all in this club,
> and since they can't use the small IPv4 blocks that will be available
> after the larger IPv4 blocks are assigned anyway, it's a no-brainer to
> tell the largest ISPs - who need to be routing IPv6 first - that they will
> lose access to IPv4 block requests first, before small orgs do - as we
> approach IPv4 runout.

I agree.

> 
> Ted
> 


From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 13:51:00 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:51:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364A@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364A@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <E3F04A064EAF407E8BD91E93EBAD150E@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Beuker [mailto:Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:28 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> > I never said they were.  Since we provision DSL over Qwest phone
> lines,
> > Qwest is in the position of being able to -significantly- 
> undercut us 
> > on price, which they do all the time.  I know Qwest has already done
> the
> > analysis and they don't want to have anything to do with 
> the type of 
> > customers we serve.  But they have absolutely set things up so that 
> > they hoover
> up
> > the cherry customers.
> 
> Fair enough, I don't know the backgrounds of posters on this 
> list and the situations their various businesses are in, so 
> that you are in a unique situation of using their 
> infrastructure was not apparent.
> 
> 
> > As I said in the meeting comment I made, I thought this 
> policy needed 
> > tweaking.  However I support the philosophy of it.
> 
> And as I said in the comments I made, I could support a 
> policy like this if it were modified to be fair to all users 
> of IP space, regardless of size. But it sounds like you and I 
> have vastly different ideas on what the philosophy is here. 
> 
> > This isn't about driving IPv6.  It's about blocking IPv6.  
> Right now 
> > there's ISPs ready and willing to deploy IPv6 and they 
> can't - because 
> > they are single-homed and their upstream - a larger ISP - 
> isn't ready 
> > and isn't routing IPv6.  We see these complaints all of the time on 
> > the mailing lists, so I don't buy the argument that we are 
> all in this 
> > together.  Some of us are ready, others aren't.  If it's an 
> end-node 
> > AS that isn't ready, I don't care.  If it's a transit AS that isn't 
> > ready, I do care - espically when there's end-node AS's connected to
> it
> > that are chomping at the bit to get rolling.
> 
> Then might I suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree, 
> and need to start looking at your upstream options or better 
> ways to get the attention of your upstream provider. ARIN is 
> not the place to try to force a single transit provider to 
> provide a service you want, even if you feel it's 


Um, the fact of the matter is that -WE- don't have that problem since
our upstreams supply IPv6.

Others do, however.

> 
> > Clearly, the transit AS's need to get IPv6 deployed first.  
> Since the 
> > largest ISP's with the highest IP consumption rates are all in this 
> > club, and since they can't use the small IPv4 blocks that will be 
> > available after the larger IPv4 blocks are assigned anyway, it's a 
> > no-brainer to tell the largest ISPs - who need to be routing IPv6 
> > first - that they will lose access to IPv4 block requests first, 
> > before small orgs do - as we approach IPv4 runout.
> 
> As I've said, many do, and many others are just around the 
> corner. Why aren't you using your transit budget to reward 
> the organizations that provide the services you need, if you 
> need it right now?
> 
> I do not buy your argument that you can't get IPv6 transit. 

-I- am not making that argument.  As I said, we have seen these
complaints on this list.  A search of the list archives will provide
plenty of examples.  I invite you to engage with those
people and explain your philosophy of how money motivates and
listen to their explanations of why you don't know what your
talking about.

Personally, I agree with your "money talks, BS walks" argument, I've
made it myself, before.  But,
I don't presume to tell some ISP in North Dakota how their upstream
feed is supposed to act when threatened.  They tell me that they cannot
use financial motivation to force their feed to supply IPv6 - I'm
going to take what they say at face value.

But, let's get back to some realities.  As I said, the largest ISPs
will be unable to obtain usable IP number blocks from the IPv4 schema
for some time before the actual last IPv4 block is assigned.
Comcast recognizes this, which is why they made this proposal to 
begin with.  Since that is the case in reality, what is the objection to
merely lengthening the time that large ISP's cannot get IPv4 allocations
satisfied, so that we can extend the time that the smaller ISP's can
still get IPv4 allocations?



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 13:55:42 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:55:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49F8908B.1070805@chl.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
	<49F8908B.1070805@chl.com>
Message-ID: <F58106E511714AA9ABDED4BF314304DF@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:38 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >  
> 
> > 
> > This isn't about driving IPv6.  It's about blocking IPv6.  
> Right now 
> > there's ISPs ready and willing to deploy IPv6 and they 
> can't - because 
> > they are single-homed and their upstream - a larger ISP - 
> isn't ready 
> > and isn't routing IPv6.
> 
> To reiterate, I dont view it in quite those technical terms. 
> As I see it, a smaller organization cannot or will not take 
> the risks of pushing an ipv6 product until the larger 
> organizations are doing so.
> 
> Smaller organizations get their money from selling a better 
> product than large organizations and at this point from a 
> customers point of view,
> ipv6 is barely a value add to ipv4, forget about replacement.
> 

I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's
who make native IPv6 available to their residential customers over
broadband BEFORE larger ISPs do.

Ted



From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr 29 13:56:41 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:56:41 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9930@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<07F448BE-DD04-4087-84E5-0B3385562B05@delong.com>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9930@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904291056k4bf7dd00wb62636e936051818@mail.gmail.com>

I agree



On 4/29/09, Azinger, Marla <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com> wrote:
> Still sounds like a mix of PI and Expirementation to me.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:01 AM
> To: Azinger, Marla
> Cc: Martin Hannigan; Joel Jaeggli; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>
>> I also hear that the main community request remaining is regarding
>> experimentation. And if that is the case then use the policy for that.
>> ARIN allocates Numbering Resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous System
>> numbers) to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources for a
>> fixed period of time under terms of recognized experimental activity.
>>
> There are different forms of experimentation.  The experimentation you refer
> to is formal research with defined tests and fixed periods.
>
> The experimentation being described in the discussion is not that. It is the
> ongoing tinkering and organic experimentation that occurs when you get
> enthusiasts together and they start to ask interesting questions. Community
> networks, in addition to the connectivity they provide for otherwise
> under-served groups of users, provide an environment where such experiments
> can occur and be nurtured by a unique collaborative process.
>
> Owen
>
>> ~Marla
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:59 AM
>> To: Joel Jaeggli
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>>>
>>>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>>>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>>>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>>>
>>> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
>>> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir
>>> allocation policy? None as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or
>> even a good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.
>>
>> -M<
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs  Wed Apr 29 14:03:49 2009
From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:03:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
In-Reply-To: <07F448BE-DD04-4087-84E5-0B3385562B05@delong.com>
References: <552FFB1D-8A79-4459-92C3-947478EE377D@gizmopartners.com>
	<2557049CDBC35B4EBD79CFACFEC0458419FF6DA2@XCH-NW-CCR1V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
	<49F87382.10403@bogus.com>
	<4607e1d50904290858u3217d9d1n2758e8922a9c49cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10484D4C9882@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt>
	<07F448BE-DD04-4087-84E5-0B3385562B05@delong.com>
Message-ID: <4607e1d50904291103l79796566j1e39c3f63c0583a3@mail.gmail.com>

 I don't see your claim having much support other than it being what
it is; experimetation.



On 4/29/09, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I also hear that the main community request remaining is regarding
>> experimentation. And if that is the case then use the policy for
>> that. ARIN allocates Numbering Resources (IPv4, IPv6, and Autonomous
>> System numbers) to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources
>> for a fixed period of time under terms of recognized experimental
>> activity.
>>
> There are different forms of experimentation.  The experimentation you
> refer to is formal
> research with defined tests and fixed periods.
>
> The experimentation being described in the discussion is not that. It
> is the ongoing tinkering
> and organic experimentation that occurs when you get enthusiasts
> together and they
> start to ask interesting questions. Community networks, in addition to
> the connectivity
> they provide for otherwise under-served groups of users, provide an
> environment where
> such experiments can occur and be nurtured by a unique collaborative
> process.
>
> Owen
>
>> ~Marla
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
>> On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:59 AM
>> To: Joel Jaeggli
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Demand for community networking
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Also for future thoughts in IPv6 space specifically, the need for
>>>> permanent contiguous address spaces exist for other large
>>>> organizations; below are a few of which are discussing it:
>>>>
>>>> - International Civil Aviation Organization - Railway associations
>>>> both in North America and Europe - North American Power Companies -
>>>> Shipping companies - City and County governments - Fire Districts
>>>
>>> Which of of these legal entities or treaty organizations would not
>>> qualify for pi address space assignments under existing rir
>>> allocation
>>> policy? None as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think any of those are anything near community networks or
>> even a good correlation. They may be non profits. That's different.
>>
>> -M<
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca  Wed Apr 29 14:13:06 2009
From: Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca (Scott Beuker)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:13:06 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <E3F04A064EAF407E8BD91E93EBAD150E@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364A@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<E3F04A064EAF407E8BD91E93EBAD150E@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364C@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>

> Um, the fact of the matter is that -WE- don't have that problem since
> our upstreams supply IPv6.
> 
> Others do, however.

... then my comments apply to them.

> -I- am not making that argument.  As I said, we have seen these
> complaints on this list.  A search of the list archives will provide
> plenty of examples.  I invite you to engage with those
> people and explain your philosophy of how money motivates and
> listen to their explanations of why you don't know what your
> talking about.
> 
> Personally, I agree with your "money talks, BS walks" argument, I've
> made it myself, before.  But,
> I don't presume to tell some ISP in North Dakota how their upstream
> feed is supposed to act when threatened.  They tell me that they
cannot
> use financial motivation to force their feed to supply IPv6 - I'm
> going to take what they say at face value.

I will if/when they come to the table to discuss it. If you're going to
advocate for them in this discussion, then expect counter arguments to
come your way too.

As I've said, ARIN is not a vehicle for them to force their upstreams to
provide the services they desire. It's my responsibility as an ARIN
member and participant to stop them from doing this.
 
> But, let's get back to some realities.  As I said, the largest ISPs
> will be unable to obtain usable IP number blocks from the IPv4 schema
> for some time before the actual last IPv4 block is assigned.
> Comcast recognizes this, which is why they made this proposal to
> begin with.  Since that is the case in reality, what is the objection
to
> merely lengthening the time that large ISP's cannot get IPv4
allocations
> satisfied, so that we can extend the time that the smaller ISP's can
> still get IPv4 allocations?

As I said numerous times during the discussion, Comcast do not
speak for all of us who use more than a /20 each year. The policy
proposal would take IP space from those who could actually use it and
reserve it for someone else. Just because Comcast apparently doesn't
want any part of the last /9, whatever their motivation, that
doesn't mean that the rest of us should lose any fair use of it. Your
argument that it's "unusable" anyway doesn't hold any water. It's
usable for us. Comcast speak for Comcast and that's it. And for the
record, I had a couple representatives of small ISPs come up to me
after the discussion and indicate that they understand the policy
is unfair and they support my position. Do they speak for you or
the small ISPs you apparently have taken it upon yourself to
represent? Same situation.

The argument against withholding IPv4 space from larger businesses to
give it to smaller businesses is that it's an unfair business practice.
Are you Robin Hood? Large/medium ISPs who aren't Comcast don't need to
be told by
you what they do and do not need. If there were any truth to the
argument that we couldn't use the space, there'd be no need for this
policy, would there? We can use it, I'm telling you we can use it,
please take what I'm saying at face value.


From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Apr 29 15:05:09 2009
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:05:09 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <F58106E511714AA9ABDED4BF314304DF@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
	<49F8908B.1070805@chl.com>
	<F58106E511714AA9ABDED4BF314304DF@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <49F8A4E5.1090600@chl.com>



Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's
> who make native IPv6 available to their residential customers over
> broadband BEFORE larger ISPs do.
>
> Ted
>
>
>   
Available as in by request or as pilot or even fully dual homed customer 
base with guipv4?

Likely.

As in you can have /32v4 and a whole /64v6 in response to customer 
request for larger?

Unlikely.

As in you can have rfc1918 v4 and this /64v6? (It is easier for small 
orgs to deploy nat/pat)

Only if they have to because they need to stop assigning guipv4. And if 
it turns out that small ISP's need to go this route before larger ones, 
that is clearly inequitable.

When a small ISP turns down requests for globally unique ipv4 in favor 
of handing out ipv6, the smaller ISP is going to lose the customer to 
the larger ISP.

And remember, guipv4 for customers have always been more available and 
cheaper for large organization than for small, witness the 500 times 
price per address difference between the smallest and largest 
allocations, add to that larger scale opportunities for scavenging and 
recycling, add to that the ability to pony up serious cash on any 
potential ip market, or to even just buy out underutilized small ISP's.

As such my conclusion is post IANA runout, large orgs will be able to 
provide ipv4 --by (paid)request at least-- far longer than smaller 
organizations.

I am not worried about the large ISP's. Where they go, the smaller ones 
can follow, along with their customers. It wont work the other way.

Thanks,

Joe



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 15:49:02 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:49:02 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364C@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>
	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364A@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<E3F04A064EAF407E8BD91E93EBAD150E@tedsdesk>
	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A9364C@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
Message-ID: <B59AFBA3102F42A3B774976BF8621A58@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Beuker [mailto:Scott.Beuker at sjrb.ca] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> > Um, the fact of the matter is that -WE- don't have that 
> problem since 
> > our upstreams supply IPv6.
> > 
> > Others do, however.
> 
> ... then my comments apply to them.
> 
> > -I- am not making that argument.  As I said, we have seen these 
> > complaints on this list.  A search of the list archives 
> will provide 
> > plenty of examples.  I invite you to engage with those people and 
> > explain your philosophy of how money motivates and listen to their 
> > explanations of why you don't know what your talking about.
> > 
> > Personally, I agree with your "money talks, BS walks" 
> argument, I've 
> > made it myself, before.  But, I don't presume to tell some ISP in 
> > North Dakota how their upstream feed is supposed to act when 
> > threatened.  They tell me that they
> cannot
> > use financial motivation to force their feed to supply IPv6 - I'm 
> > going to take what they say at face value.
> 
> I will if/when they come to the table to discuss it. If 
> you're going to advocate for them in this discussion, then 
> expect counter arguments to come your way too.
> 

They HAVE come to the table, as I said previously, review the list
archives.

> As I've said, ARIN is not a vehicle for them to force their 
> upstreams to provide the services they desire. It's my 
> responsibility as an ARIN member and participant to stop them 
> from doing this.
>  

ARIN -already- forces "their upstreams" to do things.  You seem
to have no problem when ARIN forces a network to do something you
like, (like supply justification for utilization), but when it comes
to something you don't like, then your gonna trot out the old tired
argument that ARIN shouldn't be forcing orgs to do things, blah blah.

> > But, let's get back to some realities.  As I said, the largest ISPs 
> > will be unable to obtain usable IP number blocks from the 
> IPv4 schema 
> > for some time before the actual last IPv4 block is assigned.
> > Comcast recognizes this, which is why they made this 
> proposal to begin 
> > with.  Since that is the case in reality, what is the objection
> to
> > merely lengthening the time that large ISP's cannot get IPv4
> allocations
> > satisfied, so that we can extend the time that the smaller 
> ISP's can 
> > still get IPv4 allocations?
> 
> As I said numerous times during the discussion, Comcast do 
> not speak for all of us who use more than a /20 each year. 
> The policy proposal would take IP space from those who could 
> actually use it and reserve it for someone else. Just because 
> Comcast apparently doesn't want any part of the last /9, 
> whatever their motivation, that doesn't mean that the rest of 
> us should lose any fair use of it. Your argument that it's 
> "unusable" anyway doesn't hold any water. It's usable for us. 
> Comcast speak for Comcast and that's it. And for the record, 
> I had a couple representatives of small ISPs come up to me 
> after the discussion and indicate that they understand the 
> policy is unfair and they support my position. Do they speak 
> for you or the small ISPs you apparently have taken it upon 
> yourself to represent? Same situation.
> 
> The argument against withholding IPv4 space from larger 
> businesses to give it to smaller businesses is that it's an 
> unfair business practice.

The argument that large corporations get special treatment
by the US Dept. of Justice is also an unfair business practice
argument - but they do.  See the body of anti-trust law.  People
may not like it but it is standard operating procedure in business
to treat large organizations differently than small ones, and
using emotionally loaded terminology like "unfair business
practices" isn't going to change the law, or SOPs, one iota.

What we need to do is what is best for the entire Internet.  And
what is best is to get IPv6 up asap.  That isn't going to happen
when large orgs who aren't ready to deploy IPv6 stymie small orgs
who are ready for IPv6.  I realize that in all likelihood MOST large
networks are in the midst of IPv6 deployment plans.  But I can think
of a few which are so disorganized internally that they certainly
aren't going to be ready (I can name names) yet for
historical reasons they happen to have a lock on certain markets.
When the day comes that there is no IPv4 to assign no matter what
size, and these large orgs are STILL screwing around with IPv4
because they are finally getting around to cleaning up their
allocation mess, the small orgs who are dependent on them and who
have been following the rules, are gonna be screwed.

I sure hope that when that happens people will have a little more
sympathy to actually -DO- something than what's being displaying now.

> Are you Robin Hood? Large/medium ISPs who aren't Comcast 
> don't need to be told by you what they do and do not need. 

With that attitude my guess is that anybody large who is at
least trying to level the playing field is going to just throw
up their hands and say "screw you" to the small ISPs.

How anyone can make a claim that the Internet is a fair place for
both large and small networks is beyond me.  Large networks already
get pricing breaks from ARIN on IP addressing and have synergies in
marketing with other corporations that small ISPs don't have.
And more importantly, if all the large networks get together
and tell all their customers on the Internet that they gotta
switch to IPv6, those customers aren't going to be able to argue
with them and go elsewhere, they will have to grit their teeth and
switch.  They've done this before.

I'll give credit to Comcast for at least understanding that they
once upon a time came from a small network and that it's not
essential for a large ISP to follow a scorched earth policy 
every single time in it's dealings with smaller ISPs.  So, OK
Comcast didn't flesh out the proposal well enough, but they have
the general right idea.

> there were any truth to the argument that we couldn't use the 
> space, there'd be no need for this policy, would there? We 
> can use it, I'm telling you we can use it, please take what 
> I'm saying at face value.
> 

And I already said that the policy can use some tweaking - if
a /9 is too large, well then what isn't?  If your large, are you
going to argue with a straight face that you have the same consumption
rates of IPv4 that a small org does?  What it sounds to me like your
doing here is you just don't like the IDEA for philosophical reasons and
your going to argue against it with a bunch of practical nits - because
you know that if you argue against the idea on the basis of it being an
idea, you can't really make a fairness argument, now can you?

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 16:05:33 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:05:33 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <49F8A4E5.1090600@chl.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD>
	<1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk>
	<49F8908B.1070805@chl.com>
	<F58106E511714AA9ABDED4BF314304DF@tedsdesk>
	<49F8A4E5.1090600@chl.com>
Message-ID: <09D8488FD5A245E5ACEB2CD094AA7A63@tedsdesk>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's who 
> make native 
> > IPv6 available to their residential customers over broadband BEFORE 
> > larger ISPs do.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >   
> Available as in by request or as pilot or even fully dual 
> homed customer base with guipv4?
> 
> Likely.
> 
> As in you can have /32v4 and a whole /64v6 in response to 
> customer request for larger?
> 
> Unlikely.
> 

Why not?  If there's one thing that should be clear, IPv6 does
not have practical utilization limits - there's more IPv6 numbers
than every MAC address that can ever be assigned, so as long as
the small ISP can handle the bandwidth desired, what purpose would
be served by ARIN denying them a justifyable request for more IPv6?

> As in you can have rfc1918 v4 and this /64v6? (It is easier 
> for small orgs to deploy nat/pat)
> 

Well, that's getting right back into the IPv4 discussion.

> Only if they have to because they need to stop assigning 
> guipv4. And if it turns out that small ISP's need to go this 
> route before larger ones, that is clearly inequitable.
> 
> When a small ISP turns down requests for globally unique ipv4 
> in favor of handing out ipv6, the smaller ISP is going to 
> lose the customer to the larger ISP.
>

IF the larger ISP has G.U. IPv4 available.
 
> And remember, guipv4 for customers have always been more 
> available and cheaper for large organization than for small, 
> witness the 500 times price per address difference between 
> the smallest and largest allocations, add to that larger 
> scale opportunities for scavenging and recycling, add to that 
> the ability to pony up serious cash on any potential ip 
> market, or to even just buy out underutilized small ISP's.
> 

Cheaper, absolutely.  More available in the past?  That even
I would disagree with.  ARIN right now operates on a need-based
assignment scheme for -everyone-, you show the need, you get the
IP numbers.  That will only change after IPv4-runout.  And in
the future, post IPv4-runout, I would agree the large orgs will
have more ability to assign IPv4

> As such my conclusion is post IANA runout, large orgs will be 
> able to provide ipv4 --by (paid)request at least-- far longer 
> than smaller organizations.
> 

Ironically, the existence of NAT has made the need for G.U. IPv4
less important than the need for G.U. IPv6.

If you're a customer with 200 nodes on your network and you need
IPv4 you can always use translation to make as much as you want for
yourself.
You might need a handful of G.U. IPv4, but you don't really -need-
G.U. IPv4 on your 200 nodes  (well, most orgs won't)

If you need IPv6 then you will need G.U. IPv6 for all your nodes.

> I am not worried about the large ISP's. Where they go, the 
> smaller ones can follow, along with their customers. It wont 
> work the other way.
>

Amen to that!

Ted



From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com  Wed Apr 29 16:54:28 2009
From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:54:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <09D8488FD5A245E5ACEB2CD094AA7A63@tedsdesk>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD><1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk><49F8908B.1070805@chl.com><F58106E511714AA9ABDED4BF314304DF@tedsdesk><49F8A4E5.1090600@chl.com>
	<09D8488FD5A245E5ACEB2CD094AA7A63@tedsdesk>
Message-ID: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800B1F2D45@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>

Ted and Joe,

As the author of this proposal I would like to clarify something.
"Comcast" the organization, did not write, nor are they trying to push
this proposal on anyone. While I am an employee, I also serve as a
member of the ARIN Advisory Council. My discussions of this proposal and
the postings on this mailing list are as an AC member and in no way
represent any views of my employer, nor am I authorized to speak for
them. 

2009-2 was presented as a possible approach to dealing with the last
allocations of IPv4 address space. It incorporated experiences and
feedback from many areas including proposals submitted in multiple
regions. If you want to point the discussion at something, please point
it to me or the AC and not to a company that has no control over the
policy development process. 

-Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:06 PM
To: 'Joe Maimon'
Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's who 
> make native 
> > IPv6 available to their residential customers over broadband BEFORE 
> > larger ISPs do.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >   
> Available as in by request or as pilot or even fully dual 
> homed customer base with guipv4?
> 
> Likely.
> 
> As in you can have /32v4 and a whole /64v6 in response to 
> customer request for larger?
> 
> Unlikely.
> 

Why not?  If there's one thing that should be clear, IPv6 does
not have practical utilization limits - there's more IPv6 numbers
than every MAC address that can ever be assigned, so as long as
the small ISP can handle the bandwidth desired, what purpose would
be served by ARIN denying them a justifyable request for more IPv6?

> As in you can have rfc1918 v4 and this /64v6? (It is easier 
> for small orgs to deploy nat/pat)
> 

Well, that's getting right back into the IPv4 discussion.

> Only if they have to because they need to stop assigning 
> guipv4. And if it turns out that small ISP's need to go this 
> route before larger ones, that is clearly inequitable.
> 
> When a small ISP turns down requests for globally unique ipv4 
> in favor of handing out ipv6, the smaller ISP is going to 
> lose the customer to the larger ISP.
>

IF the larger ISP has G.U. IPv4 available.
 
> And remember, guipv4 for customers have always been more 
> available and cheaper for large organization than for small, 
> witness the 500 times price per address difference between 
> the smallest and largest allocations, add to that larger 
> scale opportunities for scavenging and recycling, add to that 
> the ability to pony up serious cash on any potential ip 
> market, or to even just buy out underutilized small ISP's.
> 

Cheaper, absolutely.  More available in the past?  That even
I would disagree with.  ARIN right now operates on a need-based
assignment scheme for -everyone-, you show the need, you get the
IP numbers.  That will only change after IPv4-runout.  And in
the future, post IPv4-runout, I would agree the large orgs will
have more ability to assign IPv4

> As such my conclusion is post IANA runout, large orgs will be 
> able to provide ipv4 --by (paid)request at least-- far longer 
> than smaller organizations.
> 

Ironically, the existence of NAT has made the need for G.U. IPv4
less important than the need for G.U. IPv6.

If you're a customer with 200 nodes on your network and you need
IPv4 you can always use translation to make as much as you want for
yourself.
You might need a handful of G.U. IPv4, but you don't really -need-
G.U. IPv4 on your 200 nodes  (well, most orgs won't)

If you need IPv6 then you will need G.U. IPv6 for all your nodes.

> I am not worried about the large ISP's. Where they go, the 
> smaller ones can follow, along with their customers. It wont 
> work the other way.
>

Amen to that!

Ted

_______________________________________________
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 tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Apr 29 17:20:12 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:20:12 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800B1F2D45@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><49F791A5.8080005@chl.com>	<49D5A4D30CF34BD7A98F4400D15F81CE@tedsdesk>	<46A2DD1223D7BF47B61799AFFBA8AD8907A93643@PRDCG4EXVW01-1.OSS.PRD><1576E1EF36C8446798453B3540D22705@tedsdesk><49F8908B.1070805@chl.com><F58106E511714AA9ABDED4BF314304DF@tedsdesk><49F8A4E5.1090600@chl.com>
	<09D8488FD5A245E5ACEB2CD094AA7A63@tedsdesk>
	<997BC128AE961E4A8B880CD7442D94800B1F2D45@NJCHLEXCMB01.cable.comcast.com>
Message-ID: <58B7C4B33DEE47519EFC5C8220F8506F@tedsdesk>


Sorry, Dan!

Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander, Daniel [mailto:Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:54 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Joe Maimon
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> Ted and Joe,
> 
> As the author of this proposal I would like to clarify something.
> "Comcast" the organization, did not write, nor are they 
> trying to push this proposal on anyone. While I am an 
> employee, I also serve as a member of the ARIN Advisory 
> Council. My discussions of this proposal and the postings on 
> this mailing list are as an AC member and in no way represent 
> any views of my employer, nor am I authorized to speak for them. 
> 
> 2009-2 was presented as a possible approach to dealing with 
> the last allocations of IPv4 address space. It incorporated 
> experiences and feedback from many areas including proposals 
> submitted in multiple regions. If you want to point the 
> discussion at something, please point it to me or the AC and 
> not to a company that has no control over the policy 
> development process. 
> 
> -Dan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:06 PM
> To: 'Joe Maimon'
> Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:05 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: 'Scott Beuker'; 'ARIN PPML'
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll bet you a beer that it will be the smaller ISP's who
> > make native
> > > IPv6 available to their residential customers over 
> broadband BEFORE 
> > > larger ISPs do.
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > Available as in by request or as pilot or even fully dual homed 
> > customer base with guipv4?
> > 
> > Likely.
> > 
> > As in you can have /32v4 and a whole /64v6 in response to customer 
> > request for larger?
> > 
> > Unlikely.
> > 
> 
> Why not?  If there's one thing that should be clear, IPv6 
> does not have practical utilization limits - there's more 
> IPv6 numbers than every MAC address that can ever be 
> assigned, so as long as the small ISP can handle the 
> bandwidth desired, what purpose would be served by ARIN 
> denying them a justifyable request for more IPv6?
> 
> > As in you can have rfc1918 v4 and this /64v6? (It is easier 
> for small 
> > orgs to deploy nat/pat)
> > 
> 
> Well, that's getting right back into the IPv4 discussion.
> 
> > Only if they have to because they need to stop assigning 
> guipv4. And 
> > if it turns out that small ISP's need to go this route 
> before larger 
> > ones, that is clearly inequitable.
> > 
> > When a small ISP turns down requests for globally unique 
> ipv4 in favor 
> > of handing out ipv6, the smaller ISP is going to lose the 
> customer to 
> > the larger ISP.
> >
> 
> IF the larger ISP has G.U. IPv4 available.
>  
> > And remember, guipv4 for customers have always been more 
> available and 
> > cheaper for large organization than for small, witness the 
> 500 times 
> > price per address difference between the smallest and largest 
> > allocations, add to that larger scale opportunities for 
> scavenging and 
> > recycling, add to that the ability to pony up serious cash on any 
> > potential ip market, or to even just buy out underutilized small 
> > ISP's.
> > 
> 
> Cheaper, absolutely.  More available in the past?  That even 
> I would disagree with.  ARIN right now operates on a 
> need-based assignment scheme for -everyone-, you show the 
> need, you get the IP numbers.  That will only change after 
> IPv4-runout.  And in the future, post IPv4-runout, I would 
> agree the large orgs will have more ability to assign IPv4
> 
> > As such my conclusion is post IANA runout, large orgs will 
> be able to 
> > provide ipv4 --by (paid)request at least-- far longer than smaller 
> > organizations.
> > 
> 
> Ironically, the existence of NAT has made the need for G.U. 
> IPv4 less important than the need for G.U. IPv6.
> 
> If you're a customer with 200 nodes on your network and you need
> IPv4 you can always use translation to make as much as you 
> want for yourself.
> You might need a handful of G.U. IPv4, but you don't really 
> -need- G.U. IPv4 on your 200 nodes  (well, most orgs won't)
> 
> If you need IPv6 then you will need G.U. IPv6 for all your nodes.
> 
> > I am not worried about the large ISP's. Where they go, the smaller 
> > ones can follow, along with their customers. It wont work the other 
> > way.
> >
> 
> Amen to that!
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr 30 11:42:42 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:42:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B091@mail>

I am one of those small ISP's.  While I have not completely deployed IPv6
core to edge I am ready to do so in short order.  The hardware upgrades came
rather naturally during regularly scheduled replacement.  Perhaps we have an
advantage because the hardware manufacturer we choose to use is very
pro-active and comes to us IPv6 ready.  

 

The three major items holing us back are transit availability, application
interoperability and content availability.  We soon plan to offer IPv6 to
customers who wish to use it on an experimental basis, they will have to
acknowledge that system changes will necessitate unplanned and unannounced
outages, and that transit is through a tunnel and will not carry any SLA.

 

In my opinion the small ISP's actually have an advantage in the IPv6
adoption.  Small ISP's are far more nimble than the large ISP's who have
less flexibility in infrastructure change and experimentation.  Small ISP's
are used to doing custom configurations for customers with special needs,
whereas the large ISP's must by their nature demand that customers fit in to
an established box, or the large ISP must first go through all the rigmarole
and red tape to create a special box and be prepared to offer it anywhere in
their network for the customer.

 

The nimbleness of small ISP's can, if they choose to take action, allow them
to respond much more quickly with infrastructure changes.  If I need to
upgrade an IOS to adopt a new feature I can often do it on three or four
routers and be good to go.  A large national ISP may need to coordinate the
change on thousands of routers and educate their engineers and techs before
they can implement the change.

 

There are not a lot of areas where the small scale gives advantages, but
this is one of them.  

Best regards,
Kevin Kargel
Polar Communications,110 4th Street East,Park River, ND 58270



  _____  

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Stacy Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:39 PM
To: ARIN PPML
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2

 

 

Ted Mittelstaedt

12:25

comment - let's quit dancing around this small/large ISP issue, the heart of
it is that flexibility aside, most smaller ISP's don't have as much money to
put into capital improvements like new routers.  Because of this, most of
them will want to delay purchase of new IPv6-compliant routing equipment as
long as possible to take advantage of falling prices.  Frankly, a surprising
number of small ISP's are almost certainly  buying used routers off -Ebay
(SOMEONE is buying those 7200's that are all over Ebay) so the longer they
can delay the move to IPv6 the less cost it will be for them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/4772e3c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/4772e3c4/attachment.bin>

From Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com  Thu Apr 30 12:48:57 2009
From: Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com (Wettling, Fred)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:48:57 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B091@mail>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com>
	<70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B091@mail>
Message-ID: <F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F94A3D97@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>

Bechtel Internal / Non-Record//

Bechtel Internal / Non-Record//

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:43 AM
To: Stacy Hughes; ARIN PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2

I am one of those small ISP's.  While I have not completely deployed IPv6
core to edge I am ready to do so in short order.  The hardware upgrades came
rather naturally during regularly scheduled replacement. <snip>

 

Reply from Fred Wettling

Kevin - Thanks for the reality check in response to Stacy's comment.  Based
on your experience I'm interested in any comments you might have on Draft
Policy 2009-2: Depleted <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_2.html>
IPv4 Reserves.

Thanks - Fred 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/15c4c11c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/15c4c11c/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr 30 13:53:49 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:53:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2
In-Reply-To: <F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F94A3D97@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>
References: <24c86a5f0904281339g6dfec2c3t23e667698e307177@mail.gmail.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B091@mail>
	<F6EF0617A25EBB43BFB93175FBB913F94A3D97@ASHS00094.amers.ibechtel.com>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B095@mail>

________________________________________

Reply from Fred Wettling
Kevin - Thanks for the reality check in response to Stacy?s comment.  Based
on your experience I?m interested in any comments you might have on Draft
Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 Reserves.
Thanks - Fred
________________________________________

Fred,

By default I should support 2009-2 as it supports my particular business
position.  I very much like the hysteresis you built in for
re/de-activation.  Coupled with a bi-annual request rate limit this would
very effectively delay the IPv4 drop dead date.

2009-2 fits my business better than would an alternate of going down to
three (or even two) month projected allocation requests.

Having said that ( ? is this my tag-line now? I seem to be saying it a lot)
I am still not sure that artificially modifying the IPv4 runout date by any
means is a good idea.

I can see the potential for abuse of rate limiting via a shorter allocation
term.  While increasing permissible allocation frequency and shortening
permissible projection calendars would be more fair to large ethical
organizations, when large organizations exaggerate a need by a small
percentile it could make a quantity difference greater by magnitudes than
any total request I would make.  Is this meaningful?  I am undecided.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/2d0a625d/attachment.bin>

From kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr 30 14:15:19 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:15:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] market musings
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B097@mail>

Just a short (I hope) thought on IP market rationalization --

In discussion on this list and at ARIN XXIII it seemed to my ear that the
greatest rationalization for instantiation of an IPv4 market is fear of
reprisal (or coup) by big bully powers predicated on a false perception of
the inaction or inability by ARIN to manage IPv4 runout.   

If this is in fact the case then to my mind moving to a market model is very
risky, more so than many alternatives including doing nothing.

When you are in fear of political action being taken because of perceived or
manufactured incompetance, embarking on an unproven path in a venture where
you have little experience and marginal skill sets seems foolish.  This
would much increase the likelihood of results or circumstances manifested
that your foes could use against you.

A safer and much more secure course of action would seem to be to continue
doing what one does well, especially when that is backe by a proven record
of success.

With various RIR's moving to a market model, it might well do the world good
to have at least one RIR remain on the shepherd model, at least until the
kinks are ironed out.  And there WILL be kinks.

IMHO we have the choice of continuing to lead or to jump off the bridge
because the other kids are doing it.

I am sure greater minds than mine have had this thought and considered it in
the decisions that have been made, but I wanted to voice it publicly. 

Kevin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/abe8d663/attachment.bin>

From matthew at matthew.at  Thu Apr 30 16:20:43 2009
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:20:43 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] market musings
In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B097@mail>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B097@mail>
Message-ID: <49FA081B.5000904@matthew.at>

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> ...
> A safer and much more secure course of action would seem to be to continue
> doing what one does well, especially when that is backe by a proven record
> of success...
>   
...which will be an entirely irrelevant track record after run-out occurs.

Your whole message is a new packaging of "we should keep doing things 
the same way we've always done them because that's worked well". Which I 
am in 100% agreement with, up to the part where the entire world changes 
and it becomes impossible for ARIN to do that *at all* for IPv4, because 
there simply will not be IPv4 addresses for them to hand out under the 
current policies and procedures.

Of course ARIN also insists that lots of money must be charged for small 
blocks of IPv6 address space, which the trade press reports is so 
plentiful that it could never run out no matter how fast it gets used 
up. Fortunately it will be a lot easier in IPv6 to find unused space to 
start routing without payment, and since it'll be a long time before 
there's any authentication associated with routing (and almost as long 
before people actually figure out how to make their applications do 
reverse DNS lookups on IPv6 addresses), perhaps the relevance of 
registries for both IPv4 and IPv6 will be declining.

Matthew Kaufman



From tvest at pch.net  Thu Apr 30 16:25:02 2009
From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:25:02 +0200
Subject: [arin-ppml] market musings
In-Reply-To: <49FA081B.5000904@matthew.at>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B097@mail>
	<49FA081B.5000904@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <7CCC71AD-7614-4465-8501-9476EEE90C06@pch.net>

Go back and read RFC 2050 again.
Managing the consequences of address scarcity is only one (of at least  
three) key requirements that the RIRs were chartered to manage.

TV

On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> ...
>> A safer and much more secure course of action would seem to be to  
>> continue
>> doing what one does well, especially when that is backe by a proven  
>> record
>> of success...
>>
> ...which will be an entirely irrelevant track record after run-out  
> occurs.
>
> Your whole message is a new packaging of "we should keep doing things
> the same way we've always done them because that's worked well".  
> Which I
> am in 100% agreement with, up to the part where the entire world  
> changes
> and it becomes impossible for ARIN to do that *at all* for IPv4,  
> because
> there simply will not be IPv4 addresses for them to hand out under the
> current policies and procedures.
>
> Of course ARIN also insists that lots of money must be charged for  
> small
> blocks of IPv6 address space, which the trade press reports is so
> plentiful that it could never run out no matter how fast it gets used
> up. Fortunately it will be a lot easier in IPv6 to find unused space  
> to
> start routing without payment, and since it'll be a long time before
> there's any authentication associated with routing (and almost as long
> before people actually figure out how to make their applications do
> reverse DNS lookups on IPv6 addresses), perhaps the relevance of
> registries for both IPv4 and IPv6 will be declining.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 kkargel at polartel.com  Thu Apr 30 16:33:55 2009
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:33:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] market musings
In-Reply-To: <7CCC71AD-7614-4465-8501-9476EEE90C06@pch.net>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B097@mail>
	<49FA081B.5000904@matthew.at>
	<7CCC71AD-7614-4465-8501-9476EEE90C06@pch.net>
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B09D@mail>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: matthew at matthew.at
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] market musings
> 
> Go back and read RFC 2050 again.
> Managing the consequences of address scarcity is only one (of at least
> three) key requirements that the RIRs were chartered to manage.
> 
> TV
> 
I agree and stipulate that fear of coup on conservation issues is only one
issue, but it seems to be the big one that everyone keeps coming back to as
a justification for an IP market.  The others (routeability and
registration) are eminently manageable by other means.  

I see nothing in RFC2050 that mandates a market be established.  Just
because a market could be established does not mean it should be
established.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/6069a2e1/attachment.bin>

From joe at utma.com  Thu Apr 30 17:36:29 2009
From: joe at utma.com (Joe Miller)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:36:29 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] market musings
In-Reply-To: <7CCC71AD-7614-4465-8501-9476EEE90C06@pch.net>
References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4B097@mail>	<49FA081B.5000904@matthew.at>
	<7CCC71AD-7614-4465-8501-9476EEE90C06@pch.net>
Message-ID: <49FA19DD.6070004@utma.com>

This may be an extreme oversimplification, but it seems that one way 
that could be considered taking an active, and effective role to 
mitigate the consequences of IPv4 runout would be to take an active role 
in promoting, educating, and preparing people for conversion to IPv6.  
ARIN is doing some things in this regard right now, but I have heard 
some hesitation from some ARIN AC and BoT members that they are unsure 
how much of a role ARIN should take other than providing information. 

The charter in 2050 accords the RIR with conservation of address space, 
and defines that as fair distribution of globally unique address space.  
If the address space includes v6, then they are most certainly meeting 
the conservation charter in 2050.  The problem is that IPv6 isn't really 
viable until any person on any ISP with only an IPv6 address has the 
exact same customer experience as a current consumer does on IPv4.  Once 
we get to that point, then IPv4 runout is irrelevant.

My point is that ARIN could interpret the conservation charter in 2050 
as a directive to spend resources actively getting people to IPv6.  
Increasing the resource is conservation, the same as preserving the 
existing resource.  Environmentalists deal with the tree problem and the 
whale problem by taking the dual pronged approach, and it has saved some 
species from extinction.  Cut down fewer trees, plant more trees.  Which 
is easier?  Which is more effective?

I did bring this up a couple of times during the PP meeting in the halls 
and at the lunchtime discussion to ARIN AC and BoT, and they asked 
"Well, how can we do that?".  I don't have an answer to that question, 
but I am sure the community could come up with some good, or even great 
ideas with a little discussion.

It is almost certain that if ARIN could pull off an effective transition 
to IPv6 over the next two years, they won't have to worry about the 
political ramifications of IPv4 runout.

It is also very clear that two years may not be enough time to get it done.

--joe

Tom Vest wrote:
> Go back and read RFC 2050 again.
> Managing the consequences of address scarcity is only one (of at least  
> three) key requirements that the RIRs were chartered to manage.
>
> TV
>
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>   
>> Kevin Kargel wrote:
>>     
>>> ...
>>> A safer and much more secure course of action would seem to be to  
>>> continue
>>> doing what one does well, especially when that is backe by a proven  
>>> record
>>> of success...
>>>
>>>       
>> ...which will be an entirely irrelevant track record after run-out  
>> occurs.
>>
>> Your whole message is a new packaging of "we should keep doing things
>> the same way we've always done them because that's worked well".  
>> Which I
>> am in 100% agreement with, up to the part where the entire world  
>> changes
>> and it becomes impossible for ARIN to do that *at all* for IPv4,  
>> because
>> there simply will not be IPv4 addresses for them to hand out under the
>> current policies and procedures.
>>
>> Of course ARIN also insists that lots of money must be charged for  
>> small
>> blocks of IPv6 address space, which the trade press reports is so
>> plentiful that it could never run out no matter how fast it gets used
>> up. Fortunately it will be a lot easier in IPv6 to find unused space  
>> to
>> start routing without payment, and since it'll be a long time before
>> there's any authentication associated with routing (and almost as long
>> before people actually figure out how to make their applications do
>> reverse DNS lookups on IPv6 addresses), perhaps the relevance of
>> registries for both IPv4 and IPv6 will be declining.
>>
>> Matthew Kaufman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Apr 30 18:05:38 2009
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:05:38 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mighten it happen like this?
Message-ID: <8E4BFEDAB8434B80A198B89373F2AF1C@tedsdesk>


In thinking about this IPv4 runout it occurs to me that it might possible
go something like this.

After the last /8 is assigned to ARIN, the hostmasters there will get out
their knives and start slicing off subnets from it.  A handful of Very Large
requests will be satisfied from it, then a lot more smaller requests, then
the /8 will be as the turkey is on the platter during the last Thanksgiving
-
the large breasts gutted but still plenty of edible meat in smaller chunks.

Then the reclamation efforts will start turning up even smaller and smaller
chunks of IPv4 abandonded years earlier - nothing to satisfy the large
consumers,
but still plenty of smaller tasty bits.  And in the meantime they will still
be stripping the carcass of the /8 for the last usable bits.

Then the carcass will be done and reclamation will be in full swing now -
but
the IPv4 coming in from reclamation will be somewhat less tasty -
ex-spammers
blocks, stinky old swampland that may or may not have been used.

Then reclamation will start petering off and the IPv4 bits coming in from it
will be very nasty indeed - blocks with squatters in it that the obtainer
of the block will have to actively evict, blocks where the original occupier
is still fighting with ARIN over ownership.

Then they will get down to the nitty-gritty of trying to piece together
minimal
sized blocks to allocate from scattered /24's some of which are abandonded,
some
not - begging and pleading with owners to please move over to this other /24
so
we can use the one your on to aggregate together a larger block.

Somewhere along the way some kind of transfer market may spring up - short
lived
though it may be, with a few folks making a killing off selling blocks - but
as
time passes it will die down.

During this time the number of orgs wanting IPv4 will be decreasing as more
and more of the requestors give up hope of getting usable IPv4 and more and
more
of them migrate to IPv6.

So, perhaps maybe fully 4 years after the last /8 is allocated to ARIN then
the
very last aggregated subnet of any size will be given out - reclamation will
be
exhausted, and pretty much nobody will have any hope left of getting IPv4
allocations
except from the transfer market.  That might mark the "official" end of
ARIN-assigned
"free" IPv4.

The transfer market will be peaking right around now - as prices get so
rediculous
that it becomes cost effective for even the most retrogade networks to go to
IPv6.

Then a tipping point will be reached and over a few months the bottom will
drop
out of the transfer market and the market will crash, and we will see the
commencement
of an accellerated schedule of more and more networks dropping IPv4.

A few years after that then reports will begin to show up of routing
unreliability
of the IPv4 Internet in certain spots on the Internet.

By 4 years after the "official end" of ARIN-assigned IPv4, we will start to
see
websites set up with countdown clocks predicting the very last day that IPv4
traffic
will exist on the Internet.

Then, sometime in 2020, some politician will send an e-mail titled "Goodbye"
at a
ribbon-cutting ceremony that will mark the last time that a real IPv4 packet
will
be sent over the public Internet from a public client to a public server.

Around 2025, Cisco will make proficiency in IPv4 an optional part of it's
assesment test.

Around 2030, Juniper and Cisco will release firmware that won't have IPv4
support in
the base load.

Does seem like a realistic end-game?

Ted



From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 30 18:10:50 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:10:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
Message-ID: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>


ARIN's letters are getting some attention:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/7f5008d2/attachment.sig>

From schnizlein at isoc.org  Thu Apr 30 18:20:03 2009
From: schnizlein at isoc.org (John Schnizlein)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:20:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>

Unfortunately, this article repeats the distorted headline from the  
NetworkWorld (NW) article about "no business case" when the ISOC  
survey actually found customer demand for IPv6 as a strong reason to  
deploy it.

The NW does include this:
"However, survey respondents said customer demand for IPv6 is on the  
rise and that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it  
is the next major development in the evolution of the Internet."

John

On 2009Apr30, at 6:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

>
> ARIN's letters are getting some attention:
>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235
>
> -- 
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tony.valenti at powerdnn.com  Thu Apr 30 18:59:00 2009
From: tony.valenti at powerdnn.com (Tony Valenti)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:59:00 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>

What is interesting about the Slashdot post is that they said "there appears
to be no business case for IPV6".  The reason I find this interesting is
that 4 years ago I met with the engineering team of one of our datacenters
and I was asking them a lot of questions about us wanting to use IPV6.
During the course of the conversation their lead engineer said
"Unfortunately there is no business case to use IPV6.  It does not matter
that IPV4 is in the process of running out, there will not be a business
case to move to it until IPV4 has completely run out."

I personally would love for us to be able to provision new equipment on
IPV6, but the fact remains, as a small-time web hosting service provider, if
I put websites on an IPV6 address, according to Network World (
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/279477/ipv6_fails_reach_5_percent_internet),
95% of the internet would not be able to talk to our gear, and of
course,
we'd go out of business if we told customers "Don't worry about your website
and email being down - the most tech savy 5% of the internet can still email
you".

I'm still convinced that in order for IPV6 to be successful, the ISPs like
ComCast, Verizon, COX, and Qwest have to make the first move and say "We're
going IPV6 _ONLY_".  Once those numbers have flipped and 95% of "outgoing"
internet is on IPV6, then I won't be scared about IPV6.

Tony V.

The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any,
may be of a confidential matter, and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by,
unauthorized persons is prohibited. All personal messages express views
solely of the sender, which are not to be attributed to MobileNow, Inc.. If
you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender
and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any.


On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Schnizlein <schnizlein at isoc.org>wrote:

> Unfortunately, this article repeats the distorted headline from the
> NetworkWorld (NW) article about "no business case" when the ISOC
> survey actually found customer demand for IPv6 as a strong reason to
> deploy it.
>
> The NW does include this:
> "However, survey respondents said customer demand for IPv6 is on the
> rise and that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it
> is the next major development in the evolution of the Internet."
>
> John
>
> On 2009Apr30, at 6:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> >
> > ARIN's letters are getting some attention:
> >
> > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235
> >
> > --
> >       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> >        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/<http://www.ufp.org/%7Ebicknell/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/71b01896/attachment.htm>

From joe at utma.com  Thu Apr 30 19:13:12 2009
From: joe at utma.com (Joe Miller)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:13:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
	<e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49FA3088.3040506@utma.com>

I don't think it's realistic to expect to run V6 only webservers, nor is 
it realistic for large or small ISPs to go V6 only.  We are all going to 
be running v4 and v6 in parallel for quite some time.  What we need to 
do is get V6 and V4 talking with each other, which would make it easy to 
turn new customers up on V6 only, and leave existing customers on V4, 
for now.  The cost savings and ease of transition would be orders of 
magnitude better with this model.

--joe

Tony Valenti wrote:
> What is interesting about the Slashdot post is that they said "there 
> appears to be no business case for IPV6".  The reason I find this 
> interesting is that 4 years ago I met with the engineering team of one 
> of our datacenters and I was asking them a lot of questions about us 
> wanting to use IPV6.  During the course of the conversation their lead 
> engineer said "Unfortunately there is no business case to use IPV6.  
> It does not matter that IPV4 is in the process of running out, there 
> will not be a business case to move to it until IPV4 has completely 
> run out."
>
> I personally would love for us to be able to provision new equipment 
> on IPV6, but the fact remains, as a small-time web hosting service 
> provider, if I put websites on an IPV6 address, according to Network 
> World ( 
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/279477/ipv6_fails_reach_5_percent_internet 
> ), 95% of the internet would not be able to talk to our gear, and of 
> course, we'd go out of business if we told customers "Don't worry 
> about your website and email being down - the most tech savy 5% of the 
> internet can still email you".
>
> I'm still convinced that in order for IPV6 to be successful, the ISPs 
> like ComCast, Verizon, COX, and Qwest have to make the first move and 
> say "We're going IPV6 _ONLY_".  Once those numbers have flipped and 
> 95% of "outgoing" internet is on IPV6, then I won't be scared about IPV6.
>
> Tony V.
>
> The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if 
> any, may be of a confidential matter, and is intended only for the use 
> of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review 
> by, unauthorized persons is prohibited. All personal messages express 
> views solely of the sender, which are not to be attributed to 
> MobileNow, Inc.. If you have received this transmission in error, 
> immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission 
> including attachments, if any.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Schnizlein <schnizlein at isoc.org 
> <mailto:schnizlein at isoc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Unfortunately, this article repeats the distorted headline from the
>     NetworkWorld (NW) article about "no business case" when the ISOC
>     survey actually found customer demand for IPv6 as a strong reason to
>     deploy it.
>
>     The NW does include this:
>     "However, survey respondents said customer demand for IPv6 is on the
>     rise and that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it
>     is the next major development in the evolution of the Internet."
>
>     John
>
>     On 2009Apr30, at 6:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>     >
>     > ARIN's letters are getting some attention:
>     >
>     > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235
>     >
>     > --
>     >       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org <mailto:bicknell at ufp.org>
>     - CCIE 3440
>     >        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>     <http://www.ufp.org/%7Ebicknell/>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > PPML
>     > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>     > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 steve at ibctech.ca  Thu Apr 30 19:30:28 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:30:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
	<e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49FA3494.2080906@ibctech.ca>

Tony Valenti wrote:

> I'm still convinced that in order for IPV6 to be successful, the ISPs
> like ComCast, Verizon, COX, and Qwest have to make the first move and
> say "We're going IPV6 _ONLY_".  

You won't see any ISP's claiming to go v6-only for quite some time. I
don't think that is feasible.

> Once those numbers have flipped and 95%
> of "outgoing" internet is on IPV6, then I won't be scared about IPV6.

IPv6 is nothing to be afraid of. That being said, it's nice to hear this
 type of legitimate operational feedback from a hosting provider.

If you are careful, you can turn up new sites with IPv6 alongside IPv4,
with (what I've seen) no impact to IPv4 only users.

Hopefully there isn't anyone claiming that the world has to 'switch' to
IPv6 publicly. That would be quite a detriment to the little traction
IPv6 currently has.

IPv6 is the future of the public Internet, but we will transition into
it, not switch to it. There are already successful transition mechanisms
in place, and new ones continuously being worked on.

I'd recommend to you to enable v6 along side v4 on a few sites in a
lab/pilot project, and go from there. During my transition, I kept a
paper folder with milestones of each achievement in lab/pilot setups,
and once I was satisfied, I turned things on in production. I have had
no ill side-effects.

Steve


From fred at cisco.com  Thu Apr 30 19:21:00 2009
From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:21:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
	<e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D4FDAF7-1B25-43D0-92F7-CB42C1890B7D@cisco.com>


On Apr 30, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Tony Valenti wrote:

> I personally would love for us to be able to provision new equipment  
> on IPV6, but the fact remains, as a small-time web hosting service  
> provider, if I put websites on an IPV6 address, according to Network  
> World (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/279477/ipv6_fails_reach_5_percent_internet 
>  ), 95% of the internet would not be able to talk to our gear, and  
> of course, we'd go out of business if we told customers "Don't worry  
> about your website and email being down - the most tech savy 5% of  
> the internet can still email you".

Following up on Joe's comment that running dual stack is going to be  
de rigeur for a while.

I understand why you might want to start deploying IPv6 in addition to  
IPv4 connectivity. At this point, I don't at all understand why  
someone would shut down IPv4 while doing so. That point will come (see  
previous note on this list about a possible projection for the next 20  
years), but it will come when business requirements don't support IPv4  
any more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/a5c989e4/attachment.htm>

From fred at cisco.com  Thu Apr 30 19:58:32 2009
From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:58:32 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <49FA3494.2080906@ibctech.ca>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
	<e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
	<49FA3494.2080906@ibctech.ca>
Message-ID: <CE11BD80-C78D-45D6-8E61-75A32B36D29F@cisco.com>


On Apr 30, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:

> Tony Valenti wrote:
>
>> I'm still convinced that in order for IPV6 to be successful, the ISPs
>> like ComCast, Verizon, COX, and Qwest have to make the first move and
>> say "We're going IPV6 _ONLY_".
>
> You won't see any ISP's claiming to go v6-only for quite some time. I
> don't think that is feasible.

other than those that already have :-)

> IPv6 is the future of the public Internet, but we will transition into
> it, not switch to it. There are already successful transition  
> mechanisms
> in place, and new ones continuously being worked on.
>
> I'd recommend to you to enable v6 along side v4 on a few sites in a
> lab/pilot project, and go from there. During my transition, I kept a
> paper folder with milestones of each achievement in lab/pilot setups,
> and once I was satisfied, I turned things on in production. I have had
> no ill side-effects.

thanks. yes.



From steve at ibctech.ca  Thu Apr 30 20:07:10 2009
From: steve at ibctech.ca (Steve Bertrand)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:07:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <CE11BD80-C78D-45D6-8E61-75A32B36D29F@cisco.com>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
	<e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
	<49FA3494.2080906@ibctech.ca>
	<CE11BD80-C78D-45D6-8E61-75A32B36D29F@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <49FA3D2E.2070304@ibctech.ca>

Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> 
>> Tony Valenti wrote:
>>
>>> I'm still convinced that in order for IPV6 to be successful, the ISPs
>>> like ComCast, Verizon, COX, and Qwest have to make the first move and
>>> say "We're going IPV6 _ONLY_".
>>
>> You won't see any ISP's claiming to go v6-only for quite some time. I
>> don't think that is feasible.
> 
> other than those that already have :-)

My apologies Fred, I wasn't aware of any IPv6-only *SPs ;)

I was just about to turn up a domain name IPv6-only just to gather
statistics for my own curiosity. I'm interested to learn more about the
trials and tribulations of v6-*only* access providers...

Steve


From fred at cisco.com  Thu Apr 30 20:15:29 2009
From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:15:29 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <49FA3D2E.2070304@ibctech.ca>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>	<0CA06E8D-6F3B-4158-A2C3-AD9A11BD09C3@isoc.org>
	<e82f9b9b0904301559u4bef5b16w89c3339178281e84@mail.gmail.com>
	<49FA3494.2080906@ibctech.ca>
	<CE11BD80-C78D-45D6-8E61-75A32B36D29F@cisco.com>
	<49FA3D2E.2070304@ibctech.ca>
Message-ID: <22BAC1EF-9658-43E6-AC60-5DBD7A143820@cisco.com>


On Apr 30, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:

> I was just about to turn up a domain name IPv6-only just to gather
> statistics for my own curiosity. I'm interested to learn more about  
> the
> trials and tribulations of v6-*only* access providers...

CERNET2 comes to mind. I know of others that have raised the question,  
primarily mobile providers.


From bicknell at ufp.org  Thu Apr 30 20:21:26 2009
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:21:26 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Effect of ARIN's Letters
In-Reply-To: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20090430221050.GA15713@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <20090501002126.GA23109@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 06:10:50PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> ARIN's letters are getting some attention:
> 
> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235

More press, and interesting comments:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/30/ipv4_depletion/

-- 
       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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/b33c1482/attachment.sig>