From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Feb 1 14:46:15 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 19:46:15 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal (Global): Allocation ofIPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > policies can extend the length of time some of those > cardinals can be distributed. but only by distributing the > few remaining ones under extreme rationing. And the side effect is that any hardships caused by the runout of IPv4 will be earlier than we expected and will likely be more severe for at least some organizations. For many organizations, their next ARIN allocation of IPv4 addresses will likely be their LAST ALLOCATION. --Michael Dillon From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Thu Feb 5 10:31:21 2009 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:31:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed? In-Reply-To: from "Ted Mittelstaedt" at Jan 29, 2009 12:14:55 PM Message-ID: <200902051531.n15FVLPt009509@cjbsys.bdb.com> Ted M wrote > > I always love a good divergence! ;-) . . > > You know, your not a real geek unless you have at one time in your life, > run NCSA Telnet on a PC XT with an ethernet card in it to log in into > a real system... ;-) I actually still use the PCTCP/packet driver stuff on an old PC in the basement to log on to a linux system and run lynx, elm etc. :) > > Some gear, though, is apparently NEVER obsoleted - ponder the dichotomy of > websites like the following: > > http://www.tubedepot.com/ > For a different look at old technology, look at http://www.bdb.com/mark8/ for some history on the first 8-bit microprocessor from Intel, the 8008. It still ran as of 2005 but I haven't run it lately. Old computers never die, they just blink their lights forever. > > Ted > Cliff -- Cliff Bedore 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Feb 5 11:28:59 2009 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:28:59 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed? In-Reply-To: <200902051531.n15FVLPt009509@cjbsys.bdb.com> References: from "TedMittelstaedt" at Jan 29, 2009 12:14:55 PM <200902051531.n15FVLPt009509@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADE4@mail> Ah, I remember the pre-Timex/Sinclair days of dialimg up to the university ARPANET on my 4K Ram homebuilt through a telephone handset transponder.. Archie was the best thing ever.. remember when there was no DNS and you called people to see what address they picked? And when an address was one number, not a dotted quad? of course the biggest use for that computer was to hook it to the shortwave radio and copy AP/UPI to get tomorrows news today.. Everyone was amazed that I could tell them what was going to be in tomorrows paper.. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Cliff Bedore > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:31 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: arin ppml > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed? > > Ted M wrote > > > > I always love a good divergence! ;-) > . > . > > > > You know, your not a real geek unless you have at one time in your life, > > run NCSA Telnet on a PC XT with an ethernet card in it to log in into > > a real system... ;-) > > I actually still use the PCTCP/packet driver stuff on an old PC in the > basement to log on to a linux system and run lynx, elm etc. :) > > > > > Some gear, though, is apparently NEVER obsoleted - ponder the dichotomy > of > > websites like the following: > > > > http://www.tubedepot.com/ > > > > For a different look at old technology, look at > > http://www.bdb.com/mark8/ for some history on the first 8-bit > microprocessor > from Intel, the 8008. It still ran as of 2005 but I haven't run it > lately. > Old computers never die, they just blink their lights forever. > > > > Ted > > > > Cliff > > > -- > Cliff Bedore > 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740 > cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com > Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/ > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Fri Feb 6 03:20:17 2009 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:20:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed? In-Reply-To: References: from "Ted Mittelstaedt" at Jan 29, 2009 12:14:55 PM <200902051531.n15FVLPt009509@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <498BF2C1.8080905@cjbsys.bdb.com> Ray Weber wrote: > PC with XT? What about an S100 Bus computer with a monitor and keyboard? > > Younguns!!! > > Ray > Got two of those too as well as a Morrow Microdecision lugable portable. All still working. The Mark8 is older than all of those. I built the bus out of surplus connectors, etched some fingers on circuit board, super-glued them to the Mark8 boards and soldered jumpers from the boards to the fingers. You can see this at http://www.bdb.com/mark8/pix/mk8_0511050005.jpeg. Ah the good old days (Or not. I do love Linux,) Cliff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cliff Bedore > To: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) > Cc: arin ppml > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:31:21 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Why are ISPs allowed? > > > Ted M wrote > >> I always love a good divergence! ;-) >> From info at arin.net Tue Feb 10 07:58:13 2009 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:58:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address Message-ID: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the proposal is being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). This proposal is in the first stage of the ARIN Policy Development Process. ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this time, their only aim is to make sure that they understand the proposal and believe that the community will as well. Staff will report the results of this step to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within 10 days. The AC will review this 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. The 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: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal Name: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address Proposal Originator : Christopher A Quesada, Proposal Version: 1 Date: 2/9/2009 Proposal type: New Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space that has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of time. Rationale: Protection of critical infrastructure as defined in ARIN?s Number Resource Policy Manual is necessary in order to ensure the continuous operation of the Internet for its global service community. It is possible for an organization to transfer an aggregate IPv4 address resource containing allocations/assignments downstream supporting critical infrastructure. This policy is intended to protect critical infrastructure by not allowing the transfer of those assignments if such transfer would interfere with the continuous and seamless operation of that critical infrastructure or hardship to the provider. Timetable for implementation: immediately From lear at cisco.com Tue Feb 10 08:07:37 2009 From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:07:37 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> Message-ID: <49917C19.7030403@cisco.com> On 2/10/09 1:58 PM, Member Services wrote: > Policy statement: > > Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address > > Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review > and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space that > has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of time. > I don't fully understand what is written here. Is the issue that when an end user network offering critical resources changes providers they wish to retain PA space? Thanks, Eliot From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Feb 10 09:17:27 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:17:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> Message-ID: <20090210141727.GA8388@ussenterprise.ufp.org> ARIN has a policy for micro-allocations to critical infrastructure: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four4 Wouldn't it make more sense for critical infrastructure to get a block under this policy and renumber into it, thus being free from any concerns? This can in fact be done now, well in advance of an upstream trying to sell a block. It doesn't seem like good policy for a mostly free large block to be kept from being used by a relatively small critical infrastructure block. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Feb 10 10:48:47 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:48:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49917C19.7030403@cisco.com> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> <49917C19.7030403@cisco.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > On 2/10/09 1:58 PM, Member Services wrote: > > Policy statement: > > > > Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address > > > > Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review > > and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space that > > has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of time. > > > > I don't fully understand what is written here. Is the issue that when > an end user network offering critical resources changes providers they > wish to retain PA space? > > In this case, CI is likely representing commercial Internet Exchanges (IX). Right now, I believe that EP.NET is provisioning addrs to exchanges. I am guessing that this is a policy to insure continuity in any sort of exchange of those particular addresses blocks, so as to not disrupt IX operations. I don't think this is any sort of CI allocation issue, related to micro allocation policy for example. Interesting. Not speaking for Chris, or EP, Marty -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Feb 10 11:19:07 2009 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:19:07 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> <49917C19.7030403@cisco.com> <4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADFF@mail> OK, most of the time I can at least understand the intent of what is being proposed.. In this case I am at a loss as to what the issue is much less what the language proposes.. Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could someone offer a plain English translation or an example? Kevin ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:49 AM To: Eliot Lear Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policyfor IPv4 Address On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: On 2/10/09 1:58 PM, Member Services wrote: > Policy statement: > > Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address > > Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review > and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space that > has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of time. > I don't fully understand what is written here. ?Is the issue that when an end user network offering critical resources changes providers they wish to retain PA space? In this case, CI is likely representing commercial Internet Exchanges (IX). Right now, I believe that EP.NET is provisioning addrs to exchanges. I am guessing that this is a policy to insure continuity in any sort of exchange of those particular addresses blocks, so as to not disrupt IX operations. I don't think this is any sort of CI allocation issue, related to micro allocation policy for example. Interesting. Not speaking for Chris, or EP, Marty -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Feb 10 11:40:09 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:40:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADFF@mail> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> <49917C19.7030403@cisco.com> <4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADFF@mail> Message-ID: <20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:07AM -0600, Kevin Kargel wrote: > Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could someone > offer a plain English translation or an example? ARIN Allocates 10.0.0.0/8 to ISP.NET ISP.NET allocates 10.0.1.0/24 to CriticalInfrastructure.NET. ISP.NET decides to transfer 10.0.0.0/8 to TooMuchMoney.COM, and tells CriticalInfrastructure.NET they can't use it anymore. CriticalInfrastructure.NET wants to be able to appeal to ARIN, since it is "Critical Infrastructure" to prevent ISP.NET from transferring the block, and presumably breaking the critical infrastructure. Hence my comment that if it really is Critical Infrastructure they can get a block directly from ARIN under the current policy, renumber into it now, well in advance of any potential transfer and then have no issues. It seems silly to me to hold up the transfer of a much larger block for one small bit of critical infrastrucutre when we have a way to deal with critical infrastructure. However, even without renumbering, it seems like this could also be solved via contract. Hopefully CriticalInfrastructure.NET has a contract with ISP.NET that says they need to give them signicant notice of any event that would require them to renumber. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Feb 10 12:05:01 2009 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:05:01 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> <49917C19.7030403@cisco.com><4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADFF@mail> <20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:40 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage > TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address > > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:07AM -0600, Kevin > Kargel wrote: > > Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could someone > > offer a plain English translation or an example? > > ARIN Allocates 10.0.0.0/8 to ISP.NET > > ISP.NET allocates 10.0.1.0/24 to CriticalInfrastructure.NET. > > ISP.NET decides to transfer 10.0.0.0/8 to TooMuchMoney.COM, > and tells CriticalInfrastructure.NET they can't use it > anymore. > > CriticalInfrastructure.NET wants to be able to appeal to ARIN, since > it is "Critical Infrastructure" to prevent ISP.NET from transferring > the block, and presumably breaking the critical infrastructure. > > Hence my comment that if it really is Critical Infrastructure they > can get a block directly from ARIN under the current policy, renumber > into it now, well in advance of any potential transfer and then > have no issues. It seems silly to me to hold up the transfer of a > much larger block for one small bit of critical infrastrucutre when > we have a way to deal with critical infrastructure. > > However, even without renumbering, it seems like this could also > be solved via contract. Hopefully CriticalInfrastructure.NET has > a contract with ISP.NET that says they need to give them signicant > notice of any event that would require them to renumber. I completely agree with Leo on this one.. there are policies in place to give space to CI, so it seems to be a no-brainer that they would get their own PI space and not be held hostage by their provider. I guess the obvious solution was so obvious that I didn't see the problem, thanks Leo. Kevin > > -- > 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: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Robert.Smales at cw.com Tue Feb 10 12:38:03 2009 From: Robert.Smales at cw.com (Smales, Robert) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:38:03 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy forIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> Message-ID: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F014E501F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> Hi, I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is unclear: - as to what it is meant to achieve; - as to what circumstances it should apply to; - and as to what factors ARIN should take account of when considering an appeal made under it. Robert Robert Smales IP Provide Engineer Cable&Wireless Europe, Asia & US -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Member Services Sent: 10 February 2009 12:58 To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy forIPv4 Address ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the proposal is being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). This proposal is in the first stage of the ARIN Policy Development Process. ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this time, their only aim is to make sure that they understand the proposal and believe that the community will as well. Staff will report the results of this step to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within 10 days. The AC will review this 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. The 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: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Policy Proposal Name: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address Proposal Originator : Christopher A Quesada, Proposal Version: 1 Date: 2/9/2009 Proposal type: New Policy term: permanent Policy statement: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space that has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of time. Rationale: Protection of critical infrastructure as defined in ARIN?s Number Resource Policy Manual is necessary in order to ensure the continuous operation of the Internet for its global service community. It is possible for an organization to transfer an aggregate IPv4 address resource containing allocations/assignments downstream supporting critical infrastructure. This policy is intended to protect critical infrastructure by not allowing the transfer of those assignments if such transfer would interfere with the continuous and seamless operation of that critical infrastructure or hardship to the provider. 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. 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 gtb at slac.stanford.edu Tue Feb 10 12:34:39 2009 From: gtb at slac.stanford.edu (Buhrmaster, Gary) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:34:39 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net><49917C19.7030403@cisco.com><4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADFF@mail><20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> Message-ID: > I completely agree with Leo on this one.. there are policies > in place to give space to CI, so it seems to be a no-brainer > that they would get their own PI space and not be held hostage > by their provider. Just to play devils advocate. Do you believe that all organizations that currently believe that they are CI(*) have actually gotten PI space (and renumbered as needed), or had their lawyers craft the appropriate contract to protect them? Personally, I do not believe it. I also believe that a few eggs will be broken in any transfer, whether between ISP.NET and TooMuchMoney.COM or between two companies during an acquisition/merger. And life will go on, even for CriticalInfrastructure.NET. Gary (*) The number of the groups/organizations which consider themselves CI seems to growing quite rapidly, as no one wants to be left out (does not everyone want to be considered "critical", especially when such designations often come with potential funding?) From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Feb 10 13:14:44 2009 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:14:44 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net><49917C19.7030403@cisco.com><4607e1d50902100748j3271a047p6ec169ff88ea9c32@mail.gmail.com><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4ADFF@mail><20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org><70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE01@mail> > Just to play devils advocate. Do you believe that all > organizations that currently believe that they are CI(*) > have actually gotten PI space (and renumbered as needed), > or had their lawyers craft the appropriate contract to > protect them? > > Personally, I do not believe it. I also believe that > a few eggs will be broken in any transfer, whether > between ISP.NET and TooMuchMoney.COM or between > two companies during an acquisition/merger. And > life will go on, even for CriticalInfrastructure.NET. Perhaps I am not understanding the definition of "Critical Infrastructure".. ARIN explicitly defines CI and lays things out neatly for micro-allocations.. There should be no problem for a network that fits in to the guidelines from obtaining PI space. If they don't fit the guidelines then they aren't CI.. it's that simple. Using colloquial CI definitions is neither productive nor functional. Whether or not one considers themselves to be CI is moot, the question is whether ARIN recognizes them as CI. Whether they have taken the time to get the PI and the protections it offers and renumber into it or not is up to the CI administration. I for one do not see the necessity of this proposal and do not support it. > > Gary > > (*) The number of the groups/organizations which consider > themselves CI seems to growing quite rapidly, as no > one wants to be left out (does not everyone want to > be considered "critical", especially when such > designations often come with potential funding?) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bicknell at ufp.org Tue Feb 10 13:38:33 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:38:33 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:25:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > However, I have one small worry CriticalInfrastructure.NET and > ISP.NET don't actually have a contract, that contract doesn't > have anything specific about revocation of address > assignments in it, or worse yet what the contract says is > completely unreasonable, then what? Perhaps we need some of these signs to hang around PPML: http://www.officeplayground.com/lackplanning.html AFAIK (someone please correct me if wrong) the critical infrastructure policy has been in place since day 1 of ARIN. Thus any critical infrastructure provider has already had 11 years to get their own block and not have this problem, and by most guesses has at least two years to do so prior to their being a problem. Were it just anyone, I would have little sympathy. Being that it is critical infrastructure, I have no sympathy. If the thing really is critical to the operation of the internet these sorts of entanglements should have been removed long ago. To say your infrastructure is critical in the same sentence that you state you have no contract or SLA for the items necessary to run it is rather laughable. > In other discussion off-line from PPML Leo you state that > ARIN's Appeal process doesn't allow an ISP's customer to > appeal to Appeal to ARIN. So then CiticalInfrastructure.NET > askes a judge for an injunction. So judge is looking at the > merits; > > 1. ARIN Policy seems to recognize the special status of critical > infrastructure, NRPM 4.4. > > 2. ARIN Policy seem to recognize ISPs have an obligation to > "allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be > completed before requiring the address space to be returned", > NRPM 4.2.3.3 And the critical infrastructure has had 11 years to do just that, and two more if they start now. IMHO posting this policy now is admission that they know of the problem well in advance, thus killing any chance that I might have sympathy that a sale was "sprung on them". I wonder what the judge will do when told "the community has provided an option for the critical infrastructure provider to avoid this situation for 13 years, and two years ago they tried to change the community policy and were told to use the existing solution. They ignored this option, and rather came to you looking to overturn community policy because they didn't plan properly." > I think there should be some kind of process for an ISP > customer to appeal to ARIN. Then a customer would need to > show that both the ISP and ARIN are being unreasonable > before a judge should intervene. This is an entirely separate point, and if you want to bring it up I urge you to start a separate thread. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farmer at umn.edu Tue Feb 10 13:25:15 2009 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:25:15 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net>, <20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> Message-ID: <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> On 10 Feb 2009 Kevin Kargel wrote: > On 10 Feb 2009 Leo Bicknell wrote: > > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:07AM -0600, Kevin > > Kargel wrote: > > > Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could > > > someone offer a plain English translation or an example? > > > > ARIN Allocates 10.0.0.0/8 to ISP.NET > > > > ISP.NET allocates 10.0.1.0/24 to CriticalInfrastructure.NET. > > > > ISP.NET decides to transfer 10.0.0.0/8 to TooMuchMoney.COM, > > and tells CriticalInfrastructure.NET they can't use it > > anymore. > > > > CriticalInfrastructure.NET wants to be able to appeal to ARIN, since > > it is "Critical Infrastructure" to prevent ISP.NET from transferring > > the block, and presumably breaking the critical infrastructure. > > > > Hence my comment that if it really is Critical Infrastructure they > > can get a block directly from ARIN under the current policy, > > renumber into it now, well in advance of any potential transfer and > > then have no issues. It seems silly to me to hold up the transfer > > of a much larger block for one small bit of critical infrastrucutre > > when we have a way to deal with critical infrastructure. > > > > However, even without renumbering, it seems like this could also be > > solved via contract. Hopefully CriticalInfrastructure.NET has a > > contract with ISP.NET that says they need to give them signicant > > notice of any event that would require them to renumber. > > I completely agree with Leo on this one.. there are policies in place > to give space to CI, so it seems to be a no-brainer that they would > get their own PI space and not be held hostage by their provider. > > I guess the obvious solution was so obvious that I didn't see the > problem, thanks Leo. I guess I mostly agree with Leo and Kevin on this one, at least for the final end state. However, I have one small worry CriticalInfrastructure.NET and ISP.NET don't actually have a contract, that contract doesn't have anything specific about revocation of address assignments in it, or worse yet what the contract says is completely unreasonable, then what? In other discussion off-line from PPML Leo you state that ARIN's Appeal process doesn't allow an ISP's customer to appeal to Appeal to ARIN. So then CiticalInfrastructure.NET askes a judge for an injunction. So judge is looking at the merits; 1. ARIN Policy seems to recognize the special status of critical infrastructure, NRPM 4.4. 2. ARIN Policy seem to recognize ISPs have an obligation to "allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be completed before requiring the address space to be returned", NRPM 4.2.3.3 This looks like an invitation for a judge to intervene to me. So, now this is out of the hands of the Internet Community and in the hands of a judge, that's not good I my opinion. I think there should be some kind of process for an ISP customer to appeal to ARIN. Then a customer would need to show that both the ISP and ARIN are being unreasonable before a judge should intervene. Leo, if I am misrepresenting your opinion on the appeal issue, then I sorry, and please correct me. Also, note that I think this agrument holds for any customer of an ISP, but it is espically true for critical infrastructure because of NRPM 4.4. ================================================ ======= 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 martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Feb 10 14:21:51 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:21:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:25:15PM -0600, David Farmer > wrote: > > However, I have one small worry CriticalInfrastructure.NET and > > ISP.NET don't actually have a contract, that contract doesn't > > have anything specific about revocation of address > > assignments in it, or worse yet what the contract says is > > completely unreasonable, then what? > > [ snip ] > > > > > 2. ARIN Policy seem to recognize ISPs have an obligation to > > "allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be > > completed before requiring the address space to be returned", > > NRPM 4.2.3.3 > > And the critical infrastructure has had 11 years to do just that, > and two more if they start now. IMHO posting this policy now is > admission that they know of the problem well in advance, thus killing > any chance that I might have sympathy that a sale was "sprung on > them". Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and unexpectedly. Best, Marty -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Feb 10 14:38:46 2009 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:38:46 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net>, <20090210164009.GA15463@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE04@mail> > However, I have one small worry CriticalInfrastructure.NET and > ISP.NET don't actually have a contract, that contract doesn't > have anything specific about revocation of address > assignments in it, or worse yet what the contract says is > completely unreasonable, then what? Working without a contract on a non-portable IP would be just bad administration. I do not think ARIN is responsible nor should they watchdog network infrastructure.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 10 15:13:41 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:13:41 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy forIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> Message-ID: <1DA9AF9559874B509DA5F014CF77A12E@tedsdesk> I WOULD SUPPORT this policy IF the following changes were made to it: 1) A definition of what constituted a "Critical infrastructure provider" (ie: C.I.P.) was added that was REASONABLE. Someone's webserver with a couple hundred customers on it does not, IMHO, constitute a CIP. 2) The allocation/assignment to the C.I.P. constituted 50% or greater of the IPv4 block that was going to be transferred by the owning organization. 3) The transfer to the C.I.P. did not result in further deaggregation of an IPv4 block - in short, the block is small enough that there is reasonable expectation that the C.I.P. will be able to fill it in the future, or the C.I.P. supplies a signed contract by another, larger, network that guarentees the larger network will indeed use the empty part of the block and continue to allow the C.I.P. to use their part - and CONTINUE TO ADVERTISE IT AS A SINGLE BLOCK IN THE DFZ. I totally understand the annoyance that a CIP might have a /24 smack dab in the middle of a /8 and the owning org of the /8 decides to either return the block, or sell it as part of an acquisition of a network, etc. and the CIP wants to throw a monkey wrench into the sale. Of course, that should not be permitted. But what about the situation where, for example, Cable & Wireless pulled out of the NA market? C&W had it's large allocations, sure. But they also had a number of smaller fragments, /24, /23, /22 allocations and such that they had obtained directly, before the minimum assignment size was added into the NRPM. These had been assigned to smaller customers of theirs, some of them ISP's. When C&W pulled out, most of it's numbering went directly back to ARIN, some was sold to other ISP's who gobbled up the usable C&W holdings. If for example a CIP had a /23 that was part of a /22 that C&W owned, then why inconvenience them by letting C&W sell the /22 as part of it's dissolution? The fact of the matter was that C&W cancelled a great number of it's NA contracts anyhow because they hadn't found a buyer for them, so everyone in the other half of the /22 from the CIP would likely have quit service anyway. Is it really necessary to force the CIP to renumber just to make things slightly easier on C&W's bean-counters who oversaw the dissolution of their NA holdings? Ted > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:58 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage > Transfer Policy forIPv4 Address > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance > with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the proposal is > being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). > > This proposal is in the first stage of the ARIN Policy > Development Process. ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and > Understanding step. > Staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this time, > their only aim is to make sure that they understand the > proposal and believe that the community will as well. Staff > will report the results of this step to the ARIN Advisory > Council (AC) within 10 days. > > The AC will review this 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. The 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: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ## * ## > > Policy Proposal Name: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for > IPv4 Address > > Proposal Originator : Christopher A Quesada, > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 2/9/2009 > > Proposal type: New > > Policy term: permanent > > Policy statement: > > Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address > > Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for > final review and decision of any full or partial transfer of > IPv4 address space that has been in use serving the community > for consecutive periods of time. > > Rationale: > > Protection of critical infrastructure as defined in ARIN's > Number Resource Policy Manual is necessary in order to ensure > the continuous operation of the Internet for its global > service community. It is possible for an organization to > transfer an aggregate IPv4 address resource containing > allocations/assignments downstream supporting critical > infrastructure. This policy is intended to protect critical > infrastructure by not allowing the transfer of those > assignments if such transfer would interfere with the > continuous and seamless operation of that critical > infrastructure or hardship to the provider. > > 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 bicknell at ufp.org Tue Feb 10 15:33:51 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:33:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > unexpectedly. I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to address that than policy changes. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Feb 10 16:04:16 2009 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:04:16 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer PolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <1DA9AF9559874B509DA5F014CF77A12E@tedsdesk> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> <1DA9AF9559874B509DA5F014CF77A12E@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE05@mail> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:14 PM > To: 'Member Services'; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer > PolicyforIPv4 Address > > > I WOULD SUPPORT this policy IF the following changes were made to it: > > 1) A definition of what constituted a "Critical infrastructure provider" > (ie: C.I.P.) was added that was REASONABLE. Someone's webserver with > a couple hundred customers on it does not, IMHO, constitute a CIP. > Critical Infrastructure is already defined by ARIN, and it pertains to critical for the Internet, like root DNS servers, not critical for the company. EVERYTHING that is connected to the internet is critical to someone, or they wouldn't bother connecting it. It is up to the company and the administrators to make sure that their connectivity is protected, whether by provider contract, by obtaining PI space, or some other means. Quoting from https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html "critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA." When there is already a policy making available portable IP space for these networks I don't see a reason to add further protections. I will stand strongly against widening the CI definition to include public hosts, even "important" ones. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matthew at matthew.at Tue Feb 10 17:18:50 2009 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:18:50 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer PolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE05@mail> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> <1DA9AF9559874B509DA5F014CF77A12E@tedsdesk> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE05@mail> Message-ID: <4991FD4A.50406@matthew.at> Kevin Kargel wrote: > ... > EVERYTHING that is connected to the internet is critical to someone, or they > wouldn't bother connecting it. If *that* were true, IPv4 would last forever. I can think of counterexamples *in my own house*, not to mention the wide variety of web-based entertainment out there... Matthew Kaufman From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 10 17:28:25 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:28:25 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE05@mail> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net><1DA9AF9559874B509DA5F014CF77A12E@tedsdesk> <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE05@mail> Message-ID: <3B710318BCBA435190B5639DFF0AD7AE@tedsdesk> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:04 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage > TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > > On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:14 PM > > To: 'Member Services'; arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer > > PolicyforIPv4 Address > > > > > > I WOULD SUPPORT this policy IF the following changes were > made to it: > > > > 1) A definition of what constituted a "Critical > infrastructure provider" > > (ie: C.I.P.) was added that was REASONABLE. Someone's > webserver with > > a couple hundred customers on it does not, IMHO, constitute a CIP. > > > > Critical Infrastructure is already defined by ARIN, and it > pertains to critical for the Internet, like root DNS servers, > not critical for the company. > > EVERYTHING that is connected to the internet is critical to > someone, or they wouldn't bother connecting it. It is up to > the company and the administrators to make sure that their > connectivity is protected, whether by provider contract, by > obtaining PI space, or some other means. > > Quoting from https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html "critical > infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public > exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. > ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as well as > the RIRs and IANA." > That doesen't, in my opinion, constitute a definition of critical infrastructure providers - at least, not one that is unambigious enough to be used as a hinge-point for a policy change. if the NRPM had said something like: "critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, defined as public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) and the RIRs and IANA." Because that sentence limits the definition of CIP to just what is listed - the prior sentence basically leaves it open to consider other critical infrastructure providers. Which is I am sure, what was intended by whomever crafted that statement in the NRPM. They wanted the term ambigious - they likely really didn't even want a specific term, or they would have capitalized Critical Infrastructure Providers. > When there is already a policy making available portable IP > space for these networks I don't see a reason to add further > protections. > It would have helped the author's case greatly to explain exactly WHY he wants this - what REAL LIFE example is happening right now that would only be helped by this? I cited one example with the C&W withdrawl - but it's just an example only, as that withdrawl happened a number of years ago. What does the author want? What is happening RIGHT NOW that demands this policy change? The lack of a triggering explanation I think really harms the chance of support for the proposal. > I will stand strongly against widening the CI definition to > include public hosts, even "important" ones. > With the exception of the root nameservers - which ARE public hosts - I would agree. Since we are all supposed to be using DNS I don't see why renumbering is a problem for any other host. Ted From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Feb 10 21:25:31 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:25:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com> <20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin > Hannigan wrote: > > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > > unexpectedly. > > I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy > style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further > that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed > likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be > approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. > > If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to > address that than policy changes. I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness. Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the least. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Tue Feb 10 23:58:38 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:58:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal (Global): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries In-Reply-To: <496CE869.7010902@arin.net> References: <496CE869.7010902@arin.net> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902102058j1822a0ei75992c433039005@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Member Services wrote: > Policy statement: > > This document describes the policy governing the allocation of IPv4 I think that they may mean "a policy governing" instead of "the". There could be more than one global policy governing the recovery and subsequent return of v4 address space. [ clip] > This policy is to be implemented in two phases. > > A. Phase I: Recovery of IPv4 Address Space > > Upon ratification of this policy by the ICANN Board of Directors the > IANA shall establish a mechanism to receive IPv4 address space which is > returned to it by the RIRs, and hold that address space in a 'recovered > IPv4 pool'. > > Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. Each RIR > shall at quarterly intervals return any such recovered address space to > the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the > recovered IPv4 pool. > > During Phase I, no allocations will be made from the recovered IPv4 pool. > > B. Phase II: Allocation of Recovered IPv4 address space by the IANA > > Upon ratification of this policy by the ICANN Board of Directors and a > declaration by the IANA that its existing free pool of unallocated IPv4 > addresses space is depleted; Global Addressing Policy ASO-001-2 (adopted > by ICANN Board 8 April 2005) is rescinded. IANA will then commence to > allocate the IPv4 address space from the recovered IPv4 pool. > > 1. Allocation of IPv4 Address Space > > a. For the purposes of this policy, an 'IPv4 allocation period' is > defined as a 6-month period following 1 March or 1 September in each year. > > b. At the beginning of each IPv4 allocation period, the IANA will > determine the 'IPv4 allocation unit' for that period, as 1/10 of its > IPv4 address pool, rounded down to the next CIDR (power-of-2) boundary. > > c. In each allocation period, each RIR may issue one IPv4 request to the > IANA. Providing that the RIR satisfies the allocation criteria > described in paragraph B.2, the IANA will allocate a single allocation > unit, composed of the smallest possible number of blocks available in > its IPv4 address pool. > > 2. IPv4 Address Space Allocation Criteria > > A RIR is eligible to receive additional IPv4 address space from the IANA > when the total of its IPv4 address holdings is less than 50% of the > current IPv4 allocation unit, and providing that it has not already > received an IPv4 allocation from the IANA during the current IPv4 > allocation period. > > 3. Initial Allocation of IPv4 Address Space > > Each new RIR shall, at the moment of recognition, be allocated one (1) > allocation unit by the IANA. If an allocation unit is not available, > then the IANA will issue this block as soon as one is available. This > allocation will be made regardless of the newly formed RIR's projected > utilization figures and shall be independent of the IPv4 address space > that may have been transferred to the new RIR by the already existing > RIRs as part of the formal transition process. > > 4. Reporting > > a. All returned space is to be recorded in an IANA-published log of IPv4 > address space transactions, with each log entry detailing the returned > address block, the date of the return, and the returning RIR. > > b. All allocated space is also to be recorded in this IANA-published log > of IPv4 address space transactions, with each log entry detailing the > address blocks, the date of the allocation and the recipient RIR. > > c. The IANA will maintain a public registry of the current disposition > of all IPv4 address space, detailing all reservations and current > allocations and current IANA-held address space that is unallocated. > > d) The IANA may make public announcements of IPv4 address block > transactions > that occur under this policy. The IANA will make appropriate > modifications to the "Internet Protocol V4 Address Space" page of the > IANA website and may make announcements to its own appropriate > announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be limited to which > address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they have > been allocated. > > Rationale: > > With the depletion of the IANA free pool of IPv4 address space, the > current policy regarding the allocation of IPv4 address space to the > RIRs will become moot. The RIRs may, according to their individual > policies and procedures, recover IPv4 address space. This policy > provides a mechanism for the RIRs to retro allocate the recovered IPv4 > address space to the IANA and provides the IANA the policy by which it > can allocate it back to the RIRs on a needs basis. This policy creates a > new global pool of IPv4 address space that can be allocated where it is > needed on a global basis without a transfer of address space between the > RIRs. > > > As it's written, I am not in favor of this policy. If the author(s) would make the following change, I'd reconsider: Section A, Para 2, line 3: shall voluntarily, at quarterly intervals, return any such recovered address space to -------------- This would allow us to comply if local conditions permitted, and if this policy didnt work out as planned, opt out and stave off any potentially serious damage. Phase B allocation routine seems speculative. Who knows what the pool size will be at any given time and who will get the most benefit? IT doesn't sound like it supports a needs based system in a fair manner. Undoing or changing a global policy takes *years* and can be thwarted by a single RIR under the current system. If there were a disagreement related to any flaw, any RIR could be left holding the bag and out in the cold. This policy reminded me of TARP, the big bank bailout. There should also potentially be restrictions on what this returned space could be used for and for how long.. Best Regards, Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 00:43:49 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:43:49 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com> <20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49926595.6090903@gmail.com> Under the new policy development process, the ARIN AC has to decide whether to accept a policy proposal onto their docket, with the intent to develop it into a draft policy. The AC then has the authority to make whatever changes to the policy are warranted. Given that, my question to you (and to the community generally) is: Do you think the ARIN Advisory Council should accept this policy proposal as the basis for a draft policy to be discussed at an upcoming policy meeting? Why or why not? Thanks, Scott Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell > wrote: > > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, > Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > > unexpectedly. > > I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy > style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further > that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed > likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be > approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. > > If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to > address that than policy changes. > > > > I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening > below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a > symptom of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that > reflects the reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a > systemic corruptness. > > Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the > author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe > ask us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted > indirect party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead > of appeal it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all > transfers are required to be publicly announced on the website for a > minimum of 60 days prior to execution so that any affected parties are > guaranteed at least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the > least. > > Best, > > -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 martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Feb 11 00:45:54 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:45:54 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49926595.6090903@gmail.com> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail> <4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu> <20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com> <20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <49926595.6090903@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902102145r7dcafa8dgd3bc5977c107bb5d@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Under the new policy development process, the ARIN AC has to decide whether > to accept a policy proposal onto their docket, with the intent to develop it > into a draft policy. The AC then has the authority to make whatever changes > to the policy are warranted. Given that, my question to you (and to the > community generally) is: > > Do you think the ARIN Advisory Council should accept this policy proposal > as the basis for a draft policy to be discussed at an upcoming policy > meeting? Why or why not? > Yes, accept this policy. > > Thanks, > Scott > > Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell > bicknell at ufp.org>> wrote: >> >> In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, >> Martin Hannigan wrote: >> > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and >> > unexpectedly. >> >> I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy >> style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further >> that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed >> likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be >> approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. >> >> If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to >> address that than policy changes. >> >> >> >> I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below >> board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our >> failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of >> the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness. >> >> Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the >> author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us >> to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party, >> can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after >> the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be >> publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to >> execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice. >> Interesting transparency, to say the least. >> >> Best, >> >> -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. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmalayter at switchanddata.com Wed Feb 11 01:26:15 2009 From: cmalayter at switchanddata.com (Chris Malayter) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:26:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail><4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu><20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com><20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Hello all, In an effort to add some clarification behind the policy proposal that was submitted I will add the following. There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider that specializes in exchange allocations. According to the current ARIN policy, we are all eligible to request space as a direct allocation from ARIN. That is not lost on the IX's and they do completely understand that they are eligible for a direct allocation. The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American region, save one major IX. The reason behind the policy proposal was to provide a method to allow IX's 1) protection from having to renumber all of the IX's, or 2) to at least let the IX's have enough time, before they are forced out of the space, to have a smooth transition. Moreover, if this happens to other "c(C)ritical i(I)nfrastructure" corporations that happen to be in unique situations like the IX's there would be a policy in place to offer some margin of time or protection to the affected parties. Speaking for myself not any company or agent. -Chris ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > unexpectedly. I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to address that than policy changes. I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness. Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the least. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Feb 11 05:51:17 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:51:17 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM > -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > > unexpectedly. > If someone is doing something below board there are better > ways to address that than policy changes. Like ignoring them. After all, look what Verizon picked up for free last April or my employer just a week or so ago. . People who buy IP addresses are delusional. All of this IP address market talk just distracts people from the main focus which is DOCSIS 3.0, and BroadbandSuite X.X. Get access box vendors on board with those specs which support IPv6, arrange for IPv6 trials with the vendors, and get ready for the inevitable. If some guys in finance and legal really want to play with IP address markets then ignore them because it is not going to buy you much more time. You may have the financial clout and negotiating finesse to buy the addresses you need, but that will push the address sellers into an accelerated deployment of IPv6 which will cause consumer takeup to come faster, IPv6 killer apps to appear faster, and so on. All of these quota and reserve policies hasten the effective runout of the IPv4 address pool for all but the smallest ISPs. And any significant buying activity hastens the deployment of IPv6. There is a wave coming and those who catch it will survive; the rest will drown. --Michael Dillon P.S. it is not too late to prepare for IPv6 deployment by doing internal tests and trials. See ARIN's for info. From ocl at gih.com Wed Feb 11 06:20:04 2009 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:20:04 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address References: Message-ID: wrote: > All of these quota and reserve policies hasten the effective runout > of > the IPv4 address pool for all but the smallest ISPs. And any > significant > buying activity hastens the deployment of IPv6. There is a wave > coming > and those who catch it will survive; the rest will drown. +1 ... and I suspect that some current (major) players are playing a funny game by putting up smoke screens in the guise of enhanced noise/policy about IPv4 whilst they are quietly rolling out their IPv6 network in the background. You just need to do some tracerouting in IPv6 space to find out. Kind regards, O. From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Feb 11 10:01:00 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:01:00 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well > as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider > that specializes in exchange allocations. I love how people dance around issues without coming out and saying them. Since the proposer and yourself work at Switch and Data, let's look at one of the Switch and Data blocks, say, for PAIX Palo Alto: % whois -h whois.arin.net 198.32.176.0 OrgName: EP.NET, LLC. OrgID: EPB-Z Address: PO 12317 City: Marina del Rey StateProv: CA PostalCode: 90295 Country: US NetRange: 198.32.0.0 - 198.32.255.255 CIDR: 198.32.0.0/16 NetName: NET-EP-1 NetHandle: NET-198-32-0-0-1 Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: DOT.EP.NET NameServer: FLAG.EP.NET Comment: RegDate: 1997-06-09 Updated: 2008-01-15 RTechHandle: WM110-ARIN RTechName: Manning, Bill RTechPhone: +1-310-322-8102 RTechEmail: bmanning at karoshi.com OrgTechHandle: WM110-ARIN OrgTechName: Manning, Bill OrgTechPhone: +1-310-322-8102 OrgTechEmail: bmanning at karoshi.com Ah ha! Let's go to www.ep.net, and follow the about link (http://www.ep.net/aboutUS.html): ] EP.NET, LLC. provides a variety of services to the Internet community. ] These include publication of Internet exchange facilities worldwide, ] links to supporting organizations, documentation on exchange creation ] and operation, and statistical information. EP.NET LLC. also offers ] consulting and support services and unique identifier management for ] neutral exchange point operations. These identifiers may include ASN's, ] IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes, and VPI/VCI assignment. Finally, let's cross reference with other sources, say Bill Manning's LinkedIn Profile (note, account required to view): http://www.linkedin.com/pub/2/b58/469 With a status of: "Bill Manning is working on the Phd, selling off the business, starting a new one 1 month ago". Indeed, if you happen to be linked to Bill, you may have seen this message back on November 9th: "Bill Manning is selling EP... make me an offer 9 hours ago" So, Bill Manning is selling EP.Net, and varous exchanges have IP addresses from EP.Net, and are worried they will not be able to continue to use them after the sale. How many exchanges, well, here is a list sorted by location: http://www.ep.net/ep-main.html This is far from a "US" or "ARIN Region" problem, as exchange points all over the world have gone to EP.Net rather than the RIR's to get address space. > According to the current ARIN policy, we are all eligible to request > space as a direct allocation from ARIN. That is not lost on the IX's > and they do completely understand that they are eligible for a direct > allocation. Have you applied for an ARIN micro-allocation for the exchange yet, at least as a backup plan, or are all the hopes pinned on this policy? > The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority > of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at > the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that > would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American > region, save one major IX. I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Equinix appears to have direct allocations for ARIN for their exchanges in San Jose (206.223.116.0), Chicago (206.223.119.0), Ashburn (206.223.115.0), Dallas (206.223.118.0) and New Jersey (206.223.131.0). CRGWest's Any2 LA (206.223.143.0) has a direct allocation. Pacific Wave (207.231.240.0) on the education side has a direct allocation. It's easy to independently check. Go to www.peeringdb.com and search exchange points by country, put in US. There are 56 exchange points listed in the US. It does appear that several major players use EP.Net space, including Switch and Data, Telehouse, and TelX. > The reason behind the policy proposal was to provide a method to allow > IX's 1) protection from having to renumber all of the IX's, or 2) to > at least let the IX's have enough time, before they are forced out of > the space, to have a smooth transition. In the previous paragraph you state that "the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009". That appears to provide 10 months from right now to do the renumbering under the current contract. Is 10 months not enough time? In the relatively few cases I've seen where a provider let a customer continue to use PA space outside of their network to ease renumbering 6 months seems to be an industry accepted time frame. If 6 months is enough time for an end user, than surely 6 months should be enough time to get an exchange point renumbered. After all, it can be done as an overlay, and more importantly rather than dealing with end users who may have no particular network still an exchange point is dealing with network operators, who presumably have qualified engineers on staff who understand how to make this work smoothly. If 10 months isn't enough time, and an appeal were to happen, how much more time would the exchange operators want ARIN to give them? Can we put a limit to a policy, if it were to pass? Has anyone tried renumbering any of these exchanges yet? I've seen exchanges renumbered before (in Europe, at least). It would be a lot more credible to have some real world evidence of why 10 months is not enough, or why already attempted renumbers are going slower than expected. Should this policy allow appeals by those outside the ARIN region? I see ep.net has allocated space across Europe and Asia, if those exchange point operators came to ARIN to ask for an extension should it be granted? What if they can't get critical infrastructure allocations in their region, should ARIN extend the prohibition on transfer indefinitely? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From woody at pch.net Wed Feb 11 10:37:53 2009 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:37:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote: > This is far from a "US" or "ARIN Region" problem, as exchange points all > over the world have gone to EP.Net rather than the RIR's to get address > space. IXPs all over the world received a really valuable service from Bill, for a long time, for free, before the RIRs existed, and _long_ before the RIRs knew what an IXP was or how to serve it. No comment on the present predicament, but historically, this was a valuable service, provided for little or no money, when no alternatives existed. -Bill From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Feb 11 10:49:42 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:49:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <20090211154942.GA74305@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 07:37:53AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: > IXPs all over the world received a really valuable service from Bill, for > a long time, for free, before the RIRs existed, and _long_ before the RIRs > knew what an IXP was or how to serve it. Purely as a point of curiosity, is the RegDate wrong then? NetRange: 198.32.0.0 - 198.32.255.255 CIDR: 198.32.0.0/16 NetName: NET-EP-1 NetHandle: NET-198-32-0-0-1 Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: DOT.EP.NET NameServer: FLAG.EP.NET Comment: RegDate: 1997-06-09 Updated: 2008-01-15 RIPE was founded in 1989, APNIC in 1993, and ARIN in December of 1997. While I'm not familar with RIPE or APNIC's policies, as far as I can tell ARIN has had the critical infrastructure policy from day one. Thus your statement about long before the RIR's knew what an IXP was doesn't seem to ring true to me. Indeed, I would be more inclined to provide some slack to those users of EP.Net's services in Africa or Latin America, where the local RIR's are a much more recent development. I don't doubt that Bill provided a great service to the community here; my concern is on the other side of the fence. If you run an exchange point and decide to "outsource" part of the function (be that IP allocations, your corporate e-mail, the NOC) it seems that having contractual provisions for an SLA, and being prepared to make other arrangements when the contract ends are part and parcel of doing the outsourcing. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 11 13:20:51 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:20:51 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail><4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu><20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com><20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: Which provider? Unless your going to name names, I'm not even going to consider looking at this. The entire thing smacks of trying to shove something through to benefit a single special interest, with zero explanations as to why it's being done. If these IX's had contacted each other and contacted this alleged provider and attempted to work something out, and been rebuffed, and then contacted ARIN and ARIN attempted to mediate something, and once more was rebuffed, THEN I would be willing to support something like this. But so far no evidence has been presented that anyone tried diplomacy first, before hauling out the munitions and attempting to shoot people with the big guns. Since there has been no cease and desist order issued, and as you say the IX's know they are eligible to request direct allocations, then in my opinion if the IX's are worried about some future cease and desist order that may or may not happen, and they are unwilling to try talking first, and unwilling to explain to the community here who the players are and get this problem out in the open, then SCREW THEM. They should immediately request their micro allocations and when they get them, commence renumbering. Ted _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Hello all, In an effort to add some clarification behind the policy proposal that was submitted I will add the following. There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider that specializes in exchange allocations. According to the current ARIN policy, we are all eligible to request space as a direct allocation from ARIN. That is not lost on the IX's and they do completely understand that they are eligible for a direct allocation. The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American region, save one major IX. The reason behind the policy proposal was to provide a method to allow IX's 1) protection from having to renumber all of the IX's, or 2) to at least let the IX's have enough time, before they are forced out of the space, to have a smooth transition. Moreover, if this happens to other "c(C)ritical i(I)nfrastructure" corporations that happen to be in unique situations like the IX's there would be a policy in place to offer some margin of time or protection to the affected parties. Speaking for myself not any company or agent. -Chris _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > unexpectedly. I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to address that than policy changes. I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness. Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the least. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmalayter at switchanddata.com Wed Feb 11 14:38:18 2009 From: cmalayter at switchanddata.com (Chris Malayter) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:38:18 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail><4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu><20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com><20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53E@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Ted, I'm not really sure that playing the name that provider game is going to achieve anything. I can tell you that this is not a single special interest and affects over a dozen IX's. There may only be one IX publicly discussing the issue, but rest assured that a lot of the others know about this and are concerned. I'm not privy to the discussions that have occurred between the IX's and the provider in question. I am hoping that there have been some, and that some diplomacy has been attempted. Regardless of if contact has been made or not, the fact remains that the possibility I discussed in my last post certainly exists. To clarify, you are correct, to my knowledge no IX has been notified to vacate the space at this point. To Leo's point, the IX's have 10 months and probably do have enough time to request, receive and renumber into a PI from ARIN and other RR's. I think what the author was trying to do was to bring light to the situation without turning this into a discussion about a particular corporation, and in fact was trying to bring light to, this COULD happen. If the community does not want to have a policy in place to protect people from this happening, that's one choice, I think he was hoping for the alternative. Speaking for myself, -Chris ________________________________ From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:21 PM To: Chris Malayter; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Which provider? Unless your going to name names, I'm not even going to consider looking at this. The entire thing smacks of trying to shove something through to benefit a single special interest, with zero explanations as to why it's being done. If these IX's had contacted each other and contacted this alleged provider and attempted to work something out, and been rebuffed, and then contacted ARIN and ARIN attempted to mediate something, and once more was rebuffed, THEN I would be willing to support something like this. But so far no evidence has been presented that anyone tried diplomacy first, before hauling out the munitions and attempting to shoot people with the big guns. Since there has been no cease and desist order issued, and as you say the IX's know they are eligible to request direct allocations, then in my opinion if the IX's are worried about some future cease and desist order that may or may not happen, and they are unwilling to try talking first, and unwilling to explain to the community here who the players are and get this problem out in the open, then SCREW THEM. They should immediately request their micro allocations and when they get them, commence renumbering. Ted ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Hello all, In an effort to add some clarification behind the policy proposal that was submitted I will add the following. There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider that specializes in exchange allocations. According to the current ARIN policy, we are all eligible to request space as a direct allocation from ARIN. That is not lost on the IX's and they do completely understand that they are eligible for a direct allocation. The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American region, save one major IX. The reason behind the policy proposal was to provide a method to allow IX's 1) protection from having to renumber all of the IX's, or 2) to at least let the IX's have enough time, before they are forced out of the space, to have a smooth transition. Moreover, if this happens to other "c(C)ritical i(I)nfrastructure" corporations that happen to be in unique situations like the IX's there would be a policy in place to offer some margin of time or protection to the affected parties. Speaking for myself not any company or agent. -Chris ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > unexpectedly. I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to address that than policy changes. I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness. Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the least. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Feb 11 18:13:51 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:13:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > > There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well > > as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider > > that specializes in exchange allocations. > > I love how people dance around issues without coming out and saying > them. > > Since the proposer and yourself work at Switch and Data, let's look at > one of the Switch and Data blocks, say, for PAIX Palo Alto: > > Wow. Who let the dogs out? (no pun intended). What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? Best, Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Feb 11 18:43:13 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:43:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? Mr Malayter made the assertion that: In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well > as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider > that specializes in exchange allocations. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. Mr Malayter further asserts that: In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority > of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at > the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that > would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American > region, save one major IX. If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? Since we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking in theoretical generalities? This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing how many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first things to evaluate a policy. This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having ARIN step in the middle. To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what they want." -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cmalayter at switchanddata.com Wed Feb 11 19:15:49 2009 From: cmalayter at switchanddata.com (Chris Malayter) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:15:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Leo, I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and reuse them for something else. The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are potentially affected. Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are they the best way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a bunch of them in the ARIN region. I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. -Chris -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? Mr Malayter made the assertion that: In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well > as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider > that specializes in exchange allocations. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. Mr Malayter further asserts that: In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority > of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at > the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that > would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American > region, save one major IX. If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? Since we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking in theoretical generalities? This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing how many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first things to evaluate a policy. This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having ARIN step in the middle. To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what they want." -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ From aaronh at bind.com Wed Feb 11 19:26:23 2009 From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:26:23 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> References: <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: <20090212002623.GH49046@trace.bind.com> I would have to agree with Chris and add that not only would it be rough to renumber. Many peers, particularly where there are language barriers, would have an exceptionally hard time renumbering. For all of us who have ever changed our ASN, or merged an ASN, we know there are always a few that never renumber and you have to eventually drop them as a peer. It would be highly damaging to all the IXs that would have to renumber and its customers. I am in support of this policy proposal. Cheers, Aaron On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 07:15:49PM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > Leo, > > I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long > been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the > world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea > that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the > equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and > reuse them for something else. > > The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, > from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are > potentially affected. > > Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are they the best > way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a > rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a > bunch of them in the ARIN region. > > I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. > > -Chris > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin > Hannigan wrote: > > What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? > > Mr Malayter made the assertion that: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > > There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as > well > > as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider > > that specializes in exchange allocations. > > Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of > IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to > begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came > from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. > > Mr Malayter further asserts that: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > > The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a > majority > > of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space > at > > the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that > > would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North > American > > region, save one major IX. > > If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a > majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking > at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be > getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? Since > we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking > in theoretical generalities? > > This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing how > many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first > things to evaluate a policy. > > This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if > there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and > its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: > > 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. > > 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. > > 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure > policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. > > It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having > ARIN step in the middle. > > To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as > it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what > they want." > > -- > 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. -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at bind.com (703) 244-0427 Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 http://www.bind.com/ From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 19:27:37 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:27:37 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade in their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. This would definitely be something we could do through the policy process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a way that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption possible... -Scott Chris Malayter wrote: > Leo, > > I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long > been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the > world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea > that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the > equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and > reuse them for something else. > > The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, > from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are > potentially affected. > > Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are they the best > way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a > rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a > bunch of them in the ARIN region. > > I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. > > -Chris > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin > Hannigan wrote: > >> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >> > > Mr Malayter made the assertion that: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > >> There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as >> > well > >> as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider >> that specializes in exchange allocations. >> > > Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of > IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to > begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came > from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. > > Mr Malayter further asserts that: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > >> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >> > majority > >> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space >> > at > >> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that >> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >> > American > >> region, save one major IX. >> > > If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a > majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking > at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be > getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? Since > we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking > in theoretical generalities? > > This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing how > many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first > things to evaluate a policy. > > This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if > there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and > its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: > > 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. > > 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. > > 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure > policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. > > It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having > ARIN step in the middle. > > To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as > it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what > they want." > > From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 11 19:46:12 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:46:12 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> There is no evidence that EP.net has been contacted by anyone at ARIN or any of the IX's regarding this. For all we know they would be highly agreeable - which is PRECISELY why I am not in favor of this proposal unless it is shown that the IX's and ARIN have exhausted all diplomatic avenues to handle this. If I was EP.net and ARIN made an arbitrary change in the NRPM that was targeted at ONLY me, without even contacting me in advance and explaining what their problem was, I think my response would be along the lines of you would have to pry those addresses out of my cold, dead fingers, frankly. I'd go out of my way to make sure the IX's that had instigated this, would be forced to renumber. You just do not throw this kind of thing at a company that has been a "long been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the world" unless the company is being completely unreasonable. Ted > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:28 PM > To: Chris Malayter > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade > in their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted > the returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure > microallocation space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to > direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. > > > This would definitely be something we could do through the > policy process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this > problem in a way that makes everyone happy, and requires the > minimum disruption possible... > > -Scott > > Chris Malayter wrote: > > Leo, > > > > I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in > question has long > > been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges > all over the > > world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided > by the idea > > that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It > would be the > > equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro > allocations and > > reuse them for something else. > > > > The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. > There are, > > from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are > > potentially affected. > > > > Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are > they the best > > way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a > > rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's > globally, with > > a bunch of them in the ARIN region. > > > > I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > > On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM > -0500, Martin > > Hannigan wrote: > > > >> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? > >> > > > > Mr Malayter made the assertion that: > > > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM > -0500, Chris > > Malayter wrote: > > > >> There are a large number of IX's in the North American > region (as > >> > > well > > > >> as other regions) that have address space allocated > from a provider > >> that specializes in exchange allocations. > >> > > > > Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number > of > > IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed > logical to > > begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks > came from, > > which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. > > > > Mr Malayter further asserts that: > > > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM > -0500, Chris > > Malayter wrote: > > > >> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a > >> > > majority > > > >> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using > the space > >> > > at > > > >> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of > 2009 that > >> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North > >> > > American > > > >> region, save one major IX. > >> > > > > If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to > serve a > > majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then > looking > > at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be > > getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? > Since > > we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than > speaking > > in theoretical generalities? > > > > This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing > how > > many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of > the first > > things to evaluate a policy. > > > > This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if > > there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company > > and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions > available today: > > > > 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. > > > > 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. > > > > 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical > infrastructure > > policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. > > > > It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, > of having > > ARIN step in the middle. > > > > To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy > proposal as > > it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester > to get what > > they want." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 11 19:50:38 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:50:38 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53E@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> References: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601B4AE00@mail><4991722B.10123.395C007@farmer.umn.edu><20090210183833.GA21356@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101121y1571a382rdc151256056cd8cb@mail.gmail.com><20090210203351.GB26641@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53E@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: Chris, Obviously the author was hoping that he wouldn't have to explain himself. Which is precisely why the proposal should have ZERO support. The policy proposal process is supposed to be an open process. What part of it did the author think wasn't? Ted _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:38 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Ted, I'm not really sure that playing the name that provider game is going to achieve anything. I can tell you that this is not a single special interest and affects over a dozen IX's. There may only be one IX publicly discussing the issue, but rest assured that a lot of the others know about this and are concerned. I'm not privy to the discussions that have occurred between the IX's and the provider in question. I am hoping that there have been some, and that some diplomacy has been attempted. Regardless of if contact has been made or not, the fact remains that the possibility I discussed in my last post certainly exists. To clarify, you are correct, to my knowledge no IX has been notified to vacate the space at this point. To Leo's point, the IX's have 10 months and probably do have enough time to request, receive and renumber into a PI from ARIN and other RR's. I think what the author was trying to do was to bring light to the situation without turning this into a discussion about a particular corporation, and in fact was trying to bring light to, this COULD happen. If the community does not want to have a policy in place to protect people from this happening, that's one choice, I think he was hoping for the alternative. Speaking for myself, -Chris _____ From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:21 PM To: Chris Malayter; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Which provider? Unless your going to name names, I'm not even going to consider looking at this. The entire thing smacks of trying to shove something through to benefit a single special interest, with zero explanations as to why it's being done. If these IX's had contacted each other and contacted this alleged provider and attempted to work something out, and been rebuffed, and then contacted ARIN and ARIN attempted to mediate something, and once more was rebuffed, THEN I would be willing to support something like this. But so far no evidence has been presented that anyone tried diplomacy first, before hauling out the munitions and attempting to shoot people with the big guns. Since there has been no cease and desist order issued, and as you say the IX's know they are eligible to request direct allocations, then in my opinion if the IX's are worried about some future cease and desist order that may or may not happen, and they are unwilling to try talking first, and unwilling to explain to the community here who the players are and get this problem out in the open, then SCREW THEM. They should immediately request their micro allocations and when they get them, commence renumbering. Ted _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Hello all, In an effort to add some clarification behind the policy proposal that was submitted I will add the following. There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider that specializes in exchange allocations. According to the current ARIN policy, we are all eligible to request space as a direct allocation from ARIN. That is not lost on the IX's and they do completely understand that they are eligible for a direct allocation. The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American region, save one major IX. The reason behind the policy proposal was to provide a method to allow IX's 1) protection from having to renumber all of the IX's, or 2) to at least let the IX's have enough time, before they are forced out of the space, to have a smooth transition. Moreover, if this happens to other "c(C)ritical i(I)nfrastructure" corporations that happen to be in unique situations like the IX's there would be a policy in place to offer some margin of time or protection to the affected parties. Speaking for myself not any company or agent. -Chris _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:26 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and > unexpectedly. I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further that we were talking about above board transactions. It seemed likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be approved until close to the free pool exhaustion. If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to address that than policy changes. I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness. Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the least. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 19:52:53 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:52:53 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> I agree. From everything I've seen, EP.net has done an excellent job up until now. They're in a period of transition, so we should actively reach out to constructively assist as much as possible. I'll follow up internally and make sure someone from ARIN is running with this. I can't speak for the rest of the AC, but I personally will want to see how that plays out before we do any work on developing this policy proposal into draft policy. -Scott Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > There is no evidence that EP.net has been contacted by anyone > at ARIN or any of the IX's regarding this. For all we know > they would be highly agreeable - which is PRECISELY why I > am not in favor of this proposal unless it is shown that the > IX's and ARIN have exhausted all diplomatic avenues to handle > this. > > If I was EP.net and ARIN made an arbitrary change in the > NRPM that was targeted at ONLY me, without even contacting > me in advance and explaining what their problem was, I think > my response would be along the lines of you would have to pry > those addresses out of my cold, dead fingers, frankly. > > I'd go out of my way to make sure the IX's that had instigated > this, would be forced to renumber. > > You just do not throw this kind of thing at a company > that has been a "long been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space > for exchanges all over the world" unless the company is being > completely unreasonable. > > Ted > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:28 PM >> To: Chris Malayter >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >> >> What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade >> in their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted >> the returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure >> microallocation space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to >> direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. >> >> >> This would definitely be something we could do through the >> policy process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this >> problem in a way that makes everyone happy, and requires the >> minimum disruption possible... >> >> -Scott >> >> Chris Malayter wrote: >> >>> Leo, >>> >>> I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in >>> >> question has long >> >>> been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges >>> >> all over the >> >>> world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided >>> >> by the idea >> >>> that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It >>> >> would be the >> >>> equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro >>> >> allocations and >> >>> reuse them for something else. >>> >>> The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. >>> >> There are, >> >>> from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are >>> potentially affected. >>> >>> Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are >>> >> they the best >> >>> way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a >>> rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's >>> >> globally, with >> >>> a bunch of them in the ARIN region. >>> >>> I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. >>> >>> -Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net >>> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] >> >>> On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM >>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >>> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >>> >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM >>> >> -0500, Martin >> >>> Hannigan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >>>> >>>> >>> Mr Malayter made the assertion that: >>> >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM >>> >> -0500, Chris >> >>> Malayter wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There are a large number of IX's in the North American >>>> >> region (as >> >>>> >>>> >>> well >>> >>> >>>> as other regions) that have address space allocated >>>> >> from a provider >> >>>> that specializes in exchange allocations. >>>> >>>> >>> Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number >>> >> of >> >>> IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed >>> >> logical to >> >>> begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks >>> >> came from, >> >>> which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. >>> >>> Mr Malayter further asserts that: >>> >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM >>> >> -0500, Chris >> >>> Malayter wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >>>> >>>> >>> majority >>> >>> >>>> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using >>>> >> the space >> >>>> >>>> >>> at >>> >>> >>>> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of >>>> >> 2009 that >> >>>> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >>>> >>>> >>> American >>> >>> >>>> region, save one major IX. >>>> >>>> >>> If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to >>> >> serve a >> >>> majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then >>> >> looking >> >>> at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be >>> getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? >>> >> Since >> >>> we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than >>> >> speaking >> >>> in theoretical generalities? >>> >>> This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing >>> >> how >> >>> many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of >>> >> the first >> >>> things to evaluate a policy. >>> >>> This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if >>> there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company >>> and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions >>> >> available today: >> >>> 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. >>> >>> 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. >>> >>> 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical >>> >> infrastructure >> >>> policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. >>> >>> It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, >>> >> of having >> >>> ARIN step in the middle. >>> >>> To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy >>> >> proposal as >> >>> it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester >>> >> to get what >> >>> they want." >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Feb 11 20:02:35 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:02:35 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <515152F2C01A4082A8869E423E2143A3@tedsdesk> Post IPv4 runout, ARIN is likely going to be doing quite a lot of this, as there will be many special situations that arise as IPv4 block holders go though changes. Rule of thumb is to always lead-off with a kind word, then follow with the 2x4 if the kind word doesen't work. Ted > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:53 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: 'Chris Malayter'; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > I agree. From everything I've seen, EP.net has done an > excellent job up until now. They're in a period of > transition, so we should actively reach out to constructively > assist as much as possible. > > I'll follow up internally and make sure someone from ARIN is > running with this. I can't speak for the rest of the AC, but > I personally will want to see how that plays out before we do > any work on developing this policy proposal into draft policy. > > -Scott > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > There is no evidence that EP.net has been contacted by > anyone at ARIN > > or any of the IX's regarding this. For all we know they would be > > highly agreeable - which is PRECISELY why I am not in favor of this > > proposal unless it is shown that the IX's and ARIN have > exhausted all > > diplomatic avenues to handle this. > > > > If I was EP.net and ARIN made an arbitrary change in the > NRPM that was > > targeted at ONLY me, without even contacting me in advance and > > explaining what their problem was, I think my response > would be along > > the lines of you would have to pry those addresses out of my cold, > > dead fingers, frankly. > > > > I'd go out of my way to make sure the IX's that had > instigated this, > > would be forced to renumber. > > > > You just do not throw this kind of thing at a company that > has been a > > "long been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all > > over the world" unless the company is being completely unreasonable. > > > > Ted > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:28 PM > >> To: Chris Malayter > >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > >> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > >> > >> What if... we simply asked EP.net to > trade in their > >> current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned > >> EP.net space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and > >> convert all EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical > infrastructure > >> assignments. > >> > >> > >> This would definitely be something we could do through the policy > >> process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a > >> way that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption > >> possible... > >> > >> -Scott > >> > >> Chris Malayter wrote: > >> > >>> Leo, > >>> > >>> I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in > >>> > >> question has long > >> > >>> been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges > >>> > >> all over the > >> > >>> world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided > >>> > >> by the idea > >> > >>> that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It > >>> > >> would be the > >> > >>> equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro > >>> > >> allocations and > >> > >>> reuse them for something else. > >>> > >>> The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. > >>> > >> There are, > >> > >>> from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are > >>> potentially affected. > >>> > >>> Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are > >>> > >> they the best > >> > >>> way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's > going to be a > >>> rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's > >>> > >> globally, with > >> > >>> a bunch of them in the ARIN region. > >>> > >>> I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. > >>> > >>> -Chris > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net > >>> > >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > >> > >>> On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM > >>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net > >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > >>> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > >>> > >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM > >>> > >> -0500, Martin > >> > >>> Hannigan wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Mr Malayter made the assertion that: > >>> > >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM > >>> > >> -0500, Chris > >> > >>> Malayter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> There are a large number of IX's in the North American > >>>> > >> region (as > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> well > >>> > >>> > >>>> as other regions) that have address space allocated > >>>> > >> from a provider > >> > >>>> that specializes in exchange allocations. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number > >>> > >> of > >> > >>> IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed > >>> > >> logical to > >> > >>> begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks > >>> > >> came from, > >> > >>> which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. > >>> > >>> Mr Malayter further asserts that: > >>> > >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM > >>> > >> -0500, Chris > >> > >>> Malayter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a > >>>> > >>>> > >>> majority > >>> > >>> > >>>> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using > >>>> > >> the space > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> at > >>> > >>> > >>>> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of > >>>> > >> 2009 that > >> > >>>> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North > >>>> > >>>> > >>> American > >>> > >>> > >>>> region, save one major IX. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to > >>> > >> serve a > >> > >>> majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then > >>> > >> looking > >> > >>> at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be > >>> getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? > >>> > >> Since > >> > >>> we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than > >>> > >> speaking > >> > >>> in theoretical generalities? > >>> > >>> This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing > >>> > >> how > >> > >>> many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of > >>> > >> the first > >> > >>> things to evaluate a policy. > >>> > >>> This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we > now know if > >>> there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between > a company > >>> and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions > >>> > >> available today: > >> > >>> 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. > >>> > >>> 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. > >>> > >>> 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical > >>> > >> infrastructure > >> > >>> policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. > >>> > >>> It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, > >>> > >> of having > >> > >>> ARIN step in the middle. > >>> > >>> To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy > >>> > >> proposal as > >> > >>> it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester > >>> > >> to get what > >> > >>> they want." > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 20:06:30 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:06:30 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <515152F2C01A4082A8869E423E2143A3@tedsdesk> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> <515152F2C01A4082A8869E423E2143A3@tedsdesk> Message-ID: <49937616.1080901@gmail.com> Yeah. I think ARIN (the organization) does a good job of that. Unfortunately, it's a bit harder to coordinate an entire community, so we get cases like this where the first time a lot of us hear about the problem is when a policy fix is proposed through the public policy process. I think we're on a constructive path now, though. -Scott Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Post IPv4 runout, ARIN is likely going to be doing quite a lot > of this, as there will be many special situations that arise > as IPv4 block holders go though changes. > > Rule of thumb is to always lead-off with a kind word, > then follow with the 2x4 if the kind word doesen't work. > > Ted > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:53 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: 'Chris Malayter'; arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >> >> I agree. From everything I've seen, EP.net has done an >> excellent job up until now. They're in a period of >> transition, so we should actively reach out to constructively >> assist as much as possible. >> >> I'll follow up internally and make sure someone from ARIN is >> running with this. I can't speak for the rest of the AC, but >> I personally will want to see how that plays out before we do >> any work on developing this policy proposal into draft policy. >> >> -Scott >> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> There is no evidence that EP.net has been contacted by >>> >> anyone at ARIN >> >>> or any of the IX's regarding this. For all we know they would be >>> highly agreeable - which is PRECISELY why I am not in favor of this >>> proposal unless it is shown that the IX's and ARIN have >>> >> exhausted all >> >>> diplomatic avenues to handle this. >>> >>> If I was EP.net and ARIN made an arbitrary change in the >>> >> NRPM that was >> >>> targeted at ONLY me, without even contacting me in advance and >>> explaining what their problem was, I think my response >>> >> would be along >> >>> the lines of you would have to pry those addresses out of my cold, >>> dead fingers, frankly. >>> >>> I'd go out of my way to make sure the IX's that had >>> >> instigated this, >> >>> would be forced to renumber. >>> >>> You just do not throw this kind of thing at a company that >>> >> has been a >> >>> "long been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all >>> over the world" unless the company is being completely unreasonable. >>> >>> Ted >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net >>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:28 PM >>>> To: Chris Malayter >>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >>>> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >>>> >>>> What if... we simply asked EP.net to >>>> >> trade in their >> >>>> current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned >>>> EP.net space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and >>>> convert all EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical >>>> >> infrastructure >> >>>> assignments. >>>> >>>> >>>> This would definitely be something we could do through the policy >>>> process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a >>>> way that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption >>>> possible... >>>> >>>> -Scott >>>> >>>> Chris Malayter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Leo, >>>>> >>>>> I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in >>>>> >>>>> >>>> question has long >>>> >>>> >>>>> been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges >>>>> >>>>> >>>> all over the >>>> >>>> >>>>> world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided >>>>> >>>>> >>>> by the idea >>>> >>>> >>>>> that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It >>>>> >>>>> >>>> would be the >>>> >>>> >>>>> equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro >>>>> >>>>> >>>> allocations and >>>> >>>> >>>>> reuse them for something else. >>>>> >>>>> The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> There are, >>>> >>>> >>>>> from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are >>>>> potentially affected. >>>>> >>>>> Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are >>>>> >>>>> >>>> they the best >>>> >>>> >>>>> way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's >>>>> >> going to be a >> >>>>> rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's >>>>> >>>>> >>>> globally, with >>>> >>>> >>>>> a bunch of them in the ARIN region. >>>>> >>>>> I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. >>>>> >>>>> -Chris >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM >>>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >>>>> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >>>>> >>>>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -0500, Martin >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hannigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Mr Malayter made the assertion that: >>>>> >>>>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -0500, Chris >>>> >>>> >>>>> Malayter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There are a large number of IX's in the North American >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> region (as >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> well >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> as other regions) that have address space allocated >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> from a provider >>>> >>>> >>>>>> that specializes in exchange allocations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number >>>>> >>>>> >>>> of >>>> >>>> >>>>> IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> logical to >>>> >>>> >>>>> begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks >>>>> >>>>> >>>> came from, >>>> >>>> >>>>> which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. >>>>> >>>>> Mr Malayter further asserts that: >>>>> >>>>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -0500, Chris >>>> >>>> >>>>> Malayter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> majority >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> the space >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> 2009 that >>>> >>>> >>>>>> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> American >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> region, save one major IX. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> serve a >>>> >>>> >>>>> majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then >>>>> >>>>> >>>> looking >>>> >>>> >>>>> at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be >>>>> getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Since >>>> >>>> >>>>> we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than >>>>> >>>>> >>>> speaking >>>> >>>> >>>>> in theoretical generalities? >>>>> >>>>> This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing >>>>> >>>>> >>>> how >>>> >>>> >>>>> many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the first >>>> >>>> >>>>> things to evaluate a policy. >>>>> >>>>> This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we >>>>> >> now know if >> >>>>> there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between >>>>> >> a company >> >>>>> and its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions >>>>> >>>>> >>>> available today: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. >>>>> >>>>> 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical >>>>> >>>>> >>>> infrastructure >>>> >>>> >>>>> policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. >>>>> >>>>> It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> of having >>>> >>>> >>>>> ARIN step in the middle. >>>>> >>>>> To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>> proposal as >>>> >>>> >>>>> it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester >>>>> >>>>> >>>> to get what >>>> >>>> >>>>> they want." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Wed Feb 11 20:08:49 2009 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:08:49 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> Message-ID: <49932241.18578.4A75013@farmer.umn.edu> I would like to bring us back to the text of the proposal for a moment. Could the Author or one on the supports of this please clearify or comment on a few issues for me; 1. What is the remedy you would seek from ARIN in this Appeal of the Transfer? A. An extended delay in execution of the transfer. If so how long? B. ARIN to assign the block in question directly to the Critical Infrastructure Provider? 2. What do you mean by "for consecutive periods of time". I think you intend that the CI Provider should have been using the address block for an extended time period. So, how long should the addresses have been in use to qualify? 3. Who within ARIN should be responsible to hear the appeal? Staff, the Board, a 3rd party arbiter (how would you pick the arbiter), a vote at a member meeting? 4. Do the CI Providers need to have a relationship with ARIN already? 5. Have you thought about legal issues like indemnification, will the CI Providers have to defend ARIN from law suits and pay any settlement to the parties to the transfer? 6. How could ARIN possibly defend itself against all the end- users in this very same situation if we did this for the CI Providers. This is a very slippery slope. All of these things would have to be dealt with for this proposal to make all the way into becoming a policy. Is it worth it? Are there ways around these issues? On 10 Feb 2009 Member Services wrote: > Policy statement: > > Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address > > Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review > and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space > that has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of > time. > > Rationale: > > Protection of critical infrastructure as defined in ARIN?s Number > Resource Policy Manual is necessary in order to ensure the continuous > operation of the Internet for its global service community. It is > possible for an organization to transfer an aggregate IPv4 address > resource containing allocations/assignments downstream supporting > critical infrastructure. This policy is intended to protect critical > infrastructure by not allowing the transfer of those assignments if > such transfer would interfere with the continuous and seamless > operation of that critical infrastructure or hardship to the provider. > > Timetable for implementation: immediately ================================================ ======= 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 cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Wed Feb 11 19:52:06 2009 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:52:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <499372B6.2070002@cjbsys.bdb.com> Scott Leibrand wrote: > What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade in their > current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned EP.net > space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and convert all > EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. > > > This would definitely be something we could do through the policy > process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a way > that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption possible... > Or maybe the American entrepreneurial spirit will revive itself and one of those who are concerned/involved will buy the company and solve the problem. This doesn't strike me as a policy issue but a business decision. I know none of the parties involved but this seems to me to be more bailout-itis syndrome than an ARIN issue. Cliff > -Scott > > Chris Malayter wrote: > >> Leo, >> >> I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long >> been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the >> world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea >> that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the >> equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and >> reuse them for something else. >> >> The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, >> from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are >> potentially affected. >> >> Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are they the best >> way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a >> rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a >> bunch of them in the ARIN region. >> >> I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. >> >> -Chris >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >> >> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin >> Hannigan wrote: >> >> >>> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >>> >>> >> Mr Malayter made the assertion that: >> >> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris >> Malayter wrote: >> >> >>> There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as >>> >>> >> well >> >> >>> as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider >>> that specializes in exchange allocations. >>> >>> >> Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of >> IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to >> begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came >> from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. >> >> Mr Malayter further asserts that: >> >> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris >> Malayter wrote: >> >> >>> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >>> >>> >> majority >> >> >>> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space >>> >>> >> at >> >> >>> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that >>> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >>> >>> >> American >> >> >>> region, save one major IX. >>> >>> >> If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a >> majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking >> at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be >> getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? Since >> we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking >> in theoretical generalities? >> >> This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing how >> many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first >> things to evaluate a policy. >> >> This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if >> there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and >> its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: >> >> 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. >> >> 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. >> >> 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure >> policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. >> >> It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having >> ARIN step in the middle. >> >> To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as >> it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what >> they want." >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 20:16:10 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:16:10 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499372B6.2070002@cjbsys.bdb.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <499372B6.2070002@cjbsys.bdb.com> Message-ID: <4993785A.6000104@gmail.com> Well, for what it's worth, the one Exchange I know of who has discussed this in public (on a list I'm subscribed to) is the SIX in Seattle. There, the discussion has focused on getting a CI PI /24 from ARIN, and renumbering everyone into it. I suspect that a direct relationship between each IX and ARIN is the best long-term solution. But if we could convert the existing EP.net reassignments to direct ARIN critical infrastructure assignments, that would also save the pain of renumbering... -Scott Cliff Bedore wrote: > Scott Leibrand wrote: >> What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade in their >> current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned >> EP.net space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and >> convert all EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical infrastructure >> assignments. >> >> This would definitely be something we could do through the policy >> process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a >> way that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption >> possible... >> > > Or maybe the American entrepreneurial spirit will revive itself and > one of those who are concerned/involved will buy the company and solve > the problem. This doesn't strike me as a policy issue but a business > decision. I know none of the parties involved but this seems to me to > be more bailout-itis syndrome than an ARIN issue. > > Cliff >> -Scott >> >> Chris Malayter wrote: >> >>> Leo, >>> >>> I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long >>> been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the >>> world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea >>> that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the >>> equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and >>> reuse them for something else. >>> >>> The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, >>> from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are >>> potentially affected. >>> Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are they the best >>> way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a >>> rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a >>> bunch of them in the ARIN region. >>> I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. >>> >>> -Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM >>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >>> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >>> >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin >>> Hannigan wrote: >>> >>>> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >>>> >>> Mr Malayter made the assertion that: >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris >>> Malayter wrote: >>> >>>> There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as >>>> >>> well >>> >>>> as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider >>>> that specializes in exchange allocations. >>>> >>> Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number >>> of IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed >>> logical to begin the detective work with where their >>> addressing blocks came >>> from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. >>> >>> Mr Malayter further asserts that: >>> >>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris >>> Malayter wrote: >>> >>>> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >>>> >>> majority >>> >>>> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space >>>> >>> at >>> >>>> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that >>>> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >>>> >>> American >>> >>>> region, save one major IX. >>>> >>> If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve >>> a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then >>> looking at how many folks get space from the "current provider" >>> would be getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? >>> Since we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than >>> speaking in theoretical generalities? >>> >>> This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing >>> how many folks might be affected by a policy change is one >>> of the first things to evaluate a policy. >>> >>> This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if >>> there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and >>> its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: >>> >>> 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. >>> >>> 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. >>> >>> 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical >>> infrastructure >>> policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. >>> >>> It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having >>> ARIN step in the middle. >>> >>> To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as >>> it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what >>> they want." >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed Feb 11 20:17:08 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:17:08 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090212002623.GH49046@trace.bind.com> References: <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090212002623.GH49046@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: <20090212011708.GA97785@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:26:23PM -0800, Aaron Hughes wrote: > I would have to agree with Chris and add that not only would it > be rough to renumber. Many peers, particularly where there are > language barriers, would have an exceptionally hard time renumbering. > For all of us who have ever changed our ASN, or merged an ASN, we > know there are always a few that never renumber and you have to > eventually drop them as a peer. Note that I've seen this done twice in Europe (years ago, and I can't remember the exchanges, I think they were both in ex-soviet states though). The method was: Existing block is a.b.c.0/24 Exchange point operator announcex x.y.z.0/24 is the new block. Providers to a 1:1 mapping of sessions in a.b.c.0/24 to x.y.z.0/24 over a period of time (2 weeks?). Exchange point operator announces you take down a.b.c.0/24 sessions. Both times I believe it was done in under a month, and with almost no pairwise communication. There was no need for two ISP's to speak with each other, they simply duplicated what they already had. It's a very different situation than something like a ASN change, or a merger change where you have to communicate specific change details to each peer. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 20:25:05 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:25:05 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4993785A.6000104@gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <499372B6.2070002@cjbsys.bdb.com> <4993785A.6000104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49937A71.2010005@gmail.com> I stand corrected. The SIX discussion was actually prompted just by long term planning considerations, and started before anyone involved knew about this policy proposal or any EP.net changes. Sorry for any confusion I may have introduced there. -Scott Scott Leibrand wrote: > Well, for what it's worth, the one Exchange I know of who has > discussed this in public (on a list I'm subscribed to) is the SIX in > Seattle. There, the discussion has focused on getting a CI PI /24 > from ARIN, and renumbering everyone into it. I suspect that a direct > relationship between each IX and ARIN is the best long-term solution. > But if we could convert the existing EP.net reassignments to direct > ARIN critical infrastructure assignments, that would also save the > pain of renumbering... > > -Scott > > Cliff Bedore wrote: >> Scott Leibrand wrote: >>> What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade in >>> their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the >>> returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure microallocation >>> space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical >>> infrastructure assignments. >>> >>> This would definitely be something we could do through the policy >>> process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a >>> way that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption >>> possible... >>> >> >> Or maybe the American entrepreneurial spirit will revive itself and >> one of those who are concerned/involved will buy the company and >> solve the problem. This doesn't strike me as a policy issue but a >> business decision. I know none of the parties involved but this >> seems to me to be more bailout-itis syndrome than an ARIN issue. >> >> Cliff >>> -Scott >>> >>> Chris Malayter wrote: >>> >>>> Leo, >>>> >>>> I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long >>>> been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the >>>> world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea >>>> that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the >>>> equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and >>>> reuse them for something else. >>>> >>>> The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, >>>> from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are >>>> potentially affected. Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, >>>> sure. Are they the best >>>> way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a >>>> rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, >>>> with a >>>> bunch of them in the ARIN region. I certainly think that this >>>> deserves the ability to move forward. >>>> >>>> -Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net >>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>>> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM >>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective >>>> UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address >>>> >>>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin >>>> Hannigan wrote: >>>> >>>>> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >>>>> >>>> Mr Malayter made the assertion that: In a message written on Wed, >>>> Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris >>>> Malayter wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as >>>>> >>>> well >>>> >>>>> as other regions) that have address space allocated from a >>>>> provider >>>>> that specializes in exchange allocations. >>>>> >>>> Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number >>>> of IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed >>>> logical to begin the detective work with where their >>>> addressing blocks came >>>> from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. >>>> >>>> Mr Malayter further asserts that: >>>> >>>> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris >>>> Malayter wrote: >>>> >>>>> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >>>>> >>>> majority >>>> >>>>> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space >>>>> >>>> at >>>> >>>>> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that >>>>> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >>>>> >>>> American >>>> >>>>> region, save one major IX. >>>>> >>>> If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve >>>> a majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" >>>> then looking at how many folks get space from the "current >>>> provider" would be getting to the heart of the "real issue", now >>>> wouldn't it? Since we know who that is, why don't we just >>>> look, rather than speaking in theoretical generalities? >>>> >>>> This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing >>>> how many folks might be affected by a policy change is one >>>> of the first things to evaluate a policy. >>>> >>>> This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if >>>> there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company >>>> and >>>> its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: >>>> >>>> 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. >>>> >>>> 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. >>>> >>>> 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical >>>> infrastructure >>>> policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. >>>> >>>> It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having >>>> ARIN step in the middle. >>>> >>>> To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as >>>> it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what >>>> they want." >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Wed Feb 11 20:26:40 2009 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:26:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090212011708.GA97785@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On 11/02/2009 5:17, "Leo Bicknell" wrote: [...] > Note that I've seen this done twice in Europe (years ago, and I > can't remember the exchanges, I think they were both in ex-soviet > states though). The method was: There are a few slides from LINX's renumbering experience on the RIPE 43 meeting pages at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-43/presentations/ripe43-eix-linx/ HTH, Leo From martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs Wed Feb 11 20:45:35 2009 From: martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:45:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4607e1d50902111745j66ae7d86q1539f3c4da12d571@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > I agree. From everything I've seen, EP.net has done an excellent job up > until now. Hold on a second here. This has little to do with EP or SD. It's a highly likely (and legit) transfer that is going to cause a significant issue for a large swatch of CI. The issue is the transfer, IMHO. Best, Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cmalayter at switchanddata.com Wed Feb 11 20:38:12 2009 From: cmalayter at switchanddata.com (Chris Malayter) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:38:12 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com><6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org><20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org><4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54B@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Scott, I think this would work fantastic to be honest. I'm not sure that everyone else is going to be happy with it. From an IX perspective, it moves them into PI space and they are assigned from ARIN, which is what the goal of renumbering would be if they are all forced down that path. Speaking for myself, -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:28 PM To: Chris Malayter Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade in their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. This would definitely be something we could do through the policy process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a way that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption possible... -Scott Chris Malayter wrote: > Leo, > > I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long > been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the > world. All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea > that the space was now being shopped around for sale. It would be the > equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and > reuse them for something else. > > The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue. There are, > from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are > potentially affected. > > Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure. Are they the best > way to maintain stability? I'd have to say no. It's going to be a > rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a > bunch of them in the ARIN region. > > I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward. > > -Chris > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Leo Bicknell > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective > UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin > Hannigan wrote: > >> What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything? >> > > Mr Malayter made the assertion that: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > >> There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as >> > well > >> as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider >> that specializes in exchange allocations. >> > > Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of > IX's". Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to > begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came > from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET. > > Mr Malayter further asserts that: > > In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris > Malayter wrote: > >> The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a >> > majority > >> of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space >> > at > >> the term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that >> would force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North >> > American > >> region, save one major IX. >> > > If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a > majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking > at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be > getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it? Since > we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking > in theoretical generalities? > > This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy. Knowing how > many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first > things to evaluate a policy. > > This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if > there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and > its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today: > > 1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections. > > 2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses. > > 3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure > policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN. > > It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having > ARIN step in the middle. > > To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as > it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what > they want." > > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 20:54:56 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:54:56 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <4607e1d50902111745j66ae7d86q1539f3c4da12d571@mail.gmail.com> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E54A@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> <3614D3998861487FB05987DA699195F5@tedsdesk> <499372E5.6070100@gmail.com> <4607e1d50902111745j66ae7d86q1539f3c4da12d571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49938170.7040601@gmail.com> Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Scott Leibrand > > wrote: > > I agree. From everything I've seen, EP.net has done an excellent > job up > until now. > > > Hold on a second here. This has little to do with EP or SD. It's a > highly likely (and legit) transfer that is going to cause a > significant issue for a large swatch of CI. The issue is the transfer, > IMHO. I agree. My point is that all of the players here have a long history of acting cooperatively. I suspect that we can provide a constructive solution (within existing policy) that meets everyone's needs, and that we should try that before we attempt to create policy and deal with this on a more adversarial basis. -Scott From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 11 23:30:34 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:30:34 +0300 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as > it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what > they want." I echo Leo's sentiment, and add that it appears that the proposal is a solution in search of a potential corner case issue. -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug From asr at latency.net Thu Feb 12 00:20:47 2009 From: asr at latency.net (Adam Rothschild) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:20:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> References: <499179E5.9040009@arin.net> Message-ID: <20090212052047.GA7498@latency.net> I support this proposal. And thanks to Leo for the much-needed backgrounder, without which it's difficult to put this all in prospective. Credit is clearly due to Bill Manning for his tireless service to the community, fostering the growth of many exchanges through ep.net. I cannot stress this point enough. At the same time, peering-related services have evolved considerably since ep.net's inception. Commercial colo/exchange operators are now fully conscious of their revenue potential, and devote considerable infrastructure capex/opex and staffing resources towards their upkeep. With operators so well-equipped, the "do it yourself" model, complete with ARIN-issued PI address space, is the logical evolutionary step. Indeed, I dare say that remaining in ep.net address space is counter-productive (as underscored by the recent DNS outages due to ep.net's lack of redundant connectivity, folk having a tough time getting a response from hostmaster@, etc.) Bill might even appreciate a numbering out, as it means less operational hassle and more IPs potentially available for sale on an open market. :-) Mr. Quesada's proposal provides exchange operators a much-needed buffer, allowing them time to renumber without worry of outage potential due to their upstream address provider doing anything rash. $0.02, -a (AS 29791) From bmackey at constantcontact.com Thu Feb 12 08:04:48 2009 From: bmackey at constantcontact.com (Mackey, Bruce) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:04:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not support the policy as there are alternate methods already available to prevent disruptions to the CI. It requires the CI to do some work but it doesn't require a herculean effort. I don't support ARIN swapping address space to reclassify the current EP.NET addresses as it would require a review of the current usage of the addresses blocks to ensure that all of them in use are for CI, require that all the entities sign agreements with ARIN, and would therefore also have ARIN be the direct manager of CI space in other RIRs. It makes more sense for the CIs to renumber using the existing policies and set up their relationships with ARIN or their local RIR. -Bruce > Scott Leibrand wrote: > > Well, for what it's worth, the one Exchange I know of who has discussed > this in public (on a list I'm subscribed to) is the SIX in Seattle. > There, the discussion has focused on getting a CI PI /24 from ARIN, and > renumbering everyone into it. I suspect that a direct relationship > between each IX and ARIN is the best long-term solution. But if we could > convert the existing EP.net reassignments to direct ARIN critical > infrastructure assignments, that would also save the pain of > renumbering... > > -Scott From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Feb 12 08:19:15 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:19:15 -0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49936CF9.5090501@gmail.com> Message-ID: > What if... we simply asked EP.net to trade > in their current IX-assigned space for new space, converted > the returned EP.net space to critical infrastructure > microallocation space, and convert all EP-IX reassignments to > direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. Brilliant idea! We should just go ahead and do this because it shouldn't require any policy changes by ARIN. All it really needs is for EP and the various IXes to file some requests. --Michael Dillon From bicknell at ufp.org Thu Feb 12 09:33:27 2009 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:33:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53E@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> References: <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53E@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> Message-ID: <20090212143327.GA27593@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:38:18PM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote: > I think what the author was trying to do was to bring light to the > situation without turning this into a discussion about a particular > corporation, and in fact was trying to bring light to, this COULD > happen. If the community does not want to have a policy in place to > protect people from this happening, that's one choice, I think he was > hoping for the alternative. This case is very interesting because it involves many critical infrastructure providers in a single upstream block. Let's go ahead and forget the current situation though, and look at it through a more objective lens. From the PPML (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four4): ] ARIN will make micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of ] the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service ] providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as ] well as the RIRs and IANA. If we were to use the same definition of critical infrastructure, what is the impact? In the root zone there are 1045 name servers listed for TLD servers: % dig axfr . @f.root-servers.net | grep "IN[^A-Z]*NS" | awk ' {print $5}' | sort -u | wc -l 1045 Plus of course the 13 root servers themselves. I'd like to point out though this number is wobbly: - This number may be too high, as some number of these nameservers are already in ARIN provided micro-allocations. - There is no easy way to break out which of these are in the ARIN region. - This number may be too low, as many of these nameservers are anycasted and the policy would allow them to get space for multiple sites. There is another significant difference from the case we've been discussing. Where these hosts are in PA space they are unlikely to be in a single upstream block of PA space. Even if you assume a reasonable number like three or four hundred TLD operators who could complain, they are likely to be in three or four hundred different blocks. As such the vast majority of the cases will be a provider with a large (/14-/18) PA block having perhaps one critical infrastructure (/24?) allocation in it. This policy would allow that one allocation to hold up the transfer of an entire larger block, which may in fact be otherwise empty. Indeed, if the average PA block was a /16, and only 256 critical infrastructure users used the process detailed in this policy that would place an entire /8 in limbo. There is also a billing issue. If a PA provider attempts to "kick out" a critical infrastructure holder and they appeal, winning even just a six month hold that may well result in the upstream having to pay another year of ARIN fees. I think this would be the first time ARIN policy forced a provider into a situation where they had to pay fees, as today they can always just return the block prior to the next renewal. Lastly, it sets bad precedent. The community has provided a mechanism for critical infrastructure to avoid this problem, and to provide more special treatment now is hard to defend. Indeed, if the folks who have a mechanism out of this issue need help, that would only strengthen the argument in my mind that the average user would need help which is an entirely different, and several orders of magnitude larger can of worms. So to summarize the problems with such a proposal on the merits: - There are multiple ways out that have not yet been exhausted. - It affects too many people, this could result in hundreds of appeals for ARIN. - It creates billing, and by extension liability issues. - It sets bad precedent. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Thu Feb 12 21:16:53 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:16:53 +0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <4607e1d50902111513g3baf61cfr1888fae7b9fe1736@mail.gmail.com> <20090211234313.GD91027@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > I echo Leo's sentiment, and add that it appears that the proposal > is a solution in search of a potential corner case issue. indeed. as scott's counter-proposal points out, this can be 'solved' by the hostfolk. randy From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Fri Feb 13 08:28:43 2009 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:28:43 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address Message-ID: <20090213132843.GA18014@vacation.karoshi.com.> my... i guess i should have stayed subscribed to this list. a couple of points... ISPs get bought/sold all the time. In nearly every case, 98%+ of the clients don't know/care, as long as service remains intact. Some small percentage are unhappy, for what ever reason and in most cases, they have the choice to move to another provider. Some do. What this policy -seems- to be asking arin to do is to allow clients of an ISP (address provider) to appeal directly to arin to break up an ISP allocation and make a PI assignment directly to the client. Not sure how ISPs would feel if this was actually in place. This seems like the short path to turning all IPv4 space into PI space, flattening out the allocation heirarchy, turning arin into the first/last/only source for IP that is "safe" from capture by a client. Did I read this wrong? I'll also note that the policy has no appeal process for the "eminent domain" claim. It probably should have. As for the specific allegations of a relationship between EP and any exchange operator, i don't beleive any of that is the proper perview of this list, but thats just me. Chat among yourselves. --bill (signing back off) From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Fri Feb 13 09:42:16 2009 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:42:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <20090213132843.GA18014@vacation.karoshi.com.> (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com's message of "Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:28:43 +0000") References: <20090213132843.GA18014@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <86d4dmgzzr.fsf@seastrom.com> My $0.02 (and yes, I'm wearing my AC hat here but not speaking on behalf of the AC of course) is that we seem to be in step 2.1 of the PDP (Clarity & Understanding) (*) and that particularly in the case of proposals like this one where change is highly likely it's really premature to be formulating opinions of it until the dust is settled. That said, I'm in favor of accepting and carefully considering (in the fair and open way to which the community has become accustomed) every policy proposal submitted barring some kind of clear and compelling reason to do otherwise. The community deserves no less. -r * https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Fri Feb 13 11:47:02 2009 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:47:02 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address References: <20090213132843.GA18014@vacation.karoshi.com.> <86d4dmgzzr.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: +1 bd -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Robert E. Seastrom Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 8:42 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address My $0.02 (and yes, I'm wearing my AC hat here but not speaking on behalf of the AC of course) is that we seem to be in step 2.1 of the PDP (Clarity & Understanding) (*) and that particularly in the case of proposals like this one where change is highly likely it's really premature to be formulating opinions of it until the dust is settled. That said, I'm in favor of accepting and carefully considering (in the fair and open way to which the community has become accustomed) every policy proposal submitted barring some kind of clear and compelling reason to do otherwise. The community deserves no less. -r * https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com Fri Feb 13 12:15:04 2009 From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:15:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <20090213132843.GA18014@vacation.karoshi.com.> <86d4dmgzzr.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <2E2FECEBAE57CC4BAACDE67638305F10483EA2226D@ROCH-EXCH1.corp.pvt> very cute. you broke the "ditto" mold and yes, well said. ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Darte Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:47 AM To: Robert E. Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address +1 bd -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Robert E. Seastrom Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 8:42 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] policy proposal :: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address My $0.02 (and yes, I'm wearing my AC hat here but not speaking on behalf of the AC of course) is that we seem to be in step 2.1 of the PDP (Clarity & Understanding) (*) and that particularly in the case of proposals like this one where change is highly likely it's really premature to be formulating opinions of it until the dust is settled. That said, I'm in favor of accepting and carefully considering (in the fair and open way to which the community has become accustomed) every policy proposal submitted barring some kind of clear and compelling reason to do otherwise. The community deserves no less. -r * https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjoffe at centergate.com Fri Feb 13 12:36:37 2009 From: rjoffe at centergate.com (Rodney Joffe) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:36:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ICANN 2009 Open Board/Senior Leadership Position Call for SOIs. Message-ID: <3FAB5E90-F176-43AA-B84A-162CB9F60C4E@centergate.com> Folks, It's that time again. The 2009 ICANN Nominating Committee is actively soliciting applications, nominations, and/or Statements of Interest for the Board and other key leadership positions: # Three members of the ICANN Board of Directors # Three members of the At Large Advisory Committee (for the African, Asia/Australia/Pacific, and Latin American regions) # Two members of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) # One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) This is your opportunity to actually get involved in guiding the direction of ICANN, rather than standing on the sidelines and complaining. More info at: http://nomcom.icann.org/ Step up. Rodney Joffe ICANN 2009 NomCom Member -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danny at tcb.net Fri Feb 13 12:55:07 2009 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:55:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com> <6394AFBFA9558A4AACC7B19F5FD3057968E53C@SDCORPMAIL01.northamerica.switchanddata.org> <20090211150100.GB68851@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > IXPs all over the world received a really valuable service from > Bill, for > a long time, for free, before the RIRs existed, and _long_ before > the RIRs > knew what an IXP was or how to serve it. I agree it was useful, absent some formal policy. However, anyone concerned with these types of predicaments and whether they should or should not be considered with risk assessment and business operations planning might want to have a look at this EP.net /16, and the L-root fiasco just a year ago: I'm not saying [the word] of any policies were violated, but you'd best be factoring these sorts of business decisions into your operations planning, whether ARIN policies exists around them or not. > No comment on the present predicament, but historically, this was a > valuable service, provided for little or no money, when no > alternatives > existed. But the present predicament is what folks need to consider, not intentions of a decade ago, unfortunately. -danny From farmer at umn.edu Sat Feb 14 01:06:57 2009 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:06:57 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com>, , Message-ID: <49960B21.26232.112F73C@farmer.umn.edu> On 13 Feb 2009 Danny McPherson wrote: > On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > IXPs all over the world received a really valuable service from > > Bill, for a long time, for free, before the RIRs existed, and _long_ > > before the RIRs knew what an IXP was or how to serve it. > > I agree it was useful, absent some formal policy. > > However, anyone concerned with these types of predicaments > and whether they should or should not be considered with > risk assessment and business operations planning might want > to have a look at this EP.net /16, and the L-root fiasco > just a year ago: > > .pdf > > > These are interesting > I'm not saying [the word] of any policies were violated, > but you'd best be factoring these sorts of business decisions > into your operations planning, whether ARIN policies exists > around them or not. > > > No comment on the present predicament, but historically, this was a > > valuable service, provided for little or no money, when no > > alternatives existed. > > But the present predicament is what folks need to > consider, not intentions of a decade ago, unfortunately. In the present predicament, in your opinion is a change in ARIN policy called for? If so what? ================================================ ======= 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 danny at tcb.net Sat Feb 14 20:03:50 2009 From: danny at tcb.net (Danny McPherson) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:03:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address In-Reply-To: <49960B21.26232.112F73C@farmer.umn.edu> References: <4607e1d50902101825v29146035v8661b4603a858b0f@mail.gmail.com>, , <49960B21.26232.112F73C@farmer.umn.edu> Message-ID: <6EDF1D02-C189-45D5-BEE4-D43B77247DD6@tcb.net> On Feb 13, 2009, at 11:06 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> > In the present predicament, in your opinion is a change in > ARIN policy called for? If so what? I believe folks that operate critical infrastructure or resources should use the framework (CI micro allocations) that's in place already to preempt concerns in this area, as doing so in a reactive manner will likely be much more obtrusive. -danny From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Feb 19 20:02:36 2009 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:02:36 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Network World IPv6 Executive Summary Message-ID: <67B6B116451844C88C6ABEAC12F5F824@tedsdesk> Just noticed this on the NW website, and I thought that they deserved a plug for doing some IPv6 education http://edge.networkworld.com/whitepapers/nww/pdf/C010_EG_IPv6_1208v2.pdf From cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com Fri Feb 20 14:11:19 2009 From: cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com (Cliff Bedore) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:11:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-ppml] Network World IPv6 Executive Summary In-Reply-To: <67B6B116451844C88C6ABEAC12F5F824@tedsdesk> from "Ted Mittelstaedt" at Feb 19, 2009 05:02:36 PM Message-ID: <200902201911.n1KJBJsk002922@cjbsys.bdb.com> Ted Thanks for the reference. As a non-IPv6 person, I thought it gave some good explantions of what was going on and who's looking at what. It appears to me that the IVI offers the most capable system in terms of getting to IPv6 because you can hide IPv4 blocks behind it forever if you need to but the backbone of the internet can become IPv6 at whatever speed is comfortable. I see it as different from "NAT" as it's been used because it really maps v4 addresses into little chunks of v6 and both sides can get all ports to all hosts. Heck even the name is clever. Cliff > > > Just noticed this on the NW website, and I thought that they deserved a > plug for doing some IPv6 education > > http://edge.networkworld.com/whitepapers/nww/pdf/C010_EG_IPv6_1208v2.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jrhett at svcolo.com Thu Feb 26 20:37:47 2009 From: jrhett at svcolo.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:37:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] (curiosity) a policy which addresses which POC contacts ARIN should spam? Message-ID: <62FDBBDA-55E0-4644-BFCD-E75DF9EB04FB@svcolo.com> After having ARIN spam not only the Admin contacts and the POC contact of record for our business, we watched the same ARIN message hit each and every one of our different ticket/helpdesk systems -- including Abuse! I sincerely doubt that this is helpful or useful. Would it be difficult to define exactly which POC contacts should receive non- specific ARIN communications? -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 From jdw at capequilog.com Thu Feb 26 21:45:01 2009 From: jdw at capequilog.com (Jeff Wheelhouse) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:45:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] (curiosity) a policy which addresses which POC contacts ARIN should spam? In-Reply-To: <62FDBBDA-55E0-4644-BFCD-E75DF9EB04FB@svcolo.com> References: <62FDBBDA-55E0-4644-BFCD-E75DF9EB04FB@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <542238a80902261845p238c0f90s2e5c4eacea2bf2d5@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: > Would it be > difficult to define exactly which POC contacts should receive non- > specific ARIN communications? ARIN likes mailing lists. Maybe there could be one called arin-announce at and we could make up our own minds about how much we'd like to be spammed? Except that I checked on a lark and it turns out there is *already* an arin-announce list, and this particular announcement doesn't seem to have made the cut. I don't think I'm quite as piqued as Jo sounds, but I don't like closing multiple bogus tickets either. If, as stated, this was done in response to an ARIN customer request to do it, this ARIN customer would like to request that it not be done anymore. Thanks, Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 20:41:01 2009 From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:41:01 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] (curiosity) a policy which addresses which POC contacts ARIN should spam? In-Reply-To: <62FDBBDA-55E0-4644-BFCD-E75DF9EB04FB@svcolo.com> References: <62FDBBDA-55E0-4644-BFCD-E75DF9EB04FB@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <6eb799ab0902271741o731dd6f6lf71ff1fc2c930967@mail.gmail.com> My suggestion would be actually, that if you automatically create tickets upon receipt of a message, adjust your systems so as to exclude "do-not-reply at arin.net", to properly direct them to a human like ARIN expects instead of creating some sort of useless ticket in a database. The annoyance of 'closing a ticket' is one manufactured by using unexpected robots. I believe POCs are meant to be the human beings responsible who can be immediately reached, not necessarily automated systems, for just filing a ticket away for a while. And I don't find it surprising in the least, that once in a blue moon, there is an important issue that ARIN needs to notify every single contact of -- even such that they don't get to opt out really; if they are a registrant, they have a responsibility to receive certain communications.... However, I dothink the notice may have been wasteful and unnecessary in this case. The warning in January about the change to 4-byte AS numbers was far more important. The creation of a special announce list for POCs, for more general notices may be a suitable solution, but once every few years on average, I would still expect there could be an emergency notice to all POCs, depending on the severity of the issue they all need to be aprised of immediately. For all I know, they had thousands of registrants complaining to ARIN about the incorrect geography search engines were giving, asking to get a block from a different /8 instead, or something. In that case, sending a notice to the small number of contacts who had manually subscribed to a mailing list would be a highly-ineffective way of getting the notice out to the sites having issues. -- -J On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: > After having ARIN spam not only the Admin contacts and the POC contact > of record for our business, we watched the same ARIN message hit each > and every one of our different ticket/helpdesk systems -- including > Abuse! > > I sincerely doubt that this is helpful or useful. Would it be > difficult to define exactly which POC contacts should receive non- > specific ARIN communications? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: