From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 1 02:17:24 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 02:17:24 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Not petitioning proposal 103
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0912312317x3b2ce7bma6ad61201b0316@mail.gmail.com>
Happy New Year,
On consideration, I won't petition the AC's abandonment of proposal
103. I accept the AC's conclusion that there is more that can be done
in the process before pushing a formal proposal.
I'd like to thank each of you who committed privately to support such
a petition. Although we could have forced it forward, I think I spy
some potentially more productive avenues for advancement. Rest
assured: I have no intention of dropping the matter.
I enthusiastically support proposal 106. Scott incorporated those
parts of 103's improvements that do not depend on abandoning
needs-based allocation. I think he did a good job and I think the
result would significant;y improve ARIN's IPv6 address management
process. I'll be very disappointed if it is not accepted to the AC's
docket for formal discussion and presentation at the meeting.
Proposal 103 raise another issue that I believe we should address as a
community: should ARIN be the gatekeeper to Internet routing policy?
In most of the time since ARIN's inception, the question has been
moot: network operators depended on ARIN to act as a check on routing
table growth lest the Internet collapse. With IPv4, no credible method
has been proposed for controlling route table growth without RIR
policy enforcement. It's a bona fide "tragedy of the commons" problem.
Proposal 103 offered a credible way to maintain control of IPv6 route
table growth without requiring ARIN to act as the gatekeeper to
Internet routing in North America. Now that we know there's one way,
we may quickly discover that there are more.
So, now that we actually have a choice, should ARIN be set IPv6
Internet routing policy for North America? Or would we all be better
off letting the ISPs individually decide for themselves?
I'd like to see further discussion, particularly about the "how."
Proposal 103 did it with ARIN fees used as a proxy to classify the
network registrant's perception of the value of his system. What other
methods might work?
I'd also like to see all of this presented at this year's meetings.
Judging from the response to proposal 103, the topic has wide enough
interest and support that
My choice comes with two caveats:
1. Although Scott's proposal does not remove ARIN from the position of
setting Internet routing policy for North America, it does incorporate
many other valuable improvements from proposal 103. I believe that
106's adoption would substantially improve ARIN's IPv6 address
allocation policy and practices.
2. I would like to solicit the AC's assistance both in exploring how
to disentangle ARIN from setting IPv6 routing policy and determining
the breadth of support for such a radical departure from ARIN's
current practice.
Since its inception, ARIN has largely set IPv4 routing policy for
North America. It does so by determining (through "need-based"
criteria) who is and is not qualified to obtain DFZ-routeable IP
addresses. ARIN has been thwarted only to a minor extent by the
presence and action of the pre-ARIN "legacy registrants." Such a
top-down and somewhat unintentional routing policy has significant
drawbacks, particularly as it pertains to innovative use by small
organizations. This may not be the most healthy way to build Internet
routing policy.
Proposal 103 was the first time I've seen a credible alternative to
ARIN-set routing policy given serious consideration. The comments
about proposal 103 suggest that there may be wide support for leaving
routing policy to the network operators instead of ARIN.
In addition to discussion here on PPML, I'd like to see ideas for
bottom-up operator-implemented routing policy presented at ARIN's 2009
public meetings and discussed with the wider policy community there
along with any frameworks for actually making it happen. I'd also like
to see that wider community solicited for feedback: was this just a
blip on the PPML or is it something many of them want too?
Given the radical nature of the idea and the detail-oriented nature of
potential implementation frameworks, I believe such a presentation is
beyond the scope of the open policy hour. Short of advancing it as
implemented in a formal policy proposal, how do we get it added to the
meeting agendas?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 1 02:34:05 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 02:34:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Not petitioning proposal 103
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0912312317x3b2ce7bma6ad61201b0316@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3c3e3fca0912312317x3b2ce7bma6ad61201b0316@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca0912312334q6cb42e84qab0b3af14afde7b9@mail.gmail.com>
Apparently I need to enable "mail goggles" after all. Please disregard
my last message and let's try that again...
On consideration, I won't petition the AC's abandonment of proposal
103. I accept the AC's conclusion that there is more that can be done
in the process before pushing a formal proposal.
I enthusiastically support proposal 106. Scott incorporated those
parts of 103's improvements that do not depend on abandoning
needs-based allocation. I think he did a good job and I think the
result would significantly improve ARIN's IPv6 address management
process. I'll be very disappointed if 106 is not accepted to the AC's
docket for formal discussion and presentation.
Proposal 103 raised another issue that I believe we should address as
a community: should ARIN be the gatekeeper to Internet routing policy?
In most of the time since ARIN's inception, the question has been
moot: network operators depend on ARIN to act as a check on IPv4
routing table growth lest the Internet collapse. With IPv4, no
credible method has been proposed for controlling route table growth
without RIR policy enforcement. It's a bona fide "tragedy of the
commons" problem.
Proposal 103 offered a credible way to maintain control of IPv6 route
table growth without requiring ARIN to act as the gatekeeper to
Internet routing in North America. Perhaps not an optimal way, but at
least a credible one. Now that we know there's one way, we may
discover that there are more.
So, now that we actually have a choice, should ARIN be set IPv6
Internet routing policy for North America? Or would we all be better
off letting the ISPs reach a functional consensus that isn't tied to
ARIN's operation?
I'd like to see further discussion, particularly about the "how."
Proposal 103 did it with ARIN fees used as a proxy to classify the
network registrant's perception of the value of his system. What other
methods might work?
I'd also like to see all of this presented at this year's meetings.
Judging from the response to proposal 103, moving ARIN out of the
routing policy game has wide enough interest and support to merit
presentation. Open policy hour doesn't seem like the best opportunity
to present a topic as complex and detail-oriented as this appears to
be. It's also sparsely enough attended that it may not be possible to
get a good feel for the attendees' views. So, question for the AC:
short of a formal proposal, how do we go about getting a presentation
on the meeting agenda?
Finally, I'd like to thank each of you who committed privately to
support a petition. We could have forced it forward and should it
become necessary we still can. Let's give it another discussion and
meeting cycle and see what happens first.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Jan 4 11:11:02 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:11:02 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] (can you stand one more "non-deployment of IPv6) was
[Fwd: an actual IPv6 spam]
Message-ID: <4B421316.3050207@ipinc.net>
I got this this morning on the SA mailing list, I thought
I might send it along as definitive proof that the Internet is
moving to IPv6.
When the spammers are starting to spam over IPv6, arguments that
IPv6 deployment is mainly theoretical seem pretty silly.
Ted
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: an actual IPv6 spam
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:21:02 -0500
From: Greg Troxel
To: users at spamassassin.apache.org
(I realize that 3.2.5 does not grok v6 headers, and I believe this is
fixed in 3.3, so this is more of an observation than a complaint.)
Yesterday I received spam over IPv6 (and also TLS). This is the first
one I've noticed, probably due to a compromised v6-capable machine, so I
thought it might be of interest to others:
http://www.lexort.com/spam/spam-ipv6-cn.txt
From wesley at felter.org Mon Jan 4 18:13:37 2010
From: wesley at felter.org (Wes Felter)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:13:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] debunking the myth that Moore's law helps
In-Reply-To: <4B2BD575.5090800@dilkie.com>
References: <200912180815.AA54264012@connetrix.com> <471D76419F9EF642962323D13DF1DF6901160C@newserver.arneill-py.local>
<4B2BD575.5090800@dilkie.com>
Message-ID:
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> I wonder how much b/w to the home is actually needed and if there is a
> natural demand "limit". It seems to me that once b/w to the home reaches
> realtime HD video there's not really much more that is required...
> Is it really reasonable to expect future b/w demands to the home to keep
> going up and up? What drivers do you see for this?
Why stop at realtime? Why not download an entire movie in one minute so
you can watch it on the plane? Fortunately, this use case is very bursty
and should support high oversubscription ratios.
Wes Felter
From charles at office.tcsn.net Mon Jan 4 19:28:30 2010
From: charles at office.tcsn.net (Charles O'Hern)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:28:30 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] debunking the myth that Moore's law helps
In-Reply-To: <4B2BD575.5090800@dilkie.com>
References: <200912180815.AA54264012@connetrix.com> <471D76419F9EF642962323D13DF1DF6901160C@newserver.arneill-py.local>
<4B2BD575.5090800@dilkie.com>
Message-ID: <4B4287AE.2010400@office.tcsn.net>
Lee Dilkie wrote:
> I wonder how much b/w to the home is actually needed and if there is a
> natural demand "limit". It seems to me that once b/w to the home reaches
> realtime HD video there's not really much more that is required (except
> for separate channels for the kids, of course). If you think about it,
> there's only historically been two drivers for b/w throughout the
> history of communications. Ignoring the original low b/w uses, morse
> code, teletype, etc, we have realtime voice and realtime video. For 80
> years, video has stabilized at about 3 Mhz b/w and it's only with the
> advent of HD that we have exceeded that (is that true? I'm not sure,
> considering compression and all).
>
> Is it really reasonable to expect future b/w demands to the home to keep
> going up and up? What drivers do you see for this?
>
> Just curious.
>
> -lee
>
I've found that customer demands have a tendency to fall outside the
bounds of reasonable expectations. Some will want more bandwidth
because their neighbor/relative/friend has more than they do. Some will
want more to fix a perceived problem that may or may not actually be
related to their current bandwidth usage.
While it may be reasonable to expect technological causes of bandwidth
demand to taper, it might be imprudent to expect, and plan for, consumer
bandwidth demand to follow reasonable and rational expectations.
--
Charles O'Hern
Network Operations
TCSN - The Computer Shop Netlink
1306 Pine St. Paso Robles CA 93446
1-(805) 227-7000 1-(800) 974-DISK
http://www.tcsn.net abuse at tcsn.net
From john.sweeting at twcable.com Tue Jan 5 09:12:50 2010
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:12:50 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Not petitioning proposal 103
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0912312334q6cb42e84qab0b3af14afde7b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:
Bill,
First I would like to wish you a Happy and Prosperous New Year and second I would like to thank you on behalf of the AC for your show of cooperation and continued enthusiasm to move forward working with the AC. We owe you an answer to your question below and I will take it as an action to get you an answer as soon as possible. Last thing I want to leave with you is the fact that the AC is dedicated to recommending good, sound policy be approved and we truly appreciate all the members of the community that provide us the guidance and information required to do so.
Thanks again,
John
On 1/1/10 2:34 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
Apparently I need to enable "mail goggles" after all. Please disregard
my last message and let's try that again...
On consideration, I won't petition the AC's abandonment of proposal
103. I accept the AC's conclusion that there is more that can be done
in the process before pushing a formal proposal.
I enthusiastically support proposal 106. Scott incorporated those
parts of 103's improvements that do not depend on abandoning
needs-based allocation. I think he did a good job and I think the
result would significantly improve ARIN's IPv6 address management
process. I'll be very disappointed if 106 is not accepted to the AC's
docket for formal discussion and presentation.
Proposal 103 raised another issue that I believe we should address as
a community: should ARIN be the gatekeeper to Internet routing policy?
In most of the time since ARIN's inception, the question has been
moot: network operators depend on ARIN to act as a check on IPv4
routing table growth lest the Internet collapse. With IPv4, no
credible method has been proposed for controlling route table growth
without RIR policy enforcement. It's a bona fide "tragedy of the
commons" problem.
Proposal 103 offered a credible way to maintain control of IPv6 route
table growth without requiring ARIN to act as the gatekeeper to
Internet routing in North America. Perhaps not an optimal way, but at
least a credible one. Now that we know there's one way, we may
discover that there are more.
So, now that we actually have a choice, should ARIN be set IPv6
Internet routing policy for North America? Or would we all be better
off letting the ISPs reach a functional consensus that isn't tied to
ARIN's operation?
I'd like to see further discussion, particularly about the "how."
Proposal 103 did it with ARIN fees used as a proxy to classify the
network registrant's perception of the value of his system. What other
methods might work?
I'd also like to see all of this presented at this year's meetings.
Judging from the response to proposal 103, moving ARIN out of the
routing policy game has wide enough interest and support to merit
presentation. Open policy hour doesn't seem like the best opportunity
to present a topic as complex and detail-oriented as this appears to
be. It's also sparsely enough attended that it may not be possible to
get a good feel for the attendees' views. So, question for the AC:
short of a formal proposal, how do we go about getting a presentation
on the meeting agenda?
Finally, I'd like to thank each of you who committed privately to
support a petition. We could have forced it forward and should it
become necessary we still can. Let's give it another discussion and
meeting cycle and see what happens first.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Jan 8 11:36:00 2010
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:36:00 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin F/U
Message-ID: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
John:
First a belated thank you for the update from the AUP committee on
Christopher Mettin the representative of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School.
I have recently sent a formal notice to Christopher's principle Dr. Daumer
demanding an apology for Christopher's defamatory comments against myself in
which I requested a further apology be made by the school to the members
here.
FYI the letter in PDF can be seen at the following URL
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
kindest regards
joe baptista
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:53 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Acting on the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing List AUP Committee,
> Christopher Mettin has been sent formal notice to cease defamatory
> posting to ARIN's mailing lists, and that even a single additional post of
> such nature may result in the immediate loss of his posting privileges.
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com Fri Jan 8 11:40:51 2010
From: Vaughn at SwiftSystems.com (VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:40:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin (censored nonsense)
In-Reply-To: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01d101ca9081$56d65b30$04831190$@com>
With all due respect, this is a soap opera that does not belong on this
list.
Please cease and desist.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:36 AM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin
John:
First a belated thank you for the update from the AUP committee on
Christopher Mettin the representative of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School.
I have recently sent a formal notice to Christopher's principle Dr. Daumer
demanding an apology for Christopher's defamatory comments against myself in
which I requested a further apology be made by the school to the members
here.
FYI the letter in PDF can be seen at the following URL
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
kindest regards
joe baptista
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:53 PM, John Curran wrote:
Acting on the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing List AUP Committee,
Christopher Mettin has been sent formal notice to cease defamatory
posting to ARIN's mailing lists, and that even a single additional post of
such nature may result in the immediate loss of his posting privileges.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Jan 8 11:58:11 2010
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:58:11 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin (censored nonsense)
In-Reply-To: <01d101ca9081$56d65b30$04831190$@com>
References: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
<01d101ca9081$56d65b30$04831190$@com>
Message-ID: <874c02a21001080858m45218805n3390748e5d69661a@mail.gmail.com>
Vaughn the soap opera is long over. This is the follow up which is proper.
A number of members here contacted me back then and said that Christopher
should apologize to the members. I agree. Unfortunately Christopher has
refused to do so and I think the school now has an obligation to make an
apology. As you can see I mentioned this in my letter to the school
principle and have posted the same here to ensure the members know an
apology has been requested by me as a member here on behalf of the members
of this forum.
kindest regards
joe baptista
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:40 AM, VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC <
Vaughn at swiftsystems.com> wrote:
> With all due respect, this is a soap opera that does not belong on this
> list.
>
>
>
> Please cease and desist.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Joe Baptista
> *Sent:* Friday, January 08, 2010 11:36 AM
> *To:* John Curran
> *Cc:* arin ppml
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin
>
>
>
> John:
>
> First a belated thank you for the update from the AUP committee on
> Christopher Mettin the representative of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School.
>
> I have recently sent a formal notice to Christopher's principle Dr. Daumer
> demanding an apology for Christopher's defamatory comments against myself in
> which I requested a further apology be made by the school to the members
> here.
>
> FYI the letter in PDF can be seen at the following URL
>
> http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
>
> kindest regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:53 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
> Acting on the recommendation of the ARIN Mailing List AUP Committee,
> Christopher Mettin has been sent formal notice to cease defamatory
> posting to ARIN's mailing lists, and that even a single additional post of
> such nature may result in the immediate loss of his posting privileges.
>
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Baptista
>
> www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative
> & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
>
> Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
>
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From jay at impulse.net Fri Jan 8 11:58:11 2010
From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:58:11 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin (censored nonsense)
In-Reply-To: <01d101ca9081$56d65b30$04831190$@com>
References: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
<01d101ca9081$56d65b30$04831190$@com>
Message-ID: <4B476423.3010408@impulse.net>
VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote:
> With all due respect, this is a soap opera that does not belong on this
> list.
I *think* that "F/U" in this case was *supposed* to mean "Follow-up",
not a reference to censored nonsense. I'm not 100% certain about this.
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
From baptista at publicroot.org Fri Jan 8 12:15:51 2010
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:15:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin (censored nonsense)
In-Reply-To: <4B476423.3010408@impulse.net>
References: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
<01d101ca9081$56d65b30$04831190$@com> <4B476423.3010408@impulse.net>
Message-ID: <874c02a21001080915k49c29353n797feb4a8b3af3b8@mail.gmail.com>
Jay you are 100% correct. F/U does mean Follow-up. Or at least thats what it
means to me. My apologies to anyone here who misinterpreted it as anything
else. I forget not all people here may be familiar with F/U as a business
practice and may misinterpret it as gutter slang.
Thank you jay for the clarification.
kindest regards
joe baptista
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, this is a soap opera that does not belong on this
>> list.
>>
>
> I *think* that "F/U" in this case was *supposed* to mean "Follow-up", not a
> reference to censored nonsense. I'm not 100% certain about this.
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jan 9 21:12:49 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 21:12:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin
In-Reply-To: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a21001080836i51906049pbca69b4e22e21658@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53F2BD91-E8CC-4E1D-81E8-E0C274E28825@arin.net>
On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:
John:
First a belated thank you for the update from the AUP committee on Christopher Mettin the representative of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School.
I have recently sent a formal notice to Christopher's principle Dr. Daumer demanding an apology for Christopher's defamatory comments against myself in which I requested a further apology be made by the school to the members here.
FYI the letter in PDF can be seen at the following URL
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
kindest regards
joe baptista
Joe -
To the extent that you consider it your duty to keep the community informed in this matter, please consider that duty fully discharged at this point.
It would be best if all would refrain from further email on this topic on the PPML list, as it is not relevant to the formation of public number resource policy.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 12 18:04:00 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:04:00 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal 99 -- Incorporating Staff and Legal comments
Message-ID: <135C6BE6-D799-46D0-8AEC-701A856BA702@delong.com>
Summary of changes:
1. Removed last sentence of section 4.3.2.2, per staff recommendation.
2. Added "4.3" to section 4.3.6.2 resulting in "...return all existing 4.3 assignments...",
per staff recommendation.
3. Change title for section 4.3.6.2, per staff recommendation.
I do not believe this significantly changes the meaning or intent of the policy, but, I
agree that the proposed changes clarify the original intent of the policy. As such, I am
submitting these revisions and request that the community comment on the revised proposal.
It is my hope that the AC will take up this proposal for adoption discussion at the
next ARIN public policy meeting.
Thank you,
Owen
TEMPLATE: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit 2. Proposal Originator
a. name: Owen DeLong
b. email: owen at delong.com
c. telephone: 408-890-7992
d. organization: Hurricane Electric
3. Proposal Version: 1.2
4. Date: 12 January 2010
5. Proposal type: new
6. Policy term: permanent
7. Policy statement:
Replace section 4.3.2.2 of the NRPM with the following:
4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection
For multi-homed end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the requested space in a multihomed fashion to two or more distinct ASNs not owned or controlled by the end-user, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /24. If prefixes longer than a /24 are needed, multihomed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose so long as that is feasible.
Renumber the existing paragraph under the 4.3.6 to
4.3.6.1 Utilization requirements for additional Assignment
Add the following paragraph 4.3.6.2
4.3.6.2 Additional Assignments for Small Multihomers
Any end-user that possesses an assignment smaller than /22 under any part of section 4.3 shall not be able to get an additional assignment unless they agree to return all existing 4.3 assignments within 12 months of receiving a new assignment. The new assignment shall be sized to accommodate their existing utilization in addition to their justified additional growth space under section 4.3.6.1. The common cases for this are expected to be a /24 returned after receipt of a /23, or a /23 returned after receipt of a /22.
8. Rationale:
This policy attempts to incorporate the recent and historical discussions of policy for multi-home users on PPML. The intent is to provide as fair a process as possible for multi-homed organizations down to the smallest feasible size while still preserving some control over growth in the routing table.
It has been repeatedly noted that /24 multi-homers exist today with PA space and still occupy a routing table slot, so, it is unlikely that moving this boundary to /24 would significantly impact the routing table.
By requiring smaller assignments to renumber and return, rather than add more small blocks to their assignments, this policy seeks to further reduce the chances of unnecessary growth in the routing table and encourage good aggregation where possible.
FAQs and responses to Staff Questions
Does this apply only to end users? Yes, this policy applies only to end users. This policy does not represent a good solution for organizations that are delegating space to other entities. If a case can be made that such a policy is needed for ISPs, then, the author is happy to work with interested parties to craft such a policy, but, this policy would be unnecessarily onerous on ISPs, and, as an ISP policy could be somewhat onerous to their peers and/or upstream providers.
What about resources obtained from policies other than 4.3 or outside of ARIN? Such resources would not be counted for excluding an organization from this policy. The intent is to limit IPv4 micro-allocations for multi-homed end-user organizations under this policy to a single assignment unless each such assignment is /22 or larger. This is to prevent unnecessary routing table growth. This is a tradeoff, and, not the ideal solution for smaller end-user organizations, however, author believes that this is the best policy likely to gain consensus at this time and believes that it is incrementally far better for such organizations than current policy.
If I grow, I have to renumber? Not necessarily... If you have a /24 under this policy, and you want to grow that, then, you will likely need to renumber. Depending on ARIN resource management and timing, ARIN may simply be able to give you the /23 that includes your /24. More likely, you will get a new /23, have 1 year to renumber into that and return your /24. At most, you would be subject to two such renumbering cycles under this policy (24->23 and 23->22) before you meet the criteria for other policies which do not require renumbering.
Other policies don't include renumbering provisions, why this one? The policy which allows multi-homed organizations to get a /22 was originally written at /24. That policy was shouted down and /22 was the compromise achieved to gain community consensus for anything smaller than /20. Author hopes that this compromise will allow many organizations to get resources they need with minimal impact while assuring the community that doing so will not cause an explosion in the routing table.
9. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
END OF TEMPLATE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From bill at herrin.us Tue Jan 12 18:24:10 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:24:10 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal 99 -- Incorporating Staff and Legal
comments
In-Reply-To: <135C6BE6-D799-46D0-8AEC-701A856BA702@delong.com>
References: <135C6BE6-D799-46D0-8AEC-701A856BA702@delong.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca1001121524g5b683b4bmfe39c2293cb768bb@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 4.3.6.2 Additional Assignments for Small Multihomers
>
> Any end-user that possesses an assignment smaller than /22 under any part of
> section 4.3 shall not be able to get an additional assignment unless they
> agree to return all existing 4.3 assignments within 12 months of receiving a
> new assignment.
Hi Owen,
Suggest a little wordsmithing here.
What if I have a /16, merge with a company that has a /24 and then
need an additional /20 to accommodate my growth? The above text could
be construed to require me to return the /24 -and- the /16 in order to
get the /20.
In general, I support this proposal.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From cmettin at gqbc-online.com Wed Jan 13 10:36:55 2010
From: cmettin at gqbc-online.com (Christopher Mettin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:36:55 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium
Querfurt High School to enhance education
Message-ID:
Dear ARIN Community,
To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of
such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High
School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International
organization. It's bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically
include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the
organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the
Requests for Change.
A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and
managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action
was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC
administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still
administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation
and those of my fellow student network administrators.
3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a
ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC
growing in its first life phases;
2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization
with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an
organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a
phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also
GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web
transcripts); and
3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an
opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure
everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and
the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact
details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC
amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that
the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of
Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email
address.
It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the
development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it
was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail.
The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the
school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and "scam warnings"
and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the
school.
GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There
will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service
provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET
domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS
network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen
school network).
GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on
with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational
purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in
Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP's without long
discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses
for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library
and not the stock market.
For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the
Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor,
provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to
upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the
Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the
Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more
reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the
East and West coast of the US.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Mettin
Student Network Administrator
GQBC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From baptista at publicroot.org Wed Jan 13 11:18:35 2010
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:18:35 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <874c02a21001130818y2154b8cdx77003068f5a3ed02@mail.gmail.com>
A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be
confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium
Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to
Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available
for members to read at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its
best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by
letter. We will see then what they have to say.
I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's
conduct.
And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public
to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in
private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has
been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
regards
joe baptista
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin <
cmettin at gqbc-online.com> wrote:
> Dear ARIN Community,
>
>
>
> To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of
> such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High
> School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International
> organization. It?s bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically
> include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the
> organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the
> Requests for Change.
>
>
>
> A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and
> managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action
> was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC
> administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still
> administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation
> and those of my fellow student network administrators.
>
>
>
> 3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
>
> 1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a
> ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC
> growing in its first life phases;
>
> 2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization
> with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an
> organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a
> phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also
> GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web
> transcripts); and
>
> 3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an
> opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure
> everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and
> the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact
> details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC
> amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that
> the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of
> Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email
> address.
>
>
>
> It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the
> development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it
> was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail.
> The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the
> school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and ?scam warnings?
> and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the
> school.
>
>
>
> GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There
> will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service
> provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET
> domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS
> network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen
> school network).
>
>
>
> GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
> Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on
> with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational
> purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in
> Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
>
>
>
> I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP?s without long
> discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses
> for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library
> and not the stock market.
>
>
>
> For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the
> Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor,
> provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to
> upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the
> Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the
> Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more
> reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the
> East and West coast of the US.
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Christopher Mettin
>
> Student Network Administrator
>
> GQBC
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 cmettin at gqbc-online.com Wed Jan 13 11:57:21 2010
From: cmettin at gqbc-online.com (Christopher Mettin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:57:21 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
Message-ID:
Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that's the guy
who was wasting our limited school paper.
4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the
second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This behavior
violates the United States Code (don't ask me for the exact section and
clause).
If they don't stop contacting our school immediately, we will take legal
actions.
If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he sent to
government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is also a
falsification to identify oneself as a member of an organization that fired
one and now tries to convince other people to not work with this company (as
Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the
other affected people did.
If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business,
he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe
she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
No further comments requested.
From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Christopher Mettin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be
confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium
Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to
Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available
for members to read at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its
best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by
letter. We will see then what they have to say.
I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's
conduct.
And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public
to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in
private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has
been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
regards
joe baptista
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin
wrote:
Dear ARIN Community,
To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of
such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High
School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International
organization. It's bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically
include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the
organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the
Requests for Change.
A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and
managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action
was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC
administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still
administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation
and those of my fellow student network administrators.
3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a
ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC
growing in its first life phases;
2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization
with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an
organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a
phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also
GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web
transcripts); and
3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an
opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure
everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and
the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact
details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC
amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that
the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of
Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email
address.
It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the
development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it
was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail.
The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the
school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and "scam warnings"
and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the
school.
GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There
will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service
provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET
domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS
network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen
school network).
GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on
with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational
purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in
Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP's without long
discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses
for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library
and not the stock market.
For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the
Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor,
provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to
upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the
Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the
Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more
reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the
East and West coast of the US.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Mettin
Student Network Administrator
GQBC
_______________________________________________
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 Lee at Dilkie.com Wed Jan 13 12:31:30 2010
From: Lee at Dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:31:30 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from
the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <4B4E0372.6090004@Dilkie.com>
Sweet Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, keep us and save us from this crap.
Can both of you just shut the frak up. You're acting like a bunch of
children.
-lee
On 1/13/2010 11:57 AM, Christopher Mettin wrote:
>
> Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that's
> the guy who was wasting our limited school paper.
>
> 4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the
> second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This
> behavior violates the United States Code (don't ask me for the exact
> section and clause).
>
>
>
> If they don't stop contacting our school immediately, we will take
> legal actions.
>
>
>
> If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he
> sent to government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is
> also a falsification to identify oneself as a member of an
> organization that fired one and now tries to convince other people to
> not work with this company (as Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to
> ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the other affected people did.
>
>
>
> If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school
> business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with
> his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
>
>
>
> No further comments requested.
>
>
>
> *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Joe Baptista
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
> *To:* Christopher Mettin
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from
> the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
>
>
>
> A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this
> may be confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
>
> Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the
> "Gymnasium Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation
> with respect to Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of
> this fax is available for members to read at the following URL:
>
> http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
>
> As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now
> doing its best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
>
> The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax
> by letter. We will see then what they have to say.
>
> I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for
> Christopher's conduct.
>
> And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in
> public to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked
> Christopher in private correspondence to apologize to the members. To
> date no apology has been received and if Christopher can't provide one
> I hope the school does.
>
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin
> > wrote:
>
> Dear ARIN Community,
>
>
>
> To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the
> walls of such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the
> Gymnasium Querfurt High School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt
> Broadcasting Channel, an International organization. It's bylaws were
> soon written and meant to chronologically include all future
> amendments and extensions to the mission of the organizations, these
> bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the Requests for Change.
>
>
>
> A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and
> managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this
> action was reversed together with our principal and the school
> assembly. The GQBC administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the
> organization will be still administrated according to its founding
> principles after my own graduation and those of my fellow student
> network administrators.
>
>
>
> 3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
>
> 1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a
> ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC
> growing in its first life phases;
>
> 2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent
> organization with the mission to support education. To maintain
> objectivity such an organization has to be run independently from a
> school. We only remained a phrase advising that GQBC originated from
> the GQHS on our website, and also GQBC will still provide services for
> the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web transcripts); and
>
> 3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks
> by an opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we
> are sure everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of
> terrorism, and the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to
> provide contact details of the GQHS to entities other than educational
> institutions. GQBC amended its policies and the contact page on
> gqbc-online.com to state that the only way
> for individuals and companies outside the state of Sachsen-Anhalt to
> contact the school is through a spam-filtered email address.
>
>
>
> It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down
> the development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly
> say it was not the fate of the pilot project for International
> education to fail. The attacker will soon receive a message from our
> principal stating the school is no longer responsible for his
> falsified claims and "scam warnings" and he will have to immediately
> stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the school.
>
>
>
> GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start.
> There will be three main departments the network consists of: an
> Internet Service provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the
> GQNET , the .GQNET domain management (GQ NIC), and the team
> re-deploying the internal GQHS network to serve educational resources
> to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen school network).
>
>
>
> GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
> Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon
> go on with the work I began, making IP addresses available for
> educational purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is
> primarily based in Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN
> with IP addresses.
>
>
>
> I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP's without long
> discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP
> addresses for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing
> knowledge library and not the stock market.
>
>
>
> For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space
> the Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain
> sponsor, provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further
> information on how to upgrade your desktop configurations and server
> hint files. Users of the Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET
> resources. Further, the Public-Root has master servers on all over the
> world and is therefore more reliable than the commercial legacy root,
> which is mainly deployed on the East and West coast of the US.
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Christopher Mettin
>
> Student Network Administrator
>
> GQBC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> ).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience
> any issues.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From cboyd at gizmopartners.com Wed Jan 13 12:34:20 2010
From: cboyd at gizmopartners.com (Chris Boyd)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:34:20 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <68FE42C1-1134-446B-B293-EAE069FCE97C@gizmopartners.com>
To quote Douglas Adams, as the whale crashed to the ground:
"Oh no, not again."
From cmalayter at switchanddata.com Wed Jan 13 12:57:26 2010
From: cmalayter at switchanddata.com (Chris Malayter)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:57:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from
the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
In-Reply-To: <4B4E0372.6090004@Dilkie.com>
References:
<4B4E0372.6090004@Dilkie.com>
Message-ID:
Do not feed the troll....
On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> Sweet Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, keep us and save us from this crap.
>
> Can both of you just shut the frak up. You're acting like a bunch of children.
>
> -lee
>
> On 1/13/2010 11:57 AM, Christopher Mettin wrote:
>> Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that?s the guy who was wasting our limited school paper.
>>
>> 4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This behavior violates the United States Code (don?t ask me for the exact section and clause).
>>
>>
>>
>> If they don?t stop contacting our school immediately, we will take legal actions.
>>
>>
>>
>> If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he sent to government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is also a falsification to identify oneself as a member of an organization that fired one and now tries to convince other people to not work with this company (as Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the other affected people did.
>>
>>
>>
>> If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
>>
>>
>>
>> No further comments requested.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
>> To: Christopher Mettin
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
>>
>>
>>
>> A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
>>
>> Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available for members to read at the following URL:
>>
>> http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
>>
>> As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
>>
>> The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by letter. We will see then what they have to say.
>>
>> I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's conduct.
>>
>> And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
>>
>>
>> regards
>> joe baptista
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin wrote:
>>
>> Dear ARIN Community,
>>
>>
>>
>> To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International organization. It?s bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the Requests for Change.
>>
>>
>>
>> A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation and those of my fellow student network administrators.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
>>
>> 1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC growing in its first life phases;
>>
>> 2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web transcripts); and
>>
>> 3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email address.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail. The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and ?scam warnings? and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the school.
>>
>>
>>
>> GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen school network).
>>
>>
>>
>> GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP?s without long discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library and not the stock market.
>>
>>
>>
>> For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor, provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the East and West coast of the US.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>> Christopher Mettin
>>
>> Student Network Administrator
>>
>> GQBC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (
>> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> ).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>
>> Please contact
>> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jan 13 14:17:37 2010
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:17:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <4B4E1C51.9030309@umn.edu>
Christopher,
I wish you well in your efforts. However, from what I saw on your
website your claims of educational purposes seem to stretch
creditability. This is simply my opinion and you are free to ignore it
as you see fit. Furthermore you, like anyone else, are welcome to use
the Internet for what ever you see fit, educational or otherwise, within
the applicable laws of course. But, when you claim an exception from
policies and fees to further education purposes you should be able to
clearly and reasonably demonstrate the educational value you are
providing to society. And, I just don't see that in this case, again
this is simply my opinion.
Christopher Mettin wrote:
> GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
> Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go
> on with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational
> purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based
> in Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
Beyond that, I must additionally take issue with your claim, "as the
first educational Internet Service Provider". Your effort is by no
means the first education Internet Service Provider. I will point you
to Merit as a easy counter point example. I'm not sure who the first
education ISP really is, but as Merit has been around since 1966 and has
a far better claim to that title.
See:
http://www.merit.edu/about/
You might want to learn more about Internet history. At one point in
time, Merit was the operator of the NSFNet, which was the Internet for
all intensive purposes in the early 1990s.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Network
http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_nsfnet.htm
> For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space
> the Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor,
> provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how
> to upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of
> the Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further,
> the Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is
> therefore more reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly
> deployed on the East and West coast of the US.
Additionally, your project is not the root of Internet2, I personally
have participated a great deal in the work of the Internet2 project for
over 10 years.
See:
http://www.internet2.edu/about/
And by the way Internet2 is a trademark.
See:
http://www.internet2.edu/termsofuse.html
In conclusion, while I wish you well in your efforts, I and many others
would like to be able to focus on the policy business of ARIN. Therefore
I would like to request you at least try to keep your postings relevant
to that subject. If you can do this, your continued participation is
welcome.
Thank you.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
From info at arin.net Wed Jan 13 15:06:26 2010
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:06:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?windows-1252?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=96_New_Policies_Imple?=
=?windows-1252?q?mented?=
Message-ID: <4B4E27C2.6040805@arin.net>
On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
resource policies:
2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment
2009-3 (Global Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional
Internet Registries
2009-5: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks
2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries
2009-7: Open Access To IPv6
2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out
A new version of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been
published to the ARIN website. NRPM version 2010.1 contains the
implementation of 2008-3, 2009-5, 2009-7 and 2009-8.
The two global proposals, 2009-3 and 2009-6, await the conclusion of the
Global Policy Development Process.
In addition to the policy actions above the NRPM was modfied as follows:
Section 5.1 (an ASN subsection) was retired according to its built-in
expiration, "Section 5.1 will be removed from the first version of this
manual published after 1 January 2010."
Several editorial updates were made to Section 6, the IPv6 section.
The IPv6 definitions were moved to Section 2 (Definitions). And the
References and Background sections were retired.
NRPM version 2010.1 is effective 13 January 2010 and supersedes the
previous version. See the Change Log for information regarding revisions
to the policy manual.
The NRPM is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
The Change Log is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html
Draft policies and proposals are available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
The PDP is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
The Global Policy Development Process is available at:
http://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandum-of-understanding/
Regards,
Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
From marty at akamai.com Wed Jan 13 15:23:10 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:23:10 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <4B4E27C2.6040805@arin.net>
Message-ID:
On 1/13/10 3:06 PM, "Member Services" wrote:
> On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
> recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
> Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
> resource policies:
>
[ snip ]
>
> 2009-3 (Global Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional
> Internet Registries
[ clip ]
> 2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
> Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries
>
[ clip ]
>
> The two global proposals, 2009-3 and 2009-6, await the conclusion of the
> Global Policy Development Process.
This is ambiguous. Could you please clarify?
Since both of these globally submitted policies have been accepted by the
AC, ratified by the BoT and have completed the ARIN PDP cycle they _are_
both ARIN region policies regardless of the problem with at least 2009-6
being significantly contextually different than other regions versions. That
problem is not relevant so I would think that these policies are awaiting
nothing that is relevant to them per se.
Correct?
Best,
Martin
--
Martin Hannigan http://www.akamai.com
Akamai Technologies, Inc. marty at akamai.com
Cambridge, MA USA cell: +16178216079
ofc: +16174442535
From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jan 13 15:44:57 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:44:57 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <4B4E30C9.5010601@ipinc.net>
marty at akamai.com wrote:
>
>
> On 1/13/10 3:06 PM, "Member Services" wrote:
>
>> On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
>> recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
>> Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
>> resource policies:
>>
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> 2009-3 (Global Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional
>> Internet Registries
>
> [ clip ]
>
>> 2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
>> Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries
>>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>> The two global proposals, 2009-3 and 2009-6, await the conclusion of the
>> Global Policy Development Process.
>
>
> This is ambiguous. Could you please clarify?
>
> Since both of these globally submitted policies have been accepted by the
> AC, ratified by the BoT and have completed the ARIN PDP cycle they _are_
> both ARIN region policies regardless of the problem with at least 2009-6
> being significantly contextually different than other regions versions. That
> problem is not relevant so I would think that these policies are awaiting
> nothing that is relevant to them per se.
>
> Correct?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide that
IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated to pay
attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
Ted
From dylan.ebner at crlmed.com Wed Jan 13 16:12:24 2010
From: dylan.ebner at crlmed.com (Dylan Ebner)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:12:24 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from
the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <017265BF3B9640499754DD48777C3D206717D5F3BE@MBX9.EXCHPROD.USA.NET>
I think Mt. Mettin's statement, "If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet bill then.", qualifies as violating the ARIN prohibited activities section 1, "Statements that include foul language, personal character attacks, or show disrespect for other participants, including ARIN."
Can we please remove Mr. Mettin and get on with more important business? This is getting old.
Thanks
Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.
1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250
dylan.ebner at crlmed.com
www.consultingradiologists.com
________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Mettin
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:57 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that's the guy who was wasting our limited school paper.
4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This behavior violates the United States Code (don't ask me for the exact section and clause).
If they don't stop contacting our school immediately, we will take legal actions.
If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he sent to government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is also a falsification to identify oneself as a member of an organization that fired one and now tries to convince other people to not work with this company (as Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the other affected people did.
If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
No further comments requested.
From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Christopher Mettin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available for members to read at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by letter. We will see then what they have to say.
I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's conduct.
And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
regards
joe baptista
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin > wrote:
Dear ARIN Community,
To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International organization. It's bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the Requests for Change.
A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation and those of my fellow student network administrators.
3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC growing in its first life phases;
2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web transcripts); and
3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email address.
It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail. The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and "scam warnings" and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the school.
GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen school network).
GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP's without long discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library and not the stock market.
For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor, provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the East and West coast of the US.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Mettin
Student Network Administrator
GQBC
_______________________________________________
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 marty at akamai.com Wed Jan 13 16:44:54 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:44:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <4B4E30C9.5010601@ipinc.net>
Message-ID:
On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/13/10 3:06 PM, "Member Services" wrote:
>> >
>>> >> On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
>>> >> recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
>>> >> Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
>>> >> resource policies:
>>> >>
>> >
>> > [ snip ]
>> >
>>> >> 2009-3 (Global Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional
>>> >> Internet Registries
>> >
>> > [ clip ]
>> >
>>> >> 2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
>>> >> Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet
>>> Registries
>>> >>
>> >
>> > [ clip ]
>> >
>>> >> The two global proposals, 2009-3 and 2009-6, await the conclusion of the
>>> >> Global Policy Development Process.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is ambiguous. Could you please clarify?
>> >
>> > Since both of these globally submitted policies have been accepted by the
>> > AC, ratified by the BoT and have completed the ARIN PDP cycle they _are_
>> > both ARIN region policies regardless of the problem with at least 2009-6
>> > being significantly contextually different than other regions versions.
>> That
>> > problem is not relevant so I would think that these policies are awaiting
>> > nothing that is relevant to them per se.
>> >
>> > Correct?
>> >
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide that
> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated to pay
> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
>
> Ted
>
Ted,
Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you mean to ask how
that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents that
codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
http://www.nro.net/
Best,
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan http://www.akamai.com
Akamai Technologies, Inc. marty at akamai.com
Cambridge, MA USA cell: +16178216079
ofc: +16174442535
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Jan 13 18:04:40 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:04:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
marty at akamai.com wrote:
> On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
>
>> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/13/10 3:06 PM, "Member Services" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
>>>>>> recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
>>>>>> Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
>>>>>> resource policies:
>>>>>>
>>>> [ snip ]
>>>>
>>>>>> 2009-3 (Global Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional
>>>>>> Internet Registries
>>>> [ clip ]
>>>>
>>>>>> 2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
>>>>>> Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet
>>>> Registries
>>>> [ clip ]
>>>>
>>>>>> The two global proposals, 2009-3 and 2009-6, await the conclusion of the
>>>>>> Global Policy Development Process.
>>>>
>>>> This is ambiguous. Could you please clarify?
>>>>
>>>> Since both of these globally submitted policies have been accepted by the
>>>> AC, ratified by the BoT and have completed the ARIN PDP cycle they _are_
>>>> both ARIN region policies regardless of the problem with at least 2009-6
>>>> being significantly contextually different than other regions versions.
>>> That
>>>> problem is not relevant so I would think that these policies are awaiting
>>>> nothing that is relevant to them per se.
>>>>
>>>> Correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide that
>> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated to pay
>> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
>> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
>>
>> Ted
>>
> Ted,
>
> Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you mean to ask how
> that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents that
> codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
> http://www.nro.net/
>
Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that logically, since
these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really cannot
be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I mean, we
can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they won't be
followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your statement that
" they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes a law
then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to enforce the
law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does not
exist.
What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
Ted
From baptista at publicroot.org Wed Jan 13 18:51:28 2010
From: baptista at publicroot.org (Joe Baptista)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:51:28 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with respect
to Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re:
Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium
Querfurt High School to enhance education
Message-ID: <874c02a21001131551x5ff9b4d8j24ba74fb32b7155b@mail.gmail.com>
I will not oppose the removal of Mr. Mettin this time. I don't care how old
you are. I'm not a big fan of baseball so I don't believe in the three
strikes rule. I'm into the one strike rule.
But I appeal to the AUP Committee to please not be hasty in making a
decision. I have been promised a reply at least from the school in which
they will address the members.
I also remind the committee and the members here that it is I who am being
liable, slandered and defamed here. I therefore reserve the right to submit
for the consideration of the AUP committee a representation concerning this
matter.
Let us not forget who you are. ARIN is an internationally respected
organization. You are about to cause damage to the reputation of an 18 year
old boy. All these matters are forever archived. And I don't think
Christopher is completely at fault here. I think a good portion of the fault
lies with his school the Gymnasium Querfurt.
This boy is a victim. Both I and Christopher got involved in the INAIC
Public-Root scandal. I'm an insider and even I didn't know about the fraud
until I investigated in the Netherlands. It's not the boys fault that he
went a little nutty trying to defend them. Again the fault is with the
school. Where was the supervision?
Also I point out to the AUP Committee the school is responsible for his
activities and statements here. I want to see how the Gymnasium Querfurt
wiggles out of that. But also they only found out about this when I faxed
them some three days ago. They had no idea what was going on. I tried
emailing them but Christopher has been filtering the schools email. You may
remember he said so in his Spin-Off notice to ARIN-PPML.
Thats another issue. He admitted he hijacked the schools email system - does
the school even know? This may even be a criminal issue in Germany. But the
bottom line here is that the school must share responsibility for
Christopher's actions.
I therefore would like some time to prepare a statement to submit to the
committee.
Thanks
joe baptista
the injured party
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dylan Ebner wrote:
> I think Mt. Mettin?s statement, ?If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better
> about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I
> forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet
> bill then.?, qualifies as violating the ARIN prohibited activities section
> 1, ?Statements that include foul language, personal character attacks, or
> show disrespect for other participants, including ARIN.?
>
>
>
> Can we please remove Mr. Mettin and get on with more important business?
> This is getting old.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
> Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.
> 1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
> ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250
> dylan.ebner at crlmed.com
> www.consultingradiologists.com
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Christopher Mettin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:57 AM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
> Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
>
>
>
> Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that?s the
> guy who was wasting our limited school paper.
>
> 4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the
> second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This behavior
> violates the United States Code (don?t ask me for the exact section and
> clause).
>
>
>
> If they don?t stop contacting our school immediately, we will take legal
> actions.
>
>
>
> If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he sent to
> government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is also a
> falsification to identify oneself as a member of an organization that fired
> one and now tries to convince other people to not work with this company (as
> Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the
> other affected people did.
>
>
>
> If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business,
> he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe
> she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
>
>
>
> No further comments requested.
>
>
>
> *From:* publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Joe Baptista
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
> *To:* Christopher Mettin
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
> Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
>
>
>
> A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be
> confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
>
> Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium
> Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to
> Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available
> for members to read at the following URL:
>
> http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
>
> As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its
> best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
>
> The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by
> letter. We will see then what they have to say.
>
> I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's
> conduct.
>
> And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public
> to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in
> private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has
> been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
>
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin <
> cmettin at gqbc-online.com> wrote:
>
> Dear ARIN Community,
>
>
>
> To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of
> such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High
> School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International
> organization. It?s bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically
> include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the
> organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the
> Requests for Change.
>
>
>
> A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and
> managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action
> was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC
> administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still
> administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation
> and those of my fellow student network administrators.
>
>
>
> 3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
>
> 1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a
> ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC
> growing in its first life phases;
>
> 2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization
> with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an
> organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a
> phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also
> GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web
> transcripts); and
>
> 3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an
> opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure
> everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and
> the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact
> details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC
> amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that
> the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of
> Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email
> address.
>
>
>
> It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the
> development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it
> was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail.
> The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the
> school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and ?scam warnings?
> and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the
> school.
>
>
>
> GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There
> will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service
> provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET
> domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS
> network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen
> school network).
>
>
>
> GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
> Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on
> with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational
> purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in
> Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
>
>
>
> I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP?s without long
> discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses
> for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library
> and not the stock market.
>
>
>
> For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the
> Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor,
> provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to
> upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the
> Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the
> Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more
> reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the
> East and West coast of the US.
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Christopher Mettin
>
> Student Network Administrator
>
> GQBC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From marty at akamai.com Wed Jan 13 20:05:46 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:05:46 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> marty at akamai.com wrote:
> > On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
> >
> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
> >>>>
>
>
[ clip ]
> >> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide
> that
> >> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated to pay
> >> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
> >> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >>
> > Ted,
> >
> > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you mean
> to ask how
> > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents
> that
> > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
> > http://www.nro.net/
> >
>
> Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that logically, since
> these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really cannot
> be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I mean, we
> can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they won't
> be
> followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your statement that
>
> " they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
>
> has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes a law
> then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to enforce the
> law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does not
> exist.
>
> What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
> happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
> ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
>
>
Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I
think, based on my reading, that the policy stands. Seems like a hole
in both PDP's.
Best,
Martin
From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Thu Jan 14 06:52:24 2010
From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <776109.94295.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> > > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you mean to ask how
> > > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents that
> > > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
> > > http://www.nro.net/
> > >
> > What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
> > happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
> > ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
> >
> Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I think, based
> on my reading, that the policy stands. Seems like a hole in both PDP's.
Yes, we should clarify this. The NRO NC should clarify its process, and
both the ARIN process and the status of global policy proposals within the
ARIN region should be clearer. I'll see what we can do.
Lee
From marty at akamai.com Thu Jan 14 09:51:04 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:51:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <776109.94295.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<776109.94295.qm@web63303.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>
> > > > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you
> mean to ask how
> > > > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the
> documents that
> > > > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
> > > > http://www.nro.net/
> > > >
> > > What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
> > > happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
> > > ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
> > >
> > Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I
> think, based
> > on my reading, that the policy stands. Seems like a hole in both
> PDP's.
>
> Yes, we should clarify this. The NRO NC should clarify its process,
> and
> both the ARIN process and the status of global policy proposals
> within the
> ARIN region should be clearer. I'll see what we can do.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
For all intents and purposes the global process is adequate. This is a
regional issue. Dave Wilson (a participant in the RIPE Address Policy
WG) identified this problem during the last RIPE meeting in Lisbon and
has stated that he may introduce a policy proposal in the RIPE region
to address it.
If I remember correctly, Dave was thinking that there would be a pause
with regards to the final acceptance in the region before formal
ratification. This might be adequate to prevent a situation where we
could be in a stranglehold. The pause might be a way to allow for any
contextual adjustments that may need to be made to foster better
cooperation.
Best Regards,
-M<
From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jan 14 11:56:19 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:56:19 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> > On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
>> >
>> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>>
>>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
>> >> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide that
>> >> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated to pay
>> >> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
>> >> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
>> >>
>> >> Ted
>> >>
>> > Ted,
>> >
>> > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you mean to
>> ask how
>> > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents that
>> > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
>> > http://www.nro.net/
>> >
>>
>> Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that logically, since
>> these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really cannot
>> be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I mean, we
>> can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they won't be
>> followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your statement that
>>
>> " they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
>>
>> has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes a law
>> then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to enforce the
>> law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does not
>> exist.
>>
>> What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
>> happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
>> ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
>>
>>
>
>
> Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I
> think, based on my reading, that the policy stands.
I think your assuming that the ARIN board's adoption of global proposals
changes the proposals into regional policies - and if they fail GDP that
there's then a standoff between IANA and ARIN.
I'm assuming that the ARIN board's adoption of the proposals is nothing
more than an endorsement of them as proposals - because, until they are
adopted as global policies, they remain global proposals. That was why
Member Services put (Global Proposal) in parenthesis in front of them -
since they are still proposals.
Where I think the ambiguity exists is in the Member Services
Announcement since at the beginning the paragraph states:
"...adopted the following number
resource policies:..."
Then they go and list the "adopted policies" and mix up the now-policy
additions with the still-global-proposal additions in the list that
follows. It's definitely misleading to the casual observer.
Ted
From marty at akamai.com Thu Jan 14 11:58:24 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:58:24 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
Message-ID:
On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
> >> > On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > [ clip ]
> >
> >
> >> >> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could
> decide that
> >> >> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated
> to pay
> >> >> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
> >> >> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ted
> >> >>
> >> > Ted,
> >> >
> >> > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you
> mean to
> >> ask how
> >> > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the
> documents that
> >> > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
> >> > http://www.nro.net/
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that logically,
> since
> >> these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really cannot
> >> be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I
> mean, we
> >> can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they
> won't be
> >> followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your statement
> that
> >>
> >> " they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
> >>
> >> has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes a
> law
> >> then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to
> enforce the
> >> law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does not
> >> exist.
> >>
> >> What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
> >> happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
> >> ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I
> > think, based on my reading, that the policy stands.
>
>
> I think your assuming that the ARIN board's adoption of global
> proposals
> changes the proposals into regional policies - and if they fail GDP
> that
> there's then a standoff between IANA and ARIN.
>
I'm not making any assumptions at all. The proposal went into the
standard policy process and came out the other side as a policy. It is
that straight forward. And I think that Lee Howard seems to have
confirmed that.
Best,
-M<
From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jan 14 12:23:11 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:23:11 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To:
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >
>> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> >> > On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > [ clip ]
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide
>> that
>> >> >> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated to pay
>> >> >> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
>> >> >> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ted
>> >> >>
>> >> > Ted,
>> >> >
>> >> > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you mean to
>> >> ask how
>> >> > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents
>> that
>> >> > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
>> >> > http://www.nro.net/
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that logically, since
>> >> these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really cannot
>> >> be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I mean, we
>> >> can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they
>> won't be
>> >> followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your statement that
>> >>
>> >> " they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
>> >>
>> >> has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes a law
>> >> then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to enforce the
>> >> law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does not
>> >> exist.
>> >>
>> >> What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
>> >> happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
>> >> ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I
>> > think, based on my reading, that the policy stands.
>>
>>
>> I think your assuming that the ARIN board's adoption of global proposals
>> changes the proposals into regional policies - and if they fail GDP that
>> there's then a standoff between IANA and ARIN.
>>
>
> I'm not making any assumptions at all. The proposal went into the
> standard policy process and came out the other side as a policy. It is
> that straight forward. And I think that Lee Howard seems to have
> confirmed that.
>
Lee's statement was
"...status of global policy PROPOSALS within the ARIN region..."
The strong implication there is that these proposals are still proposals
at this time.
But I suspect Lee's hedging a bit himself, right now. I would!!! :-)
Ted
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
>
From marty at akamai.com Thu Jan 14 12:31:51 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:31:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Impleme?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?nted?=
In-Reply-To: <4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <38DBE528-5ECD-4578-9BCD-64B86D8BB72E@akamai.com>
On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
> >> >> > On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > [ clip ]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could
> decide
> >> that
> >> >> >> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA
> obligated to pay
> >> >> >> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA
> to do
> >> >> >> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ted
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Ted,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you
> mean to
> >> >> ask how
> >> >> > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the
> documents
> >> that
> >> >> > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
> >> >> > http://www.nro.net/
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that
> logically, since
> >> >> these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really
> cannot
> >> >> be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I
> mean, we
> >> >> can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they
> >> won't be
> >> >> followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your
> statement that
> >> >>
> >> >> " they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
> >> >>
> >> >> has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes
> a law
> >> >> then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to
> enforce the
> >> >> law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does
> not
> >> >> exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is
> what
> >> >> happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
> >> >> ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for
> clarification. I
> >> > think, based on my reading, that the policy stands.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think your assuming that the ARIN board's adoption of global
> proposals
> >> changes the proposals into regional policies - and if they fail
> GDP that
> >> there's then a standoff between IANA and ARIN.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not making any assumptions at all. The proposal went into the
> > standard policy process and came out the other side as a policy.
> It is
> > that straight forward. And I think that Lee Howard seems to have
> > confirmed that.
> >
>
> Lee's statement was
>
> "...status of global policy PROPOSALS within the ARIN region..."
>
> The strong implication there is that these proposals are still
> proposals
> at this time.
>
> But I suspect Lee's hedging a bit himself, right now. I would!!! :-)
>
> Ted
>
>
Ted,
Seems like it's written in English:
--snarf
From: info at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] NRPM 2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented
Date: January 13, 2010 3:06:26 PM EST
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
"On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
resource policies:
[ clip [
2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet
Registries"
--ex snarf
Nothing in the ARIN PDP says 'just kidding' in the event that the
global part of the proposal fails.
Thoughts?
-M<
From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Jan 14 13:10:22 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:10:22 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?windows-1252?q?NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Imple?=
=?windows-1252?q?mented?=
In-Reply-To: <38DBE528-5ECD-4578-9BCD-64B86D8BB72E@akamai.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
<38DBE528-5ECD-4578-9BCD-64B86D8BB72E@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <4B4F5E0E.9020009@ipinc.net>
Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> >
>> > On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >
>> >> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jan 13, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> >> >> > On 1/13/10 3:44 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> marty at akamai.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > [ clip ]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> How exactly is IANA held to ARIN's policies? ARIN could decide
>> >> that
>> >> >> >> IANA give all it's remaining IPv4 to ARIN, is IANA obligated
>> to pay
>> >> >> >> attention to that? Seems to me your not going to get IANA to do
>> >> >> >> jack until any policy that affects it completes the GDP.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ted
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Ted,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Good question. Without a global policy, they aren?t. If you
>> mean to
>> >> >> ask how
>> >> >> > that relationship is actually governed, you can see the documents
>> >> that
>> >> >> > codify the relationship and the global PDP by browsing here:
>> >> >> > http://www.nro.net/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, my question was more rhetorical - meaning that logically,
>> since
>> >> >> these policies depend on IANA doing something, they really cannot
>> >> >> be policies until IANA agrees with them and follows them. I
>> mean, we
>> >> >> can stick them in the ARIN policy manual and all that but they
>> >> won't be
>> >> >> followed until completion of GDP - so in essence, your statement
>> that
>> >> >>
>> >> >> " they _are_ both ARIN region policies regardless "
>> >> >>
>> >> >> has no meaning. It's kind of like when the US Congress passes a
>> law
>> >> >> then does not pass the finance bill that provides money to
>> enforce the
>> >> >> law - thus, even though it's on the books, it effectively does not
>> >> >> exist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What I think is a much more interesting and relevant query is what
>> >> >> happens if either of these policies flunk out of the GDP? Does
>> >> >> ARIN's board then reverse their adoption and scrap them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Ted, I don't really know which is why I asked for clarification. I
>> >> > think, based on my reading, that the policy stands.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think your assuming that the ARIN board's adoption of global
>> proposals
>> >> changes the proposals into regional policies - and if they fail GDP
>> that
>> >> there's then a standoff between IANA and ARIN.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm not making any assumptions at all. The proposal went into the
>> > standard policy process and came out the other side as a policy. It is
>> > that straight forward. And I think that Lee Howard seems to have
>> > confirmed that.
>> >
>>
>> Lee's statement was
>>
>> "...status of global policy PROPOSALS within the ARIN region..."
>>
>> The strong implication there is that these proposals are still proposals
>> at this time.
>>
>> But I suspect Lee's hedging a bit himself, right now. I would!!! :-)
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>
>
> Ted,
>
> Seems like it's written in English:
>
> --snarf
>
> From: info at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] NRPM 2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented
>
> Date: January 13, 2010 3:06:26 PM EST
>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> "On 18 December 2009 the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the
> recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Policy
> Development Process had been followed, adopted the following number
> resource policies:
>
> [ clip [
>
> 2009-6 (Global Proposal): Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
> Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries"
>
> --ex snarf
>
> Nothing in the ARIN PDP says 'just kidding' in the event that the global
> part of the proposal fails.
>
> Thoughts?
>
Going back to what I said originally, ARIN (or any other RIR) can adopt
all the policies they want that says IANA do this, IANA do that - but
IANA ain't gonna do squat unless a policy proposal is adopted though
the GDP
Personally, I think the biggest problem is this rubbish about having the
RIR adopt a global policy first, then sending it on to IANA. I've
always thought that was bass-ackwards.
This situation is almost spot-on identical to the disaster that was
the 1972 US Equal Rights Amendment. Imagine the millions of dollars
thrown into that campaign where almost the entire country's state
legislatures ratified it then the thing was scotched, shy of 3 states -
leaving dozens of states in legal limbo - since how in the hell does a
state government that passed ERA then turn around and argue against an
equivalent ERA to it's own state constitution? As a matter of fact
IT CAN'T since 16 of those states then turned around and added it in
to their state constitutions. As a result, in the US today, we have
half of the country that has ERA as state law, (21 states) and half of
the country that does not, with the feds still dithering around about it.
Ted
From info at arin.net Thu Jan 14 18:06:07 2010
From: info at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:06:07 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
Message-ID: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy Development
Process.
This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development Process.
ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does
not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal is to make sure that
they understand the proposal and believe the community will as well.
Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within
10 days.
The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled
meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is
less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent
regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the
proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on
the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
Mailing list subscription information can be found
at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
Regards,
Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
## * ##
Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
Proposal Originator: David Farmer
Proposal Version: 1.0
Date: 1/14/2010
Proposal type: modify
Policy term: Permanent
Policy statement:
6.5.8. Initial assignments
6.5.8.1. Initial assignment size
Organizations that meet at least one of the following criteria are
eligible to receive a minimum assignment of /48. Requests for larger
initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation,
will be evaluated based on the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric.
All assignments shall be made from distinctly identified prefixes, with
each assignment receiving a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, at its discretion, may
assign them to other organizations at any time.
6.5.8.2. Criteria for initial assignment to Internet connected end-users
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for connecting their own
network to the IPv6 Internet, with an intent to provide global
reachability for the assignment within 12 months, and for addressing
devices directly attached to their network infrastructure, by meeting
one of the following additional criteria.
a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;
b. Multihoming using an assigned Autonomous System Number (ASN), or;
c. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why
other IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable and a plan
detailing the utilization of subnets for one, two and five year periods.
6.5.8.3 Criteria for initial assignment to non-connected networks
Organizations are encouraged to consider the use of Unique Local IPv6
Unicast Addresses (ULA, See RFC 4193) for a network that is not
currently connected and/or planning not to connect to the Internet. Not
withstanding this, organizations may justify an initial assignment for
operating their own non-connected IPv6 network and for addressing
devices directly attached to their network infrastructure, by meeting
one of the following additional criteria.
a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;
b. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why an
assignment for a non-connected networks is necessary, including the
intended purpose for the assignment, and describing the network
infrastructure the assignment will be used to support. Justification
must include why ULA IPv6 addresses are unsuitable and a plan detailing
the utilization of subnets for one, two and five year periods.
6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a
Community Network only for the purpose of providing free or low-cost
internet connectivity to the residents of their local service area.
By documenting the service area they intend to serve, certifying that
the community network staff is 100% volunteers, and otherwise meeting
the definition of a Community Network.
6.5.9. Subsequent assignments
Subsequent assignments may be made when the need for additional subnets
are justified. Justification will be determined based on the 0.94
HD-Ratio metric. When possible, subsequent assignments will be made
from an adjacent address block.
Delete current 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments as it is incorporated
in 6.5.8.4.
Rationale:
This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6 end-user assignment
criteria, removing the dependency on IPv4 policy, while maintaining many
of the basic concepts contained in the current policies. The order of
the subsections of 6.5.8 was rearranged moving the initial assignment
size to 6.5.8.1 and subsequent assignments to 6.5.9. This will
facilitate adding future criteria without additional renumbering of
current policies.
The initial assignment criteria include the following general concepts;
? When Internet connectivity is use to justify resources it is implied
the resources should be advertised to the Internet, within some
reasonable time frame after they are received.
? IPv4 resources may be use to justify the need for IPv6 resources.
? Internet multihoming is sufficient justification for an end-user
assignment in and of itself.
? Other end-users must justify why an ISP or LIR assignment is not
sufficient for their needs.
? Non-connected networks must describe the purpose and network
infrastructure the assignment will be supporting, including why ULA is
not sufficient for their needs.
? Community networks are assumed to justify an assignment in and of
themselves.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Fri Jan 15 11:43:13 2010
From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] =?iso-8859-1?q?Global_policy_development_process_=5Bw?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?as=3A_Re=3A__NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Implemented=5D?=
In-Reply-To: <4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> Lee's statement was
>
> "...status of global policy PROPOSALS within the ARIN region..."
>
> The strong implication there is that these proposals are still proposals
> at this time.
>
> But I suspect Lee's hedging a bit himself, right now. I would!!! :-)
Me, hedge? Never!
Well, hardly ever. ;-)
I don't know if the process is wrong, but since people are debating about
what it actually IS, I think it's unclear.
What do you think the process for global policy development SHOULD be?
Thanks,
Lee
From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Jan 15 11:56:00 2010
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:56:00 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Global policy development process [was: Re: NRPM
2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented]
In-Reply-To: <247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
<247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20100115165600.GA98382@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:43:13AM -0800, Lee Howard wrote:
> What do you think the process for global policy development SHOULD be?
I have said before:
ARIN should have a process similar to, but separate from the PDP
for "speaking". That is, we should be able to pass a resolution
like:
"ARIN requests IANA to assign ASN's according to the following
criteria....."
It makes no sense for such a thing to be put in our PDP, as there
is nothing for ARIN to do. It makes no sense to use the PDP process,
because each step (e.g. staff impact) is predicated on ARIN staff
doing something. It also makes no sense to list these things in
the PDP. For instance, we pass it and the other 4 RIR's do not,
it does not become IANA policy, but it is stuck in our PDP until
we go remove it. So we publish it on the web as if it is policy,
confusing everyone.
Once all 5 RIR's make a formal request like the example above, IANA
could say:
"All 5 RIR's have requested ASN's be assigned by the following
critera...."
"As a result, the criteria above has been added to IANA policy
ABC.123, and will be implemented by IANA on Jan 1 ABCD."
So it's pretty much exactly the same structure, but we stop calling
a request to IANA an ARIN policy, because, well, it isn't, and it
confuses everyone.
I can think of no more damning condemnation of the current process
than the fact that Mr Hannigan is asking the question, someone who
is currently on the ICANN ASO AC. If someone who is the next step
in the process can't understand what in the heck we're doing then
there's no way for the average Joe to keep track.
--
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: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From dylan.ebner at crlmed.com Fri Jan 15 12:00:49 2010
From: dylan.ebner at crlmed.com (Dylan Ebner)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:00:49 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with
respect to Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re:
Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School
to enhance education
In-Reply-To: <874c02a21001131551x5ff9b4d8j24ba74fb32b7155b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <874c02a21001131551x5ff9b4d8j24ba74fb32b7155b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017265BF3B9640499754DD48777C3D2067176803D0@MBX9.EXCHPROD.USA.NET>
Joe-
Please let me complement you on your level of compassion for Mr. Mettin's image and his future throughout this incident. Although I have never met you, you sound like a good person. Your willingness to defend one who has defamed upon you is a testament to your nature.
As you have been the one harmed in this incident, your preferences on how the ARIN community should be considered above the other members, and I respectfully defer my request to you and wait for your recommendation.
However, as you pointed out, everything here is archived forever and with this issue dragging on we must also consider the ARIN community as a whole and it's ability to resolve conflicts. I worry that this whole issue, and others like it that may come up, may damage the ARIN reputation if ARIN cannot resolve these types of conflicts quickly and efficiently. These things ultimately are distractions to the business at hand.
My request was simply made because Mr. Mettin, even though he had already been warned about his behaviour by ARIN, continued his behaviour. We have all in times of frustration and annoyance posted non-professional statements to public mailing lists. This is human nature. Sometimes we say something we don't mean. Usually, we come to regret our statements and many times appologize privately or publicly for our remarks. Mr. Mettin has not only not shown he is unwilling to retract his statements, he has continued making slanderous statements against you. It is my opinion that if ARIN does not deal with this type of behaviour in accordance with the rules, then we are ultimately degrading the quality of the ARIN mailing list and it's image in the Internet community.
Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.
1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250
dylan.ebner at crlmed.com
www.consultingradiologists.com
________________________________________
From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista [baptista at publicroot.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:51 PM
To: Dylan Ebner
Cc: Christopher Mettin; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with respect to Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
I will not oppose the removal of Mr. Mettin this time. I don't care how old you are. I'm not a big fan of baseball so I don't believe in the three strikes rule. I'm into the one strike rule.
But I appeal to the AUP Committee to please not be hasty in making a decision. I have been promised a reply at least from the school in which they will address the members.
I also remind the committee and the members here that it is I who am being liable, slandered and defamed here. I therefore reserve the right to submit for the consideration of the AUP committee a representation concerning this matter.
Let us not forget who you are. ARIN is an internationally respected organization. You are about to cause damage to the reputation of an 18 year old boy. All these matters are forever archived. And I don't think Christopher is completely at fault here. I think a good portion of the fault lies with his school the Gymnasium Querfurt.
This boy is a victim. Both I and Christopher got involved in the INAIC Public-Root scandal. I'm an insider and even I didn't know about the fraud until I investigated in the Netherlands. It's not the boys fault that he went a little nutty trying to defend them. Again the fault is with the school. Where was the supervision?
Also I point out to the AUP Committee the school is responsible for his activities and statements here. I want to see how the Gymnasium Querfurt wiggles out of that. But also they only found out about this when I faxed them some three days ago. They had no idea what was going on. I tried emailing them but Christopher has been filtering the schools email. You may remember he said so in his Spin-Off notice to ARIN-PPML.
Thats another issue. He admitted he hijacked the schools email system - does the school even know? This may even be a criminal issue in Germany. But the bottom line here is that the school must share responsibility for Christopher's actions.
I therefore would like some time to prepare a statement to submit to the committee.
Thanks
joe baptista
the injured party
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dylan Ebner > wrote:
I think Mt. Mettin?s statement, ?If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet bill then.?, qualifies as violating the ARIN prohibited activities section 1, ?Statements that include foul language, personal character attacks, or show disrespect for other participants, including ARIN.?
Can we please remove Mr. Mettin and get on with more important business? This is getting old.
Thanks
Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.
1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250
dylan.ebner at crlmed.com
www.consultingradiologists.com
________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Mettin
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:57 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that?s the guy who was wasting our limited school paper.
4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This behavior violates the United States Code (don?t ask me for the exact section and clause).
If they don?t stop contacting our school immediately, we will take legal actions.
If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he sent to government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is also a falsification to identify oneself as a member of an organization that fired one and now tries to convince other people to not work with this company (as Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the other affected people did.
If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
No further comments requested.
From: publicroot.info@gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Christopher Mettin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available for members to read at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by letter. We will see then what they have to say.
I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's conduct.
And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
regards
joe baptista
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin > wrote:
Dear ARIN Community,
To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International organization. It?s bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the Requests for Change.
A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation and those of my fellow student network administrators.
3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC growing in its first life phases;
2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web transcripts); and
3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC amended its policies and the contact page on gqbc-online.com to state that the only way for individuals and companies outside the state of Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the school is through a spam-filtered email address.
It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail. The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and ?scam warnings? and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the school.
GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen school network).
GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP?s without long discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library and not the stock market.
For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor, provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the East and West coast of the US.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Mettin
Student Network Administrator
GQBC
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 15 12:06:42 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:06:42 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?Global_policy_development_process_=5Bw?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?as=3A_Re=3A_NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Implemen?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?ted=5D?=
In-Reply-To: <247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
<247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca1001150906v3051ba8cw28791b1d9c1c61ae@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> I don't know if the process is wrong, but since people are debating about
> what it actually IS, I think it's unclear.
>
> What do you think the process for global policy development SHOULD be?
Lee,
My knee-jerk reaction is:
First draft in one region. Second draft in all regions (either
cross-posted or some sort of joint global policy list). Formal request
for adoption from one region. All regions accept or reject it as
written. The proposal is not adopted in any region until it accepted
in all.
Each binding global policy is written in only one language, regardless
of region. Translations for convenience are non-binding.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From gqnet.connect at gqnn.net Fri Jan 15 12:17:53 2010
From: gqnet.connect at gqnn.net (GQNN.Connect)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:17:53 +0100
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with
respect to Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher
Mettin Re: Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
Message-ID:
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Mettin [mailto:cmettin at gqbc-online.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:17 PM
To: 'Dylan Ebner'
Subject: FW: Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with respect to
Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re: [arin-ppml]
Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School
to enhance education
You are superficial, aren't you? I hate superficial people. This guy is a
terrorist, he should be excluded from the mailing list. He has been starting
with his falsified claims and "scam warnings" in early December and no one
has been saying anything. Are you so damn superficial or what's up?
There is an email in the attachment I have been sending to the mailing list,
not sure whether it ever appeared. But if you carefully read his website,
you see what the scam is. And I just found out, there is any page that says
he has the developed the "Casedian Root" and features a link to this "root",
and when you click on it, an advertisement/parking page appears.
Faxes over faxes, we received another one just yesterday, he forwarded the
mailing list messages to the school office. Everyone just laughed about this
idiot but actually it's a waste of paper, which is limited by state
regulations.
He is no good person at all. Did you read this "the injured party" under his
name, crazy, ain't he? In what way has he been injured? Read this article on
him: http://inaic.com/index.php?p=internet-terror, then you know in short
what he has done. But something that this article does not say is that he
uses the CNN logo for his own evil purposes on his website (see my email
attachment).
I think that says everything.
Christopher
-----Original Message-----
From: Dylan Ebner [mailto:dylan.ebner at crlmed.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:01 PM
To: Joe Baptista
Cc: Christopher Mettin; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with respect to
Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re: [arin-ppml]
Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School
to enhance education
Joe-
Please let me complement you on your level of compassion for Mr. Mettin's
image and his future throughout this incident. Although I have never met
you, you sound like a good person. Your willingness to defend one who has
defamed upon you is a testament to your nature.
As you have been the one harmed in this incident, your preferences on how
the ARIN community should be considered above the other members, and I
respectfully defer my request to you and wait for your recommendation.
However, as you pointed out, everything here is archived forever and with
this issue dragging on we must also consider the ARIN community as a whole
and it's ability to resolve conflicts. I worry that this whole issue, and
others like it that may come up, may damage the ARIN reputation if ARIN
cannot resolve these types of conflicts quickly and efficiently. These
things ultimately are distractions to the business at hand.
My request was simply made because Mr. Mettin, even though he had already
been warned about his behaviour by ARIN, continued his behaviour. We have
all in times of frustration and annoyance posted non-professional statements
to public mailing lists. This is human nature. Sometimes we say something we
don't mean. Usually, we come to regret our statements and many times
appologize privately or publicly for our remarks. Mr. Mettin has not only
not shown he is unwilling to retract his statements, he has continued making
slanderous statements against you. It is my opinion that if ARIN does not
deal with this type of behaviour in accordance with the rules, then we are
ultimately degrading the quality of the ARIN mailing list and it's image in
the Internet community.
Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.
1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250
dylan.ebner at crlmed.com
www.consultingradiologists.com
________________________________________
From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Baptista [baptista at publicroot.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:51 PM
To: Dylan Ebner
Cc: Christopher Mettin; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with respect to
Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re: [arin-ppml]
Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High
School to enhance education
I will not oppose the removal of Mr. Mettin this time. I don't care how old
you are. I'm not a big fan of baseball so I don't believe in the three
strikes rule. I'm into the one strike rule.
But I appeal to the AUP Committee to please not be hasty in making a
decision. I have been promised a reply at least from the school in which
they will address the members.
I also remind the committee and the members here that it is I who am being
liable, slandered and defamed here. I therefore reserve the right to submit
for the consideration of the AUP committee a representation concerning this
matter.
Let us not forget who you are. ARIN is an internationally respected
organization. You are about to cause damage to the reputation of an 18 year
old boy. All these matters are forever archived. And I don't think
Christopher is completely at fault here. I think a good portion of the fault
lies with his school the Gymnasium Querfurt.
This boy is a victim. Both I and Christopher got involved in the INAIC
Public-Root scandal. I'm an insider and even I didn't know about the fraud
until I investigated in the Netherlands. It's not the boys fault that he
went a little nutty trying to defend them. Again the fault is with the
school. Where was the supervision?
Also I point out to the AUP Committee the school is responsible for his
activities and statements here. I want to see how the Gymnasium Querfurt
wiggles out of that. But also they only found out about this when I faxed
them some three days ago. They had no idea what was going on. I tried
emailing them but Christopher has been filtering the schools email. You may
remember he said so in his Spin-Off notice to ARIN-PPML.
Thats another issue. He admitted he hijacked the schools email system - does
the school even know? This may even be a criminal issue in Germany. But the
bottom line here is that the school must share responsibility for
Christopher's actions.
I therefore would like some time to prepare a statement to submit to the
committee.
Thanks
joe baptista
the injured party
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dylan Ebner
> wrote:
I think Mt. Mettin's statement, "If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better
about our internal school business, he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I
forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe she will still pay the next Internet
bill then.", qualifies as violating the ARIN prohibited activities section
1, "Statements that include foul language, personal character attacks, or
show disrespect for other participants, including ARIN."
Can we please remove Mr. Mettin and get on with more important business?
This is getting old.
Thanks
Dylan Ebner, Network Engineer
Consulting Radiologists, Ltd.
1221 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403
ph. 612.573.2236 fax. 612.573.2250
dylan.ebner at crlmed.com
www.consultingradiologists.com
________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Christopher Mettin
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:57 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
Oh, someone admitting his guilt. I was counting on that. Yep, that's the guy
who was wasting our limited school paper.
4 week days in a row we received faxes (the one he linked was only the
second one) containing falsified claims and crazy threats. This behavior
violates the United States Code (don't ask me for the exact section and
clause).
If they don't stop contacting our school immediately, we will take legal
actions.
If anyone googles up, they will find a dozen of emails and faxes he sent to
government offices and non-commercial organizations. It is also a
falsification to identify oneself as a member of an organization that fired
one and now tries to convince other people to not work with this company (as
Mr. Baptista does). Is advised to ignore Mr. Baptista as everyone of the
other affected people did.
If Mr. Baptista thinks he knows better about our internal school business,
he can go tell his grandma, uh, no, I forgot he lives with his Mama, maybe
she will still pay the next Internet bill then.
No further comments requested.
From: publicroot.info@gmail.com
[mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Christopher Mettin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the
Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
A very interesting development Christopher. But members reading this may be
confused. So will provide here a brief summary.
Three days ago I faxed the Principle at Christopher's school the "Gymnasium
Querfurt High School" a letter and supporting documentation with respect to
Christopher's conduct in this conference - a copy of this fax is available
for members to read at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
As a result of my letter meetings were held and the school is now doing its
best to distance itself from Christopher's projects.
The school has confirmed with me that they will be replying to my fax by
letter. We will see then what they have to say.
I do hope the school will apologize to the members here for Christopher's
conduct.
And in closing I want to take this opportunity to ask Christopher in public
to apologize to the members for his conduct. I have asked Christopher in
private correspondence to apologize to the members. To date no apology has
been received and if Christopher can't provide one I hope the school does.
regards
joe baptista
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Christopher Mettin
> wrote:
Dear ARIN Community,
To strengthen education of high school education, even outside the walls of
such an institution, in Mai 2008 the students of the Gymnasium Querfurt High
School founded the Gymnasium Querfurt Broadcasting Channel, an International
organization. It's bylaws were soon written and meant to chronologically
include all future amendments and extensions to the mission of the
organizations, these bylaws are known as the GQ RFCs, in honor of the
Requests for Change.
A few months afterwards the organizations was absorbed by the GQHS and
managed together with GQHS teachers. Three days ago from today, this action
was reversed together with our principal and the school assembly. The GQBC
administration, namely I, wanted to ensure the organization will be still
administrated according to its founding principles after my own graduation
and those of my fellow student network administrators.
3 official reasons were stated in the spin-off contract:
1. The fusion of GQBC with GQHS has never been authorized by a
ratified GQ RFC. GQHS rather received a temporary mandate to help GQBC
growing in its first life phases;
2. GQ RFC 1 clearly stated that GQBC is an independent organization
with the mission to support education. To maintain objectivity such an
organization has to be run independently from a school. We only remained a
phrase advising that GQBC originated from the GQHS on our website, and also
GQBC will still provide services for the GQHS it provided before (e.g. web
transcripts); and
3. Due to massive email, fax, and even telephone fraud attacks by an
opponent of the Public-Root (name intentionally omitted but we are sure
everyone knows him), which already satisfy the definition of terrorism, and
the fact that GQ RFCs did never grant GQBC the right to provide contact
details of the GQHS to entities other than educational institutions. GQBC
amended its policies and the contact page on
gqbc-online.com to state that the only way for
individuals and companies outside the state of Sachsen-Anhalt to contact the
school is through a spam-filtered email address.
It is entirely true that the attacker failed his goal to knock down the
development of a global school network (GQNET), and we can proudly say it
was not the fate of the pilot project for International education to fail.
The attacker will soon receive a message from our principal stating the
school is no longer responsible for his falsified claims and "scam warnings"
and he will have to immediately stop to write any faxes, emails, or call the
school.
GQNET which was planned within the last weeks is now ready to start. There
will be three main departments the network consists of: an Internet Service
provider (GQNET.Connect) connecting all users to the GQNET , the .GQNET
domain management (GQ NIC), and the team re-deploying the internal GQHS
network to serve educational resources to the global GQNET (GQNET next-gen
school network).
GQNET.Connect is hereby officially introduced as the first educational
Internet Service Provider with multi-homed deployment which will soon go on
with the work I began, making IP addresses available for educational
purposes free of charge. And of course, GQNET.Connect is primarily based in
Michigan), therefore subject to be served by ARIN with IP addresses.
I hope we can soon find a way to get the important IP's without long
discussions caused by commercial companies trying to reserve IP addresses
for their own prosper. The Web is an exponentially growing knowledge library
and not the stock market.
For those of you who want to benefit from a more inclusive name space the
Public-Root, root of the Internet2 and our Top Level Domain sponsor,
provides, go on http://inaic.com to receive further information on how to
upgrade your desktop configurations and server hint files. Users of the
Public-Root have instant access to most GQNET resources. Further, the
Public-Root has master servers on all over the world and is therefore more
reliable than the commercial legacy root, which is mainly deployed on the
East and West coast of the US.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Mettin
Student Network Administrator
GQBC
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any
issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Christopher Mettin"
Subject: RE: Notice of Appeal to the ARIN AUP Committee with respect to Gymnasium Querfurt and removal of Christopher Mettin Re: [arin-ppml] Official Spin-Off of GQBC and GQNET from the Gymnasium Querfurt High School to enhance education
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:03:05 +0100
Size: 42679
URL:
From marty at akamai.com Fri Jan 15 13:18:28 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:18:28 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Global policy development process [was: Re:
NRPM2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented]
In-Reply-To: <20100115165600.GA98382@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20100115165600.GA98382@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:43:13AM -0800, Lee
> Howard wrote:
> > What do you think the process for global policy development SHOULD
> be?
>
> I have said before:
>
> ARIN should have a process similar to, but separate from the PDP
> for "speaking". That is, we should be able to pass a resolution
> like:
>
> "ARIN requests IANA to assign ASN's according to the following
> criteria....."
>
> It makes no sense for such a thing to be put in our PDP, as there
> is nothing for ARIN to do. It makes no sense to use the PDP process,
> because each step (e.g. staff impact) is predicated on ARIN staff
> doing something. It also makes no sense to list these things in
> the PDP. For instance, we pass it and the other 4 RIR's do not,
> it does not become IANA policy, but it is stuck in our PDP until
> we go remove it. So we publish it on the web as if it is policy,
> confusing everyone.
>
> Once all 5 RIR's make a formal request like the example above, IANA
> could say:
>
> "All 5 RIR's have requested ASN's be assigned by the following
> critera...."
>
> "As a result, the criteria above has been added to IANA policy
> ABC.123, and will be implemented by IANA on Jan 1 ABCD."
>
> So it's pretty much exactly the same structure, but we stop calling
> a request to IANA an ARIN policy, because, well, it isn't, and it
> confuses everyone.
>
Might even be simpler. Initially, I always felt that the goal of
"global policy" was not to regulate RIR's globally or for one RIR to
try and impose it's wishes upon others, but to regulate ICANN and the
actions that it performs for the addressing community. If you examine
previous policies, they typically directed ICANN to perform a service
in a specific way that had reached consensus amongst RIR's. This
policy is an attempt to regulate the action of individual RIR's. I'm
not surprised that the policy does not work for this.
>
> I can think of no more damning condemnation of the current process
> than the fact that Mr Hannigan is asking the question, someone who
> is currently on the ICANN ASO AC. If someone who is the next step
> in the process can't understand what in the heck we're doing then
> there's no way for the average Joe to keep track.
>
Others are welcome to [try and] come to different conclusions.
http://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandum-of-understanding/
Best,
-M<
http://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandum-of-understanding/
From mcr at sandelman.ca Fri Jan 15 14:54:38 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:54:38 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
Message-ID: <30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Member" == Member Services writes:
Member> Rationale:
Member> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6
Member> end-user assignment criteria, removing the dependency on
Member> IPv4 policy, while maintaining many of the basic concepts
Member> contained in the current policies. The order of the
So why does it grandfather IPv4 users, and maintain the notion that
everyone should use RFC1918/"10-net" addressing, which in IPv6 appears
to be ULA.
The clauses:
a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;
make no sense.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From mcr at sandelman.ca Fri Jan 15 14:56:52 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:56:52 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
Message-ID: <30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Member" == Member Services writes:
Member> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community
Member> Networks
Member> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for
Member> operating a Community Network only for the purpose of
Member> providing free or low-cost internet connectivity to the
Member> residents of their local service area.
Member> By documenting the service area they intend to serve,
Member> certifying that the community network staff is 100%
Member> volunteers, and otherwise meeting the definition of a
Member> Community Network.
Why does it matter how the staff is paid?
We argued a lot about this before. Did we wind up with a definition?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 15 15:03:04 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:03:04 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Member" == Member Services writes:
> Member> Rationale:
>
> Member> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6
> Member> end-user assignment criteria, removing the dependency on
> Member> IPv4 policy, while maintaining many of the basic concepts
> Member> contained in the current policies. The order of the
>
> So why does it grandfather IPv4 users, and maintain the notion that
> everyone should use RFC1918/"10-net" addressing, which in IPv6 appears
> to be ULA.
>
> The clauses:
> a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
> one of its predecessor registries, or;
>
> make no sense.
>
This is necessary to assure that those with IPv4 addresses are not prevented
from obtaining IPv6 resources. Otherwise, policy may serve as a further
barrier to IPv6 adoption by existing IPv4 users.
Owen
From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jan 15 15:57:36 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:57:36 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml]
=?iso-8859-1?q?Global_policy_development_process_=5Bw?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?as=3A_Re=3A__NRPM_2010=2E1_=AD_New_Policies_Implemented=5D?=
In-Reply-To: <247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
<247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B50D6C0.8080205@ipinc.net>
Lee Howard wrote:
>
>> Lee's statement was
>>
>> "...status of global policy PROPOSALS within the ARIN region..."
>>
>> The strong implication there is that these proposals are still proposals
>> at this time.
>>
>> But I suspect Lee's hedging a bit himself, right now. I would!!! :-)
>
> Me, hedge? Never!
> Well, hardly ever. ;-)
>
> I don't know if the process is wrong, but since people are debating about
> what it actually IS, I think it's unclear.
>
> What do you think the process for global policy development SHOULD be?
>
I think that ICANN/IANA should effectively duplicate what we have for
global policies - a mailing list with all interested parties, etc.
My $0.02 here is that IANA has managed to "get away" without having
to face anything the least bit controversial simply because there's
been a plentiful supply of IPv4 addresses.
IANA was born in an era where there were always more IPv4 addresses
so all they had to do was limit themselves to only overseeing IP
addressing policy - and since the only thing people would really
ever complain about was "not having" an IPv4 address - they could
always avoid controversy and "shut the complainers up" by handing
them a block of numbers.
The entire IPv6 thrust was an echo of this mentality. In other words,
create so effing many globally unique IPv6 addresses that NOBODY could
EVER complain again - and even the flimsiest, most ridiculously
justified excuses for untold gobs of IPv6 addresses could be ignored
with a pat on the head and "here, you want 26 bazillion IPv6 addresses,
have them, we won't even notice"
Pushing the global policy development responsibility on to the RIR's
is yet another echo of this - it's the idea that we (IANA) don't want
to get our hands dirty in the rough-and-tumble political world of
hammering out policy, so we will make the RIR's do our dirty work
while we remain in the ivory tower.
The problem here is what we are running up against is the
(understandably) strong desire of the public (represented by
all of our customers) to not shift away from IPv4. People (and it's
not just limited to customers, it includes a great many networks
who have not got any IPv6 running on them at all) have a "chicken"
mentality on this issue - they won't ABANDON IPv4 until "the other
guy" does - and "the other guy" won't abandon IPv4 until the first
guy does. Both players of this game could be FULLY DEPLOYED with
IPv6 and they would STILL be playing it!!!
Naturally, this silliness isn't doing anything to abate the hunger
for more IPv4 and so the IPv4 train is still going 150Mph straight into
the wall, here. So, we are starting to see more and more of a
demand for the RIR's to ferret out unused IPv4, or retrieve it from
networks who aren't using it, or whatever. The RIRs are stuck in
the middle here, with multiple parties all pulling at them.
I predict that we are only really seeing the beginnings of this
problem right now. Imagine 5 years after IANA-runout-of-IPv4 if
RIPE is being heavily pressed for more IPv4 by deep-pocket
corporations in their area of responsibility - and those corps.
want to know why ARIN has 70% of assigned IPv4 and RIPE only has
20%, and this is unfair, and who do we bribe to fix it?
IANA is going to be forced to be drawn in to mediate between
the RIR's because the RIR's are going to be forced by the ISP's
to fight for IPv4 scraps, and the ISP's will be doing this because
their customers with the dollars will be paying them to do it.
And - not just corporations, governments will be involved in
this as well.
What if France Telecom goes to the French government and insists
that IPv4 hoarding in a post-IPv4 world is putting France at
a competitive disadvantage on the global market? Do you think the
French government will do nothing? No, they will go to RIPE and
bitch to them, and RIPE will pass the buck and say it's not
our fault, IANA is out of addresses. Then IANA will say hey,
it's not our fault, the IPv4 address hog is ARIN, since they have
the bulk of IPv4 assignments. Then the French government will say
to IANA well you are ARIN's boss so take some of those allocations back
from them.
It does not bode well for a "hands off" mentality at IANA, is my
$0.02
Ted
From mcr at sandelman.ca Fri Jan 15 15:58:48 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:58:48 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To:
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <7517.1263589128@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong writes:
Member> Rationale:
Member> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6
Member> end-user assignment criteria, removing the dependency on
Member> IPv4 policy, while maintaining many of the basic concepts
Member> contained in the current policies. The order of the
>> So why does it grandfather IPv4 users, and maintain the notion
>> that everyone should use RFC1918/"10-net" addressing, which in
>> IPv6 appears to be ULA.
>>
>> The clauses: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users
>> assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or;
>>
>> make no sense.
Owen> This is necessary to assure that those with IPv4 addresses are
Owen> not prevented from obtaining IPv6 resources. Otherwise,
Owen> policy may serve as a further barrier to IPv6 adoption by
Owen> existing IPv4 users.
Give me a real example.
Current IPv4 policy encourages people to use RFC1918 addresses,
and prevents those people from easily getting more useful unconnected
IPv6.
Your proposal does not seem to make it any easier for an enterprise to
get a unique, unconnected /48, and therefore is preventing adopting of IPv6.
(Sorry, ULA is no better than RFC1918, which means that there is no
business case for moving to IPv6)
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From terry.l.davis at boeing.com Fri Jan 15 16:33:16 2010
From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:33:16 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
I've been a big supporter of IPv6 for a decade now since I was in the FTTH business for awhile in 2000-2001. Industry has spent an enormous amount in developing it both in network and in the end systems. And I still feel it has huge potentials to allow us to improve the Internet.
But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end of IPv4 space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely crawling forward in deployments. It's not going into greenfields, startups, etc. It is still hard to find native v6 transport. I don't know of a v6 network anywhere approaching even approaching 100,000 systems (I hope I'm wrong!) on the globe.
Yea I finally realized in doing my Master's paper a couple years back that we had really screwed up by not defining a native way to allow v4 to v6 communications. As is, you basically have to open every v4 app and re-write it to utilize v6; none of the existing transition technologies cover all the v4 to v6 communications scenarios. With this much installed v4, the cost of opening every existing app to change it to be dual-stacked is staggering.
We can argue endlessly about the risks of opening v6 address allocation policy but in the end, if we cannot get the Internet developers to utilize it, all the investment of the IT and comm vendors will be lost. One of the alternatives to IPv6 will win (geo routing, 5th octet, something-out-of-the-blue, etc) and all that investment in IPv6 and its potential enhancements to the Internet will be lost to us.
If I represented an IT or comm vendor right now, I'd be doing everything I could to get IPv6 used, including completely re-thinking or totally opening up the allocation policies and reducing the costs to near zero, just to protect my investments.
Take care
Terry
PS: Yes believe me I have heard all the arguments why we can't do that completely re-think allocations. But I've come to believe that unless we can find a way move v6 implementations rapidly forward, innovation will take the Internet in a completely new direction.
From bicknell at ufp.org Fri Jan 15 17:10:32 2010
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:10:32 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Global policy development process [was: Re: NRPM
2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented]
In-Reply-To: <4B50D6C0.8080205@ipinc.net>
References: <4B4E5188.7020701@ipinc.net>
<95A6A8D5-765C-4657-B2FD-6F2320D5EEC1@akamai.com>
<4B4F4CB3.7060507@ipinc.net>
<4B4F52FF.6010805@ipinc.net>
<247103.78548.qm@web63307.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<4B50D6C0.8080205@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <20100115221032.GB24711@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:57:36PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I think that ICANN/IANA should effectively duplicate what we have for
> global policies - a mailing list with all interested parties, etc.
Your description encompases several different aspects of how
ICANN/IANA works, but let me dive into a particularly interesting
case.
Let's say 4 of the 5 RIR's agree strongly for some reason that IP's
should only be issued on Tuesdays and Thursdays (as a straw man).
Today there is absolutely no way to enforce that on the 5th RIR.
It takes all 5 to agree to any change in the IANA policy, so if
you wrote the "stick policy" of:
"IANA will only provide IP's to RIR's who issue them on Tuesday's
and Thursday's."
You could never get it passed.
This is both the simplest, and extreme case of what we have now. Think
of a 5 clause global policy where ARIN wants to change clause 1, LANIC
clause 2, APNIC clause 3, and so on. You end up with deadlock.
There are, at a high level, two ways to address this:
1) Lower the threshold at the IANA level.
This is simple. Change it so the NRO NC can certify a global policy
once 3 or 4 of the 5 RIR's sign off on it.
2) Create a PDP at the IANA level.
This would be "top down" policy development, as opposed to the current
RIR "bottom up" policy development. Some representatives of the RIR's
(think ASO AC members, or sending part of the staff, or sending the AC)
would particiapte in a IANA PDP with some process to come up with an
idea, evaluate it, and pass it.
The second idea seems more complete and fair, but it is also much more
heavyweight. It also creates a very interesting question for each of
the RIR's about who represents them. There is also the problem that it
turns the "bottom up" process on its head, which some may feel is a good
thing, while others may not like.
> The problem here is what we are running up against is the
> (understandably) strong desire of the public (represented by
> all of our customers) to not shift away from IPv4. People (and it's
> not just limited to customers, it includes a great many networks
> who have not got any IPv6 running on them at all) have a "chicken"
> mentality on this issue - they won't ABANDON IPv4 until "the other
> guy" does - and "the other guy" won't abandon IPv4 until the first
> guy does. Both players of this game could be FULLY DEPLOYED with
> IPv6 and they would STILL be playing it!!!
While that may be a principal problem, that is not the only problem.
Even if folks were willing to move to IPv6, we still had to create a way
to reuse IPv4 through IANA (most likely). We still had to figure out
how we were going to handle 16 bit ASN exhaustion, and so on.
Now, with all that said (as it would appear I'm in full support of an
actual global policy process) there are more practical problems. ICANN
operates under MoU's with several entities. There's a lot invested in
the "bottom up" process. ICANN is not set up (staff, resources) to host
a real global PDP at this time. It's unclear what carrots and sticks
could be used to get everyone on board with such a system.
I strongly prefer evolutionary change over revolutionary change.
I also prefer when that evolutionary change is moving towards a
target in the distance. The central tennant of Ted's post is that
the world today is not the world when these things were set up. We
shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but we might want
to take notice that the baby is now a teenager.
I leave with this: I support ARIN {staff,board,AC} looking into how
the global PDP could be changed or improved, and making recommendations.
--
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: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jan 15 17:23:21 2010
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:23:21 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <4B50EAD9.2010506@ipinc.net>
Davis, Terry L wrote:
> I've been a big supporter of IPv6 for a decade now since I was in the
> FTTH business for awhile in 2000-2001. Industry has spent an
> enormous amount in developing it both in network and in the end
> systems. And I still feel it has huge potentials to allow us to
> improve the Internet.
>
> But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end of IPv4
> space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely crawling forward
> in deployments. It's not going into greenfields, startups, etc. It
> is still hard to find native v6 transport. I don't know of a v6
> network anywhere approaching even approaching 100,000 systems (I hope
> I'm wrong!) on the globe.
>
> Yea I finally realized in doing my Master's paper a couple years back
> that we had really screwed up by not defining a native way to allow
> v4 to v6 communications.
Not true. I used to run OS/2. Remember that? OS/2 Warp?
Well let me tell you something about transitions. IBM knocked
themselves out adding seamless windows support into OS/2 Warp.
They really wanted to be able to say that Warp ran Windows
better than Windows does. And they succeeded so well that
their software partners - like DeScribe - who for years ONLY
produced OS/2 versions of software, ended up going out of
business because all the Warp users out there simply used
their legacy Windows applications under OS/2 and never bothered
switching to OS/2 apps. Why would they, when Windows apps worked so
well under OS/2?
Some things call for backwards-compatibility. Some things instead
call for making it very painful for the customers so that they are
forced to spend money to upgrade - because their upgrades are for
the greater good of the community. The customers who refuse to
upgrade are then cast-aside, they are winnowed out. It may seem
unfair - but to this day there's still people out there who have
refused to give up their Commodore 64's and buy PCs. That is
just a fact of life with change. Some people refuse to accept it
and will just continue on with what they know - until they are
among a small minority, and then they die of old age.
Look at the HDTV business. We all know the US Government gave everyone
free converter boxes to get their crappy old TV sets to work
on HD. But, the US Government DID NOT pay for anyone to get a
brand new HDTV UHF antenna, even though millions of people were
running set-top rabbit ears, or VHF antennas on the top of their
roofs. And those millions of people were basically told you
go spend $35 on a new Channel Master UHF antenna and find some
handyman to climb around on the top of your roof and install it.
We aren't going to make the signal backwards compatible to your old VHF
antenna because we know damn well you wouldn't lift a finger to replace
your antenna.
We know that customers aren't going to spend money unless they
have to. Sometimes you just gotta be a hard-ass and don't give
them a choice to NOT spend the money. This is one of those times.
> As is, you basically have to open every v4
> app and re-write it to utilize v6;
correct
> none of the existing transition
> technologies cover all the v4 to v6 communications scenarios. With
> this much installed v4, the cost of opening every existing app to
> change it to be dual-stacked is staggering.
>
That doesn't matter. All of those apps your talking about are
going to be obsolete in 20 years and replaced by new versions so
that staggering cost is going to be spent either way.
> We can argue endlessly about the risks of opening v6 address
> allocation policy but in the end, if we cannot get the Internet
> developers to utilize it, all the investment of the IT and comm
> vendors will be lost. One of the alternatives to IPv6 will win (geo
> routing, 5th octet, something-out-of-the-blue, etc) and all that
> investment in IPv6 and its potential enhancements to the Internet
> will be lost to us.
>
If you really think that an alternative to IPv6 has a chance then
where are all those startup software companies writing to one of
those alternative standards? Why isn't Microsoft pushing one of
those?
out-of-the-blue laboratory curiosities implemented on Linux just
aren't going to make any difference. The future is IPv6 and
all the big players are betting on it, and the economic
situation in the world right now is not such that anyone is
going to put any real money into an alternative.
The question isn't whether it's going to be IPv6 vs some kludgy
IPv4 alternative. The question is going to be how far can we
stretch the IPv4 that we have.
It's been observed before on this list that most large networks
have very "loose" allocations. For example the standard customer
static IPv4 allocation is a /29 and a /30 on a point-to-point link to
that customer. In reality it could be a /30 and unnumbered on the
point-to-point link since it's almost a given that all of
the customers getting /29's are only using a single number.
And if you want to force the end user to use a /32 you can
run PPP right to their router.
I think most established ISP's are aware of this and figure they can
self-generate IPv4 for 3-5 years post-runout. Their feeling is
why should I kill myself trying to kick my peers asses
to get them running IPv6 natively, when I can do nothing and allow
all the deep-pocket startup ISP's out there who are flush with
VC funding and have no IPv4 stored up, to beat my peers for me. Then
once my peers are IPv6 native, I'll just switch it on and be gold.
It kind of sucks for the new guy on the block, but that is also
a normal characteristic of established markets.
Ted
From sbarber at theplanet.com Fri Jan 15 18:44:22 2010
From: sbarber at theplanet.com (Barber, Stan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:44:22 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823521@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
Terry, NTT has a large v6 deployment to the home in Japan called Hakari-TV. This is a walled-garden deployment for VOD (and other related features) to the home.
Cody Christman (from NTT America) discussed this at the TXv6TF conference in November. In his talk, he presented a chart indicating that they had 11 million subscribers on this deployment of IPv6. See http://www.txv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Texas-IPv6TF-November-2009-Christman.pdf for the presentation.
Stan Barber, Director
TXv6TF
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Davis, Terry L
Sent: Fri 1/15/2010 3:33 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
I've been a big supporter of IPv6 for a decade now since I was in the FTTH business for awhile in 2000-2001. Industry has spent an enormous amount in developing it both in network and in the end systems. And I still feel it has huge potentials to allow us to improve the Internet.
But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end of IPv4 space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely crawling forward in deployments. It's not going into greenfields, startups, etc. It is still hard to find native v6 transport. I don't know of a v6 network anywhere approaching even approaching 100,000 systems (I hope I'm wrong!) on the globe.
Yea I finally realized in doing my Master's paper a couple years back that we had really screwed up by not defining a native way to allow v4 to v6 communications. As is, you basically have to open every v4 app and re-write it to utilize v6; none of the existing transition technologies cover all the v4 to v6 communications scenarios. With this much installed v4, the cost of opening every existing app to change it to be dual-stacked is staggering.
We can argue endlessly about the risks of opening v6 address allocation policy but in the end, if we cannot get the Internet developers to utilize it, all the investment of the IT and comm vendors will be lost. One of the alternatives to IPv6 will win (geo routing, 5th octet, something-out-of-the-blue, etc) and all that investment in IPv6 and its potential enhancements to the Internet will be lost to us.
If I represented an IT or comm vendor right now, I'd be doing everything I could to get IPv6 used, including completely re-thinking or totally opening up the allocation policies and reducing the costs to near zero, just to protect my investments.
Take care
Terry
PS: Yes believe me I have heard all the arguments why we can't do that completely re-think allocations. But I've come to believe that unless we can find a way move v6 implementations rapidly forward, innovation will take the Internet in a completely new direction.
_______________________________________________
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 marty at akamai.com Fri Jan 15 20:56:00 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:56:00 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Global policy development process [was: Re:
NRPM2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented]
In-Reply-To: <20100115221032.GB24711@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
References: <20100115221032.GB24711@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <8495246E-7292-43E0-89AE-8BEA9E52779F@akamai.com>
On Jan 15, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:57:36PM -0800, Ted
> Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > I think that ICANN/IANA should effectively duplicate what we have
> for
> > global policies - a mailing list with all interested parties, etc.
>
>
Ted:
Well, it's called ARIN PPML and it has worked for several years.
[ clip ]
> I leave with this: I support ARIN {staff,board,AC} looking into how
> the global PDP could be changed or improved, and making
> recommendations.
>
>
Leo:
I strongly support the AC coming up with regional policy that is
regional. :)
From farmer at umn.edu Sat Jan 16 00:26:32 2010
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:26:32 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6
assignment criteria
In-Reply-To: <30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <4B514E08.30209@umn.edu>
Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Member" == Member Services writes:
> Member> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community
> Member> Networks
>
> Member> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for
> Member> operating a Community Network only for the purpose of
> Member> providing free or low-cost internet connectivity to the
> Member> residents of their local service area.
>
> Member> By documenting the service area they intend to serve,
> Member> certifying that the community network staff is 100%
> Member> volunteers, and otherwise meeting the definition of a
> Member> Community Network.
>
> Why does it matter how the staff is paid?
> We argued a lot about this before. Did we wind up with a definition?
>
2008-3 Community Networks was just added to the NRPM, two days ago, and
that requirement is in the definition.
2.11. Community Network
A community network is any network organized and operated by a volunteer
group operating as or under the fiscal support of a nonprofit
organization or university for the purpose of providing free or low-cost
connectivity to the residents of their local service area. To be treated
as a community network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to
ARIN that the community network staff is 100% volunteers.
I don't necessarily disagree with your comment, but that was the
consensus we came up with and I really really don't want to revisit that
for a policy that just got put into the NRPM two days ago.
I was only trying to remove some of the duplication of text in how it
was implemented, but making it another type of initial assignment criteria.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 16 02:01:56 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:01:56 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <7517.1263589128@marajade.sandelman.ca>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<7517.1263589128@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <05F0230C-CB09-47FE-BACC-14E408ABF7FD@delong.com>
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong writes:
> Member> Rationale:
>
> Member> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6
> Member> end-user assignment criteria, removing the dependency on
> Member> IPv4 policy, while maintaining many of the basic concepts
> Member> contained in the current policies. The order of the
>
>>> So why does it grandfather IPv4 users, and maintain the notion
>>> that everyone should use RFC1918/"10-net" addressing, which in
>>> IPv6 appears to be ULA.
>>>
>>> The clauses: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users
>>> assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or;
>>>
>>> make no sense.
>
> Owen> This is necessary to assure that those with IPv4 addresses are
> Owen> not prevented from obtaining IPv6 resources. Otherwise,
> Owen> policy may serve as a further barrier to IPv6 adoption by
> Owen> existing IPv4 users.
>
> Give me a real example.
>
> Current IPv4 policy encourages people to use RFC1918 addresses,
> and prevents those people from easily getting more useful unconnected
> IPv6.
>
If you have ROUTABLE (believe it or not, lots of people like being
connected to the internet instead of connected to something
sort of connected to the internet) IPv4 addresses, and, you want
to get routable IPv6 addresses, that is supported in current
policy and preserved in this rewrite.
> Your proposal does not seem to make it any easier for an enterprise to
> get a unique, unconnected /48, and therefore is preventing adopting of IPv6.
> (Sorry, ULA is no better than RFC1918, which means that there is no
> business case for moving to IPv6)
>
Sure it does... An unconnected /48 is a /48 of routable space that you
don't route on the internet. Additionally, ULA is quite a bit better than
RFC-1918 in that it grants you at least statistical uniqueness, and, if you
choose to participate in the SIXXS ULA registry (which I think is a bad
idea, but, I can't deny it exists, so, for people that think it's a good idea,
there you go), you can get registry-like uniqueness in ULA.
Finally, it is not the job of policy to create or expand the business
case for IPv6. It is the job of policy to avoid hinderance to legitimate
usage of IPv6 to the extent possible without otherwise damaging
the stability of the internet. Making the business case is up to the
employees of a given business and other efforts such as some
of ARIN's outreach activities.
Owen
From notdoctorx at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 16 09:38:05 2010
From: notdoctorx at yahoo.ca (Not Doctor X)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:38:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Appology from the Gymnasium Querfurt regarding
Christopher Mettin
Message-ID: <544803.25134.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
This is Not Doctor X posting to the ARIN-PPML. This is Joe Baptista posting under another email address because my regular email address has been blocked or censored from posting to the ARIN-PPML list. I am however receiving email from the list. I'm sure this is an oversight which will be corrected soon. I believe that Christopher Mettin is also being blocked from posting.
In any case I am pleased to provide notice to the community that I received a letter from Dr. Hans Daumer the principle of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School. Dr. Daumer has apologized to me and I accept Dr. Daumer's apology. A copy of the apology is indexed at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/7It7ej
It is clear from a reading of this correspondence from Dr. Daumer that Christopher Mettin has deceived and mislead the membership. Mr. Mettin has no authority to represent the school nor did he ever have that authority. The claims made by Mettin here connecting his school the Gymnasium Querfurt to any of his projects for higher education are false. We can safely dismiss Mr. Mettin's claims as false bogus statements made in support of a scam to get IP numbers.
I will now make my submissions to the ARIN AUP Committee under separate cover.
kindest regards
joe baptista
__________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jan 16 10:55:30 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:55:30 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP
Committee review
Message-ID:
Joe -
You are correct; your email postings to PPML are being held pending review
by the AUP Committee because of complaints of violation.
Please do not circumvent this by posting under alternative fictitious names,
as this is also specifically prohibited by the AUP.
You are welcome to send any materials for the AUP Committee to consider
to myself > or to Scott Bradner > (who
is the chair of the 2010 AUP Committee).
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
From: Not Doctor X >
Date: January 16, 2010 9:38:05 AM EST
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Appology from the Gymnasium Querfurt regarding Christopher Mettin
This is Not Doctor X posting to the ARIN-PPML. This is Joe Baptista posting under another email address because my regular email address has been blocked or censored from posting to the ARIN-PPML list. I am however receiving email from the list. I'm sure this is an oversight which will be corrected soon. I believe that Christopher Mettin is also being blocked from posting.
In any case I am pleased to provide notice to the community that I received a letter from Dr. Hans Daumer the principle of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School. Dr. Daumer has apologized to me and I accept Dr. Daumer's apology. A copy of the apology is indexed at the following URL:
http://bit.ly/7It7ej
It is clear from a reading of this correspondence from Dr. Daumer that Christopher Mettin has deceived and mislead the membership. Mr. Mettin has no authority to represent the school nor did he ever have that authority. The claims made by Mettin here connecting his school the Gymnasium Querfurt to any of his projects for higher education are false. We can safely dismiss Mr. Mettin's claims as false bogus statements made in support of a scam to get IP numbers.
I will now make my submissions to the ARIN AUP Committee under separate cover.
kindest regards
joe baptista
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From notdoctorx at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 16 12:15:09 2010
From: notdoctorx at yahoo.ca (Not Doctor X)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP
Committee review
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <921874.2184.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Dear Mr. Curran:
Thank you for the clarification. However I have received no notice from the AUP committee and it is my understanding my posting privileges can only be suspended once notice is made.
I would also like an opportunity to respond to the complaint and would request that any complaints be provided to me.
Next I did not post using a fictitious name. I made very clear I was the one posting. There was no attempt to defraud or deceive nor have I in any way violated the AUP.
You have also suspended my posting privileges without notice and this suspension causes me the injured party in this further damage. This time by ARIN itself.
regards
joe baptista
________________________________
From: John Curran
To: Joe Baptista ; Not Doctor X
Cc: arin ppml
Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 10:55:30 AM
Subject: Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP Committee review
Joe -
You are correct; your email postings to PPML are being held pending review
by the AUP Committee because of complaints of violation.
Please do not circumvent this by posting under alternative fictitious names,
as this is also specifically prohibited by the AUP.
You are welcome to send any materials for the AUP Committee to consider
to myself or to Scott Bradner (who
is the chair of the 2010 AUP Committee).
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
From: Not Doctor X
>
>Date: January 16, 2010 9:38:05 AM EST
>
>To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>
>Subject: [arin-ppml] Appology from the Gymnasium Querfurt regarding Christopher Mettin
>
>
>This is Not Doctor X posting to the ARIN-PPML. This is Joe Baptista posting under another email address because my regular email address has been blocked or censored from posting to the ARIN-PPML list. I am however receiving email from the list. I'm sure this is an oversight which will be corrected soon. I believe that Christopher Mettin is also being blocked from posting.
>
>In any case I am pleased to provide notice to the community that I received a letter from Dr. Hans Daumer the principle of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School. Dr. Daumer has apologized to me and I accept Dr. Daumer's apology. A copy of the apology is indexed at the following URL:
>
>http://bit.ly/7It7ej
>
>It is clear from a reading of this correspondence from Dr. Daumer that Christopher Mettin has deceived and mislead the membership. Mr. Mettin has no authority to represent the school nor did he ever have that authority. The claims made by Mettin here connecting his school the Gymnasium Querfurt to any of his projects for higher education are false. We can safely dismiss Mr. Mettin's claims as false bogus statements made in support of a scam to get IP numbers.
>
>I will now make my submissions to the ARIN AUP Committee under separate cover.
>
>kindest regards
>joe baptista
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jan 16 12:43:26 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:43:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP
Committee review
In-Reply-To: <921874.2184.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References:
<921874.2184.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5F4D6170-5773-4A35-A9E8-1EC887050042@arin.net>
Joe -
First, you are mistaken, in that actions enforcing the AUP may be taken
at any time and no notice is required before or after. At all times, ARIN
reserves the right to maintain order and decorum on the mailing lists it
manages, and your messages were being held awaiting review of the
complaints.
Second, the use of "Not Doctor X" is likely to be considered a fictitious
name by many, but I'll leave that to the AUP committee to judge.
You've been provided contact information for AUP Committee; free free
to contact them, but in any case immediately cease posting to ARIN PPML
(under any and all aliases) until informed otherwise.
Thank you,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Not Doctor X wrote:
Dear Mr. Curran:
Thank you for the clarification. However I have received no notice from the AUP committee and it is my understanding my posting privileges can only be suspended once notice is made.
I would also like an opportunity to respond to the complaint and would request that any complaints be provided to me.
Next I did not post using a fictitious name. I made very clear I was the one posting. There was no attempt to defraud or deceive nor have I in any way violated the AUP.
You have also suspended my posting privileges without notice and this suspension causes me the injured party in this further damage. This time by ARIN itself.
regards
joe baptista
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From matthew at matthew.at Sat Jan 16 14:38:30 2010
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:38:30 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP
Committee review
In-Reply-To: <5F4D6170-5773-4A35-A9E8-1EC887050042@arin.net>
References: <921874.2184.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
<5F4D6170-5773-4A35-A9E8-1EC887050042@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4B5215B6.3050404@matthew.at>
This thread is as bad as the thread that's being blocked. Can't we have
the AUP folks block the thread *and* discussion about the thread?
And yes, starting with this posting would be fine.
Matthew Kaufman
From mcr at sandelman.ca Sat Jan 16 19:28:52 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:28:52 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Terry" == Terry L Davis writes:
Terry> But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end
Terry> of IPv4 space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely
Terry> crawling forward in deployments. It's not going into
Terry> greenfields, startups, etc.
If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. If the techies do not have to
ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
(ULA buys you nothing compared to net-10)
Terry> If I represented an IT or comm vendor right now, I'd be doing
Terry> everything I could to get IPv6 used, including completely
Terry> re-thinking or totally opening up the allocation policies and
Terry> reducing the costs to near zero, just to protect my
Terry> investments.
+1
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From mcr at sandelman.ca Sat Jan 16 19:31:46 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:31:46 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823521@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823521@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
Message-ID: <32402.1263688306@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Barber writes:
Stan> Terry, NTT has a large v6 deployment to the home in Japan
Stan> called Hakari-TV. This is a walled-garden deployment for VOD
Stan> (and other related features) to the home.
By "walled garden", do you mean that the address space is not
globally routed?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From mcr at sandelman.ca Sat Jan 16 19:44:19 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:44:19 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B514E08.30209@umn.edu>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca> <4B514E08.30209@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <776.1263689059@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes:
Member> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community
Member> Networks Organizations may justify an initial assignment for
Member> operating a Community Network only for the purpose of
Member> providing free or low-cost internet connectivity to the
Member> residents of their local service area. By documenting the
Member> service area they intend to serve, certifying that the
Member> community network staff is 100% volunteers, and otherwise
Member> meeting the definition of a Community Network.
>> Why does it matter how the staff is paid? We argued a lot about
>> this before. Did we wind up with a definition?
David> 2008-3 Community Networks was just added to the NRPM, two
David> days ago, and that requirement is in the definition.
Good, I wasn't sure if it happened.
David> 2.11. Community Network
David> A community network is any network organized and operated by
David> a volunteer group operating as or under the fiscal support of
David> a nonprofit organization or university for the purpose of
David> providing free or low-cost connectivity to the residents of
David> their local service area. To be treated as a community
David> network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to ARIN
David> that the community network staff is 100% volunteers.
If the definition is already there, then you do not need to repeat it.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 16 19:55:07 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:55:07 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Terry" == Terry L Davis writes:
> Terry> But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end
> Terry> of IPv4 space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely
> Terry> crawling forward in deployments. It's not going into
> Terry> greenfields, startups, etc.
>
> If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
> the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. If the techies do not have to
> ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
> (ULA buys you nothing compared to net-10)
>
1. ULA buys you a great deal more than RFC-1918. ULA is statistically,
if not globally unique.
2. You can get IPv6 space from many sources other than writing a check
to ARIN. For example, you can get a /48 with tunneled service from
several tunnel brokers.
3. You can get native IPv6 service with address space from several ISPs.
If you have IPv4 space from ARIN, then, there's a one-time check to ARIN
to get IPv6 space. After that, you probably aren't paying any more going
forward for IPv4+IPv6 than you were already paying for IPv4.
Owen
From mcr at sandelman.ca Sat Jan 16 20:27:36 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:27:36 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <4320.1263691656@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong writes:
Terry> But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end
Terry> of IPv4 space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely
Terry> crawling forward in deployments. It's not going into
Terry> greenfields, startups, etc.
>> If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
>> the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. If the techies do not have to
>> ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
>> (ULA buys you nothing compared to net-10)
Owen> 1. ULA buys you a great deal more than RFC-1918. ULA is
Owen> statistically,
Owen> if not globally unique.
Tell me what it gets me.
Tell me how, when two organizations merge, ULA saves them anything?
Owen> 2. You can get IPv6 space from many sources other than
Owen> writing a check to ARIN. For example, you can get a /48 with
Owen> tunneled service from several tunnel brokers.
Yes, that's what I currently advise people who need some address
space. The tunnel brockers also give me reverse DNS and sometimes whois.
Is that really what ARIN wants?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From farmer at umn.edu Sat Jan 16 21:13:55 2010
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:13:55 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <776.1263689059@marajade.sandelman.ca>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<4B514E08.30209@umn.edu> <776.1263689059@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <4B527263.7090406@umn.edu>
Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes:
> Member> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community
> Member> Networks Organizations may justify an initial assignment for
> Member> operating a Community Network only for the purpose of
> Member> providing free or low-cost internet connectivity to the
> Member> residents of their local service area. By documenting the
> Member> service area they intend to serve, certifying that the
> Member> community network staff is 100% volunteers, and otherwise
> Member> meeting the definition of a Community Network.
>
> >> Why does it matter how the staff is paid? We argued a lot about
> >> this before. Did we wind up with a definition?
>
> David> 2008-3 Community Networks was just added to the NRPM, two
> David> days ago, and that requirement is in the definition.
>
> Good, I wasn't sure if it happened.
>
> David> 2.11. Community Network
>
> David> A community network is any network organized and operated by
> David> a volunteer group operating as or under the fiscal support of
> David> a nonprofit organization or university for the purpose of
> David> providing free or low-cost connectivity to the residents of
> David> their local service area. To be treated as a community
> David> network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to ARIN
> David> that the community network staff is 100% volunteers.
>
> If the definition is already there, then you do not need to repeat it.
Yes, I had quickly added that part to the proposal after realizing
2008-3 had finally been added to the NRPM and that part didn't go
through the same amount of refinement as the rest of the proposal. I am
thinking about replacing that part with the following text.
----
6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks
Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a
Community Network only for the purpose of providing free or low-cost
Internet connectivity to the residents of their local service area.
By documenting the service area they intend to serve and certifying that
the network meets all the requirements of the definition of a Community
Network from section 2.11.
----
Is that better?
Should the current section 6.10 Micro Allocation be integrated into this
section as separate criteria? Micro Allocation have little technical
difference from assignments. Or, should we just leave them as a
separate section.
This one is on a bit of a fast-track to get it ready for the up coming
Toronto meeting.
Thanks
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 16 21:26:59 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:26:59 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B527263.7090406@umn.edu>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<4B514E08.30209@umn.edu> <776.1263689059@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<4B527263.7090406@umn.edu>
Message-ID:
How about this:
6.5.8.4 Initial Assignments to Community Networks
Organizations may receive an initial assignment for operating a Community Network after documenting that they meet the criteria specified in section 2.11.
Owen
On Jan 16, 2010, at 6:13 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes:
>> Member> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community
>> Member> Networks Organizations may justify an initial assignment for
>> Member> operating a Community Network only for the purpose of
>> Member> providing free or low-cost internet connectivity to the
>> Member> residents of their local service area. By documenting the
>> Member> service area they intend to serve, certifying that the
>> Member> community network staff is 100% volunteers, and otherwise
>> Member> meeting the definition of a Community Network.
>> >> Why does it matter how the staff is paid? We argued a lot about
>> >> this before. Did we wind up with a definition?
>> David> 2008-3 Community Networks was just added to the NRPM, two
>> David> days ago, and that requirement is in the definition.
>> Good, I wasn't sure if it happened.
>> David> 2.11. Community Network
>> David> A community network is any network organized and operated by
>> David> a volunteer group operating as or under the fiscal support of
>> David> a nonprofit organization or university for the purpose of
>> David> providing free or low-cost connectivity to the residents of
>> David> their local service area. To be treated as a community
>> David> network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to ARIN
>> David> that the community network staff is 100% volunteers.
>> If the definition is already there, then you do not need to repeat it.
>
> Yes, I had quickly added that part to the proposal after realizing 2008-3 had finally been added to the NRPM and that part didn't go through the same amount of refinement as the rest of the proposal. I am thinking about replacing that part with the following text.
>
> ----
> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks
>
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a Community Network only for the purpose of providing free or low-cost Internet connectivity to the residents of their local service area.
>
> By documenting the service area they intend to serve and certifying that the network meets all the requirements of the definition of a Community Network from section 2.11.
> ----
>
> Is that better?
>
> Should the current section 6.10 Micro Allocation be integrated into this section as separate criteria? Micro Allocation have little technical difference from assignments. Or, should we just leave them as a separate section.
>
> This one is on a bit of a fast-track to get it ready for the up coming Toronto meeting.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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 notdoctorx at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 17 09:24:05 2010
From: notdoctorx at yahoo.ca (Not Doctor X)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:24:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP
Committee review
In-Reply-To: <5F4D6170-5773-4A35-A9E8-1EC887050042@arin.net>
References:
<921874.2184.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
<5F4D6170-5773-4A35-A9E8-1EC887050042@arin.net>
Message-ID: <788174.73831.qm@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
John:
Thank you for your clarification concerning ARIN policy at the AUP. As a judicial or administrative process it merits the classification status of "star chamber" which see reference: http://bit.ly/7j7UZu
As you have confirmed John the AUP Committee may act in secret "and no notice is required before or after". This is unacceptable with respect to the allegations against me made here by you. Being that I have in some way caused the disruption of civil order and decorum on the mailing lists.
Kindly ask the star chamber to detail what it is I have done that violated the AUP and I will apologist and promise never to do it again. But please don't keep my offense a secret. I demand the decision of the AUP concerning me be made public for all to see and admire and to assist me in making a proper signed apology. In other words I put you to the strict proof thereof.
I also remind the star committee that it is I who has been libeled, slandered and defamed on an ARIN mailing list. And now I have been silenced? I think thats a bad omen and the action taken may be considered defamatory. I ask that the committee kindly consider that they may be contributing to further defamation of my character by their current actions.
Furthermore I apologize for posting to the list when it is clear now to me that I should not have posted. I hold John Curran and the AUP Committee responsible for my actions in this. It is impossible to follow rules or rulings when they are kept secret from the person whom the ruling applies to. This has always been a problem with star chambers and secrecy.
kindest regards
joe baptista
________________________________
From: John Curran
To: Not Doctor X ; Joe Baptista
Cc: arin ppml
Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 12:43:26 PM
Subject: Re: Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP Committee review
Joe -
First, you are mistaken, in that actions enforcing the AUP may be taken
at any time and no notice is required before or after. At all times, ARIN
reserves the right to maintain order and decorum on the mailing lists it
manages, and your messages were being held awaiting review of the
complaints.
Second, the use of "Not Doctor X" is likely to be considered a fictitious
name by many, but I'll leave that to the AUP committee to judge.
You've been provided contact information for AUP Committee; free free
to contact them, but in any case immediately cease posting to ARIN PPML
(under any and all aliases) until informed otherwise.
Thank you,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Not Doctor X wrote:
Dear Mr. Curran:
>
>Thank you for the clarification. However I have received no notice from the AUP committee and it is my understanding my posting privileges can only be suspended once notice is made.
>
>I would also like an opportunity to respond to the complaint and would request that any complaints be provided to me.
>
>Next I did not post using a fictitious name. I made very clear I was the one posting. There was no attempt to defraud or deceive nor have I in any way violated the AUP.
>
>You have also suspended my posting privileges without notice and this suspension causes me the injured party in this further damage. This time by ARIN itself.
>
>regards
>joe baptista
>
__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From jcurran at arin.net Sun Jan 17 09:56:02 2010
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:56:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Mail postings from Joe Baptista held pending AUP
Committee review
In-Reply-To: <788174.73831.qm@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References:
<921874.2184.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
<5F4D6170-5773-4A35-A9E8-1EC887050042@arin.net>
<788174.73831.qm@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Not Doctor X wrote:
John:
Thank you for your clarification concerning ARIN policy at the AUP. As a judicial or administrative process it merits the classification status of "star chamber" which see reference: http://bit.ly/7j7UZu
As you have confirmed John the AUP Committee may act in secret "and no notice is required before or after". This is unacceptable with respect to the allegations against me made here by you. Being that I have in some way caused the disruption of civil order and decorum on the mailing lists.
Kindly ask the star chamber to detail what it is I have done that violated the AUP and I will apologist and promise never to do it again. But please don't keep my offense a secret. I demand the decision of the AUP concerning me be made public for all to see and admire and to assist me in making a proper signed apology. In other words I put you to the strict proof thereof.
I also remind the star committee that it is I who has been libeled, slandered and defamed on an ARIN mailing list. And now I have been silenced? I think thats a bad omen and the action taken may be considered defamatory. I ask that the committee kindly consider that they may be contributing to further defamation of my character by their current actions.
Furthermore I apologize for posting to the list when it is clear now to me that I should not have posted. I hold John Curran and the AUP Committee responsible for my actions in this. It is impossible to follow rules or rulings when they are kept secret from the person whom the ruling applies to. This has always been a problem with star chambers and secrecy.
kindest regards
joe baptista
Joe -
The AUP Committee performs the single focused administrative role of
providing oversight to the staff process of AUP administration and is made
up of both representatives of two elected bodies (Board of Trustees & ARIN
Advisory Council) as well as one member appointed at large. It is not a
judicial body in any sense; such remain available to you (and ARIN) if
they prove necessary.
On January 9th, you were informed specifically that your messages regarding
Chris Mettin/GQHS were off-topic for the PPML list (see attached). Since
that warning, you have repeatedly posted additional emails on that topic and
unrelated to the Internet number resource policy. The ARIN Mailing Lists
serve as a forum for particular subject matter and must remain focused on
those topics to be useful to the community. The lists do not serve as your
personal forum; please take your posts not directly related to number resource
policy elsewhere. As noted, if you wish to correspond with the committee,
you may contact the Chair or send email to the "aupabuse at arin.net" email
address which will also reach them.
Thank you,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
===
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Curran >
Date: January 9, 2010 9:12:49 PM EST
To: Joe Baptista >
Cc: arin ppml >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Christopher Mettin
On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:
John:
First a belated thank you for the update from the AUP committee on Christopher Mettin the representative of the Gymnasium Querfurt High School.
I have recently sent a formal notice to Christopher's principle Dr. Daumer demanding an apology for Christopher's defamatory comments against myself in which I requested a further apology be made by the school to the members here.
FYI the letter in PDF can be seen at the following URL
http://bit.ly/6q0r2g
kindest regards
joe baptista
Joe -
To the extent that you consider it your duty to keep the community informed in this matter, please consider that duty fully discharged at this point.
It would be best if all would refrain from further email on this topic on the PPML list, as it is not relevant to the formation of public number resource policy.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
= _______________________________________________
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 bill at herrin.us Sun Jan 17 10:46:03 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:46:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To:
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> ?If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
>> the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. ?If the techies do not have to
>> ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
No joke on that. Three years ago my boss turned me down on deploying
IPv6 in my spare time at work on the grounds that there were wiser
ways to spend the $1250.
>> ?(ULA buys you nothing compared to net-10)
> 1. ? ? ?ULA buys you a great deal more than RFC-1918. ?ULA is statistically,
> ? ? ? ?if not globally unique.
Not exactly... The analysis in RFC 4193 (ULA addressing) section 3.2.3
is technically correct but it may be an example of "lies, damn lies
and statistics."
First, though de-emphasized in the RFC, the probability of collision
has a phenomenal growth rate: two orders of magnitude for ever one
order of magnitude increase in the number of ULA IDs. So you close in
on a 100% chance of collision not at 2^40 IDs as you'd expect but at
merely 2^20.
Second, consider the way folks tend to behave. Each private network
built for whatever purpose in a particular company will consume one or
several ULA IDs. That's each private network in each project at each
branch of a company. A large company may well have consumed hundreds
if not thousands of ULA IDs introducing another four to six orders of
magnitude increase in the probability of collision when two such
companies want to connect.
Practically speaking, we should start to see anecdotes about ULA
collisions as folks try to connect 100 to 1000 organizations together,
still a usefully large number but far fewer than RFC 4193 implies.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From bill at herrin.us Sun Jan 17 11:40:13 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:40:13 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Member Services wrote:
> Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
As I read it, these are the main things accomplished by proposal 107:
1. Multihomed organizations now qualify for an ARIN /48 based solely
on the fact that they're multihomed. This corrects the serious
technical flaw in current policy where no IPv6 equivalent of NRPM
4.2.3.6 is usable in IPv6 for any practical definition of "usable."
2. Provides explicit address assignments for non-connected networks,
supplementing ULA.
3. Removes the hard dependency on IPv4 policy for determining
qualification for IPv6 end-user assignments by spelling out all the
other reasonable criteria for qualification.
What did I miss?
I offer the following comments:
1. Proposal 106 is superior to and incompatible with proposal 107. I
strongly prefer proposal 106.
2. I'm concerned about assignments to non-connected networks where
qualification is based on the promise that they won't ever connect to
the Internet and therefore won't introduce a route into the IPv6
backbone. If the promise is meant to be kept, I don't think such
assignments should be made from address blocks within 2000::/3.
2000::/3 is intended to be the block used on the public Internet.
Can ARIN readily acquire an address block outside of 2000::/3 for
these assignments? Or perhaps assert a non-binding registry over a
32-bit section of ULA space?
Let me be clear: I do not object to the use of 2000::/3 space for
non-connected networks. I'm only concerned about the non-connectedness
of a network qualifying its registrant for 2000::/3 addresses for
which it would not otherwise qualify. I worry that will either lead to
an end-run around the qualifications analysis for routed space or
result in such a stringent review and high cost as to render the
process useless for the non-connected networks which need addresses.
Either result is a failure.
I agree in principle with a registry for non-connected networks. ULA's
statistical collision avoidance is not as effective as it appears.
3. I observe that advancing proposal 107 in parallel with 106 would
avoid the potentially Faustian bargain of only correcting current IPv6
policy's obvious failings if folks also accept innovations like pools
of fixed-netmask assignments.
If the proposed 6.5.8.3 can be corrected and only if proposal 106
fails to achieve consensus, I will support proposal 107.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From farmer at umn.edu Sun Jan 17 13:04:14 2010
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:04:14 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6
assignment criteria
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Member Services wrote:
>> Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
>
> As I read it, these are the main things accomplished by proposal 107:
>
> 1. Multihomed organizations now qualify for an ARIN /48 based solely
> on the fact that they're multihomed. This corrects the serious
> technical flaw in current policy where no IPv6 equivalent of NRPM
> 4.2.3.6 is usable in IPv6 for any practical definition of "usable."
>
> 2. Provides explicit address assignments for non-connected networks,
> supplementing ULA.
>
> 3. Removes the hard dependency on IPv4 policy for determining
> qualification for IPv6 end-user assignments by spelling out all the
> other reasonable criteria for qualification.
>
> What did I miss?
Those are what I intended. I would like to find a replacement for
HD-Ratios too. But I haven't figured that out just yet and I'm not sure
I'll be able to figure that our in time to make Toronto, besides very
large proposal that change many different part of policy don't have a
very good track record.
> I offer the following comments:
>
> 1. Proposal 106 is superior to and incompatible with proposal 107. I
> strongly prefer proposal 106.
In some ways I agree with you and in other ways I disagree, but I have
yet to decide if I prefer the direction of 106 to 107. But, I am by no
means opposed to 106, I just think we need to consider all the options
and pick the best one after considering all the implications.
> 2. I'm concerned about assignments to non-connected networks where
> qualification is based on the promise that they won't ever connect to
> the Internet and therefore won't introduce a route into the IPv6
> backbone. If the promise is meant to be kept, I don't think such
> assignments should be made from address blocks within 2000::/3.
> 2000::/3 is intended to be the block used on the public Internet.
>
> Can ARIN readily acquire an address block outside of 2000::/3 for
> these assignments? Or perhaps assert a non-binding registry over a
> 32-bit section of ULA space?
>
> Let me be clear: I do not object to the use of 2000::/3 space for
> non-connected networks. I'm only concerned about the non-connectedness
> of a network qualifying its registrant for 2000::/3 addresses for
> which it would not otherwise qualify. I worry that will either lead to
> an end-run around the qualifications analysis for routed space or
> result in such a stringent review and high cost as to render the
> process useless for the non-connected networks which need addresses.
> Either result is a failure.
>
> I agree in principle with a registry for non-connected networks. ULA's
> statistical collision avoidance is not as effective as it appears.
I understand the concern, I share it, I am open to suggestions. But, I
believe that not providing resources to non-connected networks is a
bigger risk for the successful transition to IPv6 than the risk of an
end-run that this creates.
How I was attempting to deal with this was to make the criteria for
6.5.8.2.c to be comparable, if not easier, to 6.5.8.3.b. If it is about
the same amount of work or slightly easier to justify a single connected
/48 as a non-connected /48 then why would you try to game the system?
Suggestion or thoughts here would be greatly appreciated.
> 3. I observe that advancing proposal 107 in parallel with 106 would
> avoid the potentially Faustian bargain of only correcting current IPv6
> policy's obvious failings if folks also accept innovations like pools
> of fixed-netmask assignments.
This is exactly why I proposed this, I defiantly perceive the need for
and support within the community for some major changes to IPv6 policy.
My intent is for 106, 107 and a modified version of 101 to advance to
Draft Policy to be discussed for adoption at Toronto. I'm working with
Chris the original author of 101, Cathy and Bill as the AC shepherds for
that proposal to get some new text out for allocation, in the spirit of
107. But, what actually happens is up to the whole AC.
The AC really needs to here from the community on these issues so please
let us know is you support any of these proposals, and what you want the
AC to prepare for consideration at Toronto, etc...
> If the proposed 6.5.8.3 can be corrected and only if proposal 106
> fails to achieve consensus, I will support proposal 107.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
It is just about time for me to watch the beginning of the Vikings Game,
GO VIKINGS!!!
Thanks
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
From gbonser at seven.com Sun Jan 17 16:05:41 2010
From: gbonser at seven.com (George Bonser)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:05:41 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of
IPv6assignment criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F72A1@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
>
> Those are what I intended. I would like to find a replacement for
> HD-Ratios too. But I haven't figured that out just yet and I'm not
> sure
> I'll be able to figure that our in time to make Toronto, besides very
> large proposal that change many different part of policy don't have a
> very good track record.
>
> > I offer the following comments:
> >
> > 1. Proposal 106 is superior to and incompatible with proposal 107. I
> > strongly prefer proposal 106.
>
> In some ways I agree with you and in other ways I disagree, but I have
> yet to decide if I prefer the direction of 106 to 107. But, I am by
no
> means opposed to 106, I just think we need to consider all the options
> and pick the best one after considering all the implications.
We are an end user, not an ISP. We currently have three multihomed
facilities and have at least one more in the US in the planning stages.
The current policies are not clear. We asked for and obtained a /48 but
now realize we should have asked for more space but weren't familiar
with ipv6 addressing conventions. Under proposal 106 we would have
asked for a /40. 107 is still somewhat ambiguous. A compromise between
the two is that if an end user has multiple sites, just give them a /44
as that amount of space is going to be set aside for them anyway even if
not issued immediately. It isn't as much as 106 would issue but a /44
would cover many organizations over their lifetime.
This allows the end user with multiple sites that are multihomed to more
easily aggregate addressing where possible (e.g. our current three sites
are all in the SF Bay area and are interconnected so I could aggregate
those in a single announcement to our upstream transit and our private
peering) without having to come back to ARIN each time I need an
additional /48 for another location.
HD requirements have been painful for us as about 1/3 of our addressing
is not internet reachable. These addresses are used for things such as
private connections to business partners over encrypted VPN or direct
physical connections. It gets hard to "prove" to someone that we are
using the address space when they do a simple address scan of the
network and come up with significantly less than we say we are using.
Our policies and those of our partners dictate that unique global
addressing be used for these connections to prevent collisions in local
addressing between our networks.
HD requirements are probably good for justifying additional space for
growth at a static number of facilities but when address space is
requested in order to support additional facilities, the HD requirement
doesn't really apply if one is to use a /48 per facility. And this
would apply whether or not the new site is a discreet network or
integrated with a common backbone. Splitting a /48 between locations
seems like a bad idea and as far as I can tell, the current "best
practice" is to use a /48 per location.
My suggestion would be to remove the HD requirement in 107 for initial
assignments to end users with multiple locations and simply issue them
the /44 block that 107 reserves. For an end user with a single
location, the language in 107 is probably fine. Or simply go with 106
which gives everyone a /48 or a /40 but after having to live with v4
scarcity so long seems somehow wasteful.
I just want enough address space to number all my facilities in their
own /48 without having to do the ARIN dance every time I add a new one.
From mcr at sandelman.ca Sun Jan 17 17:10:54 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:10:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To:
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30233.1263585412@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<4B514E08.30209@umn.edu> <776.1263689059@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<4B527263.7090406@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <27640.1263766254@marajade.sandelman.ca>
>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong writes:
Owen> How about this:
Owen> 6.5.8.4 Initial Assignments to Community Networks
Owen> Organizations may receive an initial assignment for operating
Owen> a Community Network after documenting that they meet the
Owen> criteria specified in section 2.11.
Seems nice and DRY.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From marty at akamai.com Sun Jan 17 17:37:20 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:37:20 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
>
>
[ snip ]
> If I represented an IT or comm vendor right now, I'd be doing
> everything I could to get IPv6 used, including completely re-
> thinking or totally opening up the allocation policies and reducing
> the costs to near zero, just to protect my investments.
>
Interesting. Here is the fee schedule, Terry:
X-small $1,250 /48 to /41
Small $2,250 /40 to /32
Medium $4,500 /31 to /30
Large $9,000 /29 to /27
X-large $18,000 /26 to /22
XX-large $36,000 Larger than /22
Which one is too expensive for your actual needs?
-M<
From mysidia at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 18:29:24 2010
From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:29:24 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6eb799ab1001171529y2ce31c27h88fda22699ba3383@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
>> the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. If the techies do not have to
>> ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
> No joke on that. Three years ago my boss turned me down on deploying
> IPv6 in my spare time at work on the grounds that there were wiser
> ways to spend the $1250.
Is it not true that there was a 100% waiver of the IPv6 fees in
the later half of 2007?
https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#waivers
Personally, I think ARIN should offer something like a 2-year
deferral of IPv6 fees, in addition to the partial waiver.
In other words: fees related to IPv6 assignments will not actually
be due until 2012 on the anniversary date. If you cancel and
return the initial allocation, no fees will be charged related to
initial assignment/transfer of IPv6 addresses (additional transfers
still cost).
If you retain the allocation, you owe all the deferred charges.
If IPv6 solves the problem, you pay. If not, and everyone resorts
to IPv4+NAT, you don't.
Thereby reducing the risk of applying for a resource for test purposes...
--
-J
From bill at herrin.us Sun Jan 17 18:48:07 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:48:07 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab1001171529y2ce31c27h88fda22699ba3383@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
<6eb799ab1001171529y2ce31c27h88fda22699ba3383@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca1001171548v304720b3xc71ed9150c073b22@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:29 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> ?If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
>>> the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. ?If the techies do not have to
>>> ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
>> No joke on that. Three years ago my boss turned me down on deploying
>> IPv6 in my spare time at work on the grounds that there were wiser
>> ways to spend the $1250.
>
> Is it not true that there was a 100% ?waiver of the ? IPv6 ?fees ?in
> the later half of 2007?
James,
Now that you mention it, there was some kind of waiver in place
because I remember arguing the case that it would be cheaper to get
the addresses then instead of waiting. But it wasn't a total waiver,
at least not for end-user assignments, because if I wouldn't have
bothered to ask.
The current waiver, of course, does not apply to end-user assignments at all.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From bill at herrin.us Sun Jan 17 18:50:49 2010
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:50:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <3c3e3fca1001171550j30e056c3u8300c4f48fe754ad@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> I would like to find a replacement for HD-Ratios
> too. ?But I haven't figured that out just yet
My observation here is that IPv6 addressing seems to be LAN-centric
rather than host-centric. That is, it's driven by the number of /64
LANs deployed rather than the number of individual computers.
>> 2. I'm concerned about assignments to non-connected networks where
>> qualification is based on the promise that they won't ever connect to
>> the Internet and therefore won't introduce a route into the IPv6
>> backbone. If the promise is meant to be kept, I don't think such
>> assignments should be made from address blocks within 2000::/3.
>> 2000::/3 is intended to be the block used on the public Internet.
>
> I understand the concern, I share it, I am open to suggestions.
Speaking off the cuff, I think I'd shape it like this:
1. Ask IANA for a /16 delegation of of the existing ULA space, e.g.
FC42::/16.Failing that, simply assert regiistration over a portion of
ULA space e.g. FD42::/16.
2. With a mostly automated web-based system, accept registration of
/48's within the space.
3. A registration account costs $10/year. No concept of organizations;
just accounts each billed seperately.
4. All /48's in the account must be contiguous to the maximum extent
possible. Each /48 registered costs an additional $1/year. In ULA
parlance, each /48 is "one Global ID."
5. Private registration available if desired at no cost. If private,
ARIN will publish a relay email address that can be used to contact
the registrant's real email address. They'll publish no other
information. After all, do we really need to know that the DOJ is
using a particular range of private IP addresses privately inside
their private system? I don't think we do.
6. RNDS delegation in the public DNS if desired. Let the registrants
decide for themselves if they want leaky name lookups to lead back
inside. Could be very helpful in a large private network where you
don't want every participant to have to plug lots of exceptions into
his DNS server.
7. Registration is non-binding. ARIN guarantees only that if both
networks participate in registration then they won't have conflicting
address use.
The $10 supports operating a heavily automated registry.
The $1 provides mild back-pressure against wasteful consumption of /48's.
The contiguity requirement mildly encourages smart aggregation practices.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
From mcr at sandelman.ca Sun Jan 17 20:55:00 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:55:00 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1001171550j30e056c3u8300c4f48fe754ad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
<3c3e3fca1001171550j30e056c3u8300c4f48fe754ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11434.1263779700@marajade.sandelman.ca>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "William" == William Herrin writes:
William> Speaking off the cuff, I think I'd shape it like this:
William> 1. Ask IANA for a /16 delegation of of the existing ULA
William> space, e.g.
It would work for me.
It's ULA-C, basically.
William> 3. A registration account costs $10/year. No concept of
William> organizations;
William> just accounts each billed seperately.
There are 4B /48s there.
Enough for several for each person now alive in the ARIN region.
William> 6. RNDS delegation in the public DNS if desired. Let the
I would like RDNS (others may need it).
I would like whois.
I would be happy with the proxy-contact-address for these --- I have
numerous experiences with enterprises (not always after a merge!!!), where
things do not overlap, but suddendly, another set of previously
unknown rfc1918 addresses start to show up, and nobody knows from
where.
The overlapping case is actually less of a problem.
William> 7. Registration is non-binding. ARIN guarantees only that if both
William> networks participate in registration then they won't have
William> conflicting address use.
I'm not sure I get what non-binding means here.
William> The $10 supports operating a heavily automated registry.
William> The $1 provides mild back-pressure against wasteful
William> consumption of /48's.
Agreed.
However, realize that we basically can never get these addresses back.
My position might be... if you stop paying the fee, then the
registration information that was previously private, becomes public.
(maybe)
William> The contiguity requirement mildly encourages smart
William> aggregation practices.
I do not know why this is important.
These are networks that can never appear in the DFZ.
They may appear in various COINs, VPNs, enterprises, or personal-area
networks.
64K subnets is enough for many, and anyone with that many routes (a
COIN or VPN with 256 sites of 256 subnets...) won't be very worried that
their second /48 does not aggregate with their first /48, I think.
- --
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQEVAwUBS1O/c4CLcPvd0N1lAQLQlgf/UF/5n5KR7s1e1A2SUBIRkvPyC5s/tZtp
y2dUnw44+bmhNBA4DEVdAYlJ8NGe1yYXiRmHhR0UhJxSLzdA2Tm2nJxqtbV/NIXT
/SmxG16Jjgdg62HxYncL+m7IiexJLvadYS8LhqnEhV8FZOgExBYnD2SrM34w7B9i
F4hbBkP4EVQFDSJg54tiwPwXGZMvw6YQm7AhIeS1wu5D2Fl/M99v9NBSOelN+uol
T0/9K4SnoRh32L6K7HO7TPwyPpXuVV0hNh1x5RvGV9N3lxbCYcVhOfWoO6crozx/
z+Y/c2mbc2JXprng4Crgh7FE2F45fzQokMyVlACGWI5hutQol915dw==
=ZBVU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From owen at delong.com Sun Jan 17 21:27:56 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:27:56 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <973D0AE1-738A-4E65-B359-E022CE792D71@delong.com>
On Jan 17, 2010, at 7:46 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>> If techies need to get their managers to approve a checque to ARIN,
>>> the manager tells them to use IPv4 + NAT. If the techies do not have to
>>> ask, then they will deploy IPv6 for internal use.
>
> No joke on that. Three years ago my boss turned me down on deploying
> IPv6 in my spare time at work on the grounds that there were wiser
> ways to spend the $1250.
>
>
>>> (ULA buys you nothing compared to net-10)
>> 1. ULA buys you a great deal more than RFC-1918. ULA is statistically,
>> if not globally unique.
>
> Not exactly... The analysis in RFC 4193 (ULA addressing) section 3.2.3
> is technically correct but it may be an example of "lies, damn lies
> and statistics."
>
> First, though de-emphasized in the RFC, the probability of collision
> has a phenomenal growth rate: two orders of magnitude for ever one
> order of magnitude increase in the number of ULA IDs. So you close in
> on a 100% chance of collision not at 2^40 IDs as you'd expect but at
> merely 2^20.
>
So for every 2 companies merging, you run the risk of a 1:2^20
collision. Now, let's look at those odds in numbers more meaningful
to people... 2^20 is 1024^2, or, 1,048,576, so, the odds are, literally
not quite as good as 1 in a million of any two companies colliding.
I would argue that the odds of a collision in RFC-1918 are a lot closer
to 1:3 at best since almost everyone uses at least one of 10.0.0.0/24,
172.16.0.0/24 or 192.168.0.0/24 (or some supernet thereof).
So, in order for ULA to buy you nothing, you'd have to be able to argue
that 1:3 and 1:1,048,576 are equivalent risks. If you are willing to make
bets like that, I want to be your bookie.
> Second, consider the way folks tend to behave. Each private network
> built for whatever purpose in a particular company will consume one or
> several ULA IDs. That's each private network in each project at each
> branch of a company. A large company may well have consumed hundreds
> if not thousands of ULA IDs introducing another four to six orders of
> magnitude increase in the probability of collision when two such
> companies want to connect.
>
Even if this is true (I'm not completely convinced), you're comparing
ULA at 1:100 Practically speaking, we should start to see anecdotes about ULA
> collisions as folks try to connect 100 to 1000 organizations together,
> still a usefully large number but far fewer than RFC 4193 implies.
>
Practically speaking, even if you buy into that argument, you're still
quite a bit better off than RFC-1918.
1. The odds of a collision are still about 300,000 times better.
2. The percentage of hosts likely to be affected by such a
collision is orders of magnitude better than RFC-1918.
3. The above all assumes not using the SIXXS ULA registry
to keep your ULA addresses unique.
Owen
From owen at delong.com Sun Jan 17 21:49:14 2010
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:49:14 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca1001171550j30e056c3u8300c4f48fe754ad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
<3c3e3fca1001171550j30e056c3u8300c4f48fe754ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6C8D563B-DDC9-4422-873D-412A610ECA4C@delong.com>
On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>> I would like to find a replacement for HD-Ratios
>> too. But I haven't figured that out just yet
>
> My observation here is that IPv6 addressing seems to be LAN-centric
> rather than host-centric. That is, it's driven by the number of /64
> LANs deployed rather than the number of individual computers.
>
Correct. In current policy (and hopefully any future policy) host count
is irrelevant. An IPv6 /64 allows for several undecillion hosts in
each network, so, the number of hosts becomes far less relevant.
>
>>> 2. I'm concerned about assignments to non-connected networks where
>>> qualification is based on the promise that they won't ever connect to
>>> the Internet and therefore won't introduce a route into the IPv6
>>> backbone. If the promise is meant to be kept, I don't think such
>>> assignments should be made from address blocks within 2000::/3.
>>> 2000::/3 is intended to be the block used on the public Internet.
>>
>> I understand the concern, I share it, I am open to suggestions.
>
> Speaking off the cuff, I think I'd shape it like this:
>
> 1. Ask IANA for a /16 delegation of of the existing ULA space, e.g.
> FC42::/16.Failing that, simply assert regiistration over a portion of
> ULA space e.g. FD42::/16.
>
Personally, I would rather see us move in the direction of making no
distinction between numbers for connected and disconnected networks.
Unless you want to put ARIN in the role of gatekeeper to the routing
table (which I think is a bad idea), there's no need for such a distinction.
> 2. With a mostly automated web-based system, accept registration of
> /48's within the space.
>
> 3. A registration account costs $10/year. No concept of organizations;
> just accounts each billed seperately.
>
> 4. All /48's in the account must be contiguous to the maximum extent
> possible. Each /48 registered costs an additional $1/year. In ULA
> parlance, each /48 is "one Global ID."
>
This pricing strategy, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant to
a policy discussion. If you want to talk about fees ARIN should
charge, I believe it is better suited to the arin-discuss list.
> 5. Private registration available if desired at no cost. If private,
> ARIN will publish a relay email address that can be used to contact
> the registrant's real email address. They'll publish no other
> information. After all, do we really need to know that the DOJ is
> using a particular range of private IP addresses privately inside
> their private system? I don't think we do.
>
Depends on whether it leaks into the global routing table or not.
If it does, it's good to know who to call and say "Did you mean to
do this? If so, you're using the wrong prefix. If not, review your
configuration."
> 6. RNDS delegation in the public DNS if desired. Let the registrants
> decide for themselves if they want leaky name lookups to lead back
> inside. Could be very helpful in a large private network where you
> don't want every participant to have to plug lots of exceptions into
> his DNS server.
>
Yep... Alsouseful for the organization that built out a huge "non-
connected" network that later needs to connect and they'd rather
bribe their ISP than renumber.
> 7. Registration is non-binding. ARIN guarantees only that if both
> networks participate in registration then they won't have conflicting
> address use.
>
Should there be inter-RIR cooperation on this such that if you participate
in ARIN registration, you're not going to conflict with APNIC registrants?
If so, this probably requires a global or globally coordinated proposal.
Owen
From mysidia at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 22:07:55 2010
From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:07:55 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <973D0AE1-738A-4E65-B359-E022CE792D71@delong.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
<973D0AE1-738A-4E65-B359-E022CE792D71@delong.com>
Message-ID: <6eb799ab1001171907h2f54c655r9e54f41532430993@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 7:46 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
...
>> Practically speaking, we should start to see anecdotes about ULA
>> collisions as folks try to connect 100 to 1000 organizations together,
>> still a usefully large number but far fewer than RFC 4193 implies.
> Practically speaking, even if you buy into that argument, you're still
> quite a bit better off than RFC-1918.
If you have a V6 ULA collision, you may be a lot worse off than you
were with a IPv4 RFC-1918 collision.
The thing is: you can probably mitigate an RFC-1918 collision (when
merging companies, for example), by using creative NAT rewriting
rules; NAT'ing both sources and destinations, to provide connectivity
for the transition period, when the merging companies renumber to
eliminate conflicts.
In the IPv6 world, so far, there is no such thing as NAT.
You cannot use NAT or translation to mitigate an address space
collision, when the tool and even the specification has not been
created..
A RFC-1918 collision can be much less of an issue than a ULA
collision, even though it is more likely.
So the combination of IPv6 + ULA can make you a lot worse off in some
scenarios.
When the specifications for IPv6 NAT come out, and vendors start
making equipment that can NAT map a block of V6 addresses 1:1 into
another block of addresses, _then_ we can consider you a lot better
off with ULA in that scenario.
..
>>
> So, in order for ULA to buy you nothing, you'd have to be able to argue
> that 1:3 and 1:1,048,576 are equivalent risks. If you are willing to make
> bets like that, I want to be your bookie.
> Even if this is true (I'm not completely convinced), you're comparing
> ULA at 1:100;
from William Herrin on Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:46:03AM -0500
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20100117220236.W15024@AegisInfoSys.com>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:46:03AM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> Not exactly... The analysis in RFC 4193 (ULA addressing) section 3.2.3
> is technically correct but it may be an example of "lies, damn lies
> and statistics."
Is it shorthand for the Birthday Paradox
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthday_problem)?
--
Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
(800) AEGIS-00
From mysidia at gmail.com Sun Jan 17 22:37:52 2010
From: mysidia at gmail.com (James Hess)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:37:52 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <20100117220236.W15024@AegisInfoSys.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com>
<20100117220236.W15024@AegisInfoSys.com>
Message-ID: <6eb799ab1001171937p1a6e02cdja71f9f0ad3183869@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Henry Yen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:46:03AM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
>> Not exactly... The analysis in RFC 4193 (ULA addressing) section 3.2.3
>> is technically correct but it may be an example of "lies, damn lies
>> and statistics."
>
> Is it shorthand for the Birthday Paradox
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthday_problem)?
And the RFC accounts for that, by using the formula
Exp[-N^2 / 2^41]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193#section-3.2.3
However... I wonder how 'random' the 40-bit global ID will
actually be in practice.
I realize the RFC suggests a robust procedure for generating it..
But something tells me many sites will be tempted to ignore those
recommendations, and treat ULA much like they treat RFC-1918
addresses.
That is, they might confuse "random id", for just pick whatever
number occurs to them. Statistically more than should will probably
pick all-bits zero, or 'some convenient numbers' for the global id
field.
Or even, a human picking the global ID might _avoid_ numbers
like 0 or 1234, such that the number has less than a 1/2^40
chance of being picked.
If the actual entropy behind 'global id creation' in practice
turns out to be less than true randomness, then the results
regarding probabiliity of collision are also fallible.
--
-J
From gbonser at seven.com Mon Jan 18 00:18:07 2010
From: gbonser at seven.com (George Bonser)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:18:07 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <6eb799ab1001171937p1a6e02cdja71f9f0ad3183869@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca><0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com><32154.1263688132@marajade.sandelman.ca><3c3e3fca1001170746n3a2bc600q79267170522aaf7b@mail.gmail.com><20100117220236.W15024@AegisInfoSys.com>
<6eb799ab1001171937p1a6e02cdja71f9f0ad3183869@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F72AC@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net On
> Behalf Of James Hess
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:38 PM
>
> However... I wonder how 'random' the 40-bit global ID will
> actually be in practice.
> If the actual entropy behind 'global id creation' in practice
> turns out to be less than true randomness, then the results
> regarding probabiliity of collision are also fallible.
>
> --
> -J
I agree. People needing just one net are likely to use the first net of
the block for local assignment or number facilities sequentially even
though they are asked not to. I suppose the RIR's could issue space out
of FC00::/8 to anyone who asks and people still have FD00::/8 to use as
they wish. That would mean no chance of a collision in FC00::/8 unless
connecting to someone numbered from a different RIR. It's one more
thing for the RIR's to keep track of, though.
Basically it means changing the L bit to mean 1=assigned by the
organization 0=assigned by the organization's RIR
From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jan 18 05:36:12 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:36:12 -0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework
ofIPv6assignment criteria
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F72A1@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745804D449A4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
>I just want enough address space to number all my facilities in their
own /48
>without having to do the ARIN dance every time I add a new one.
Sounds like an ISP to me. Apply for your /32 and get on with it.
--Michael Dillon
From mcr at sandelman.ca Mon Jan 18 08:40:03 2010
From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:40:03 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment
criteria
In-Reply-To: <6C8D563B-DDC9-4422-873D-412A610ECA4C@delong.com>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net>
<3c3e3fca1001170840m314c746che6215d86e459b4e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4B53511E.8010103@umn.edu>
<3c3e3fca1001171550j30e056c3u8300c4f48fe754ad@mail.gmail.com>
<6C8D563B-DDC9-4422-873D-412A610ECA4C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <1074.1263822003@marajade.sandelman.ca>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong writes:
>> Speaking off the cuff, I think I'd shape it like this:
>>
>> 1. Ask IANA for a /16 delegation of of the existing ULA space, e.g.
>> FC42::/16.Failing that, simply assert regiistration over a portion of
>> ULA space e.g. FD42::/16.
>>
Owen> Personally, I would rather see us move in the direction of making no
Owen> distinction between numbers for connected and disconnected networks.
Owen> Unless you want to put ARIN in the role of gatekeeper to the routing
Owen> table (which I think is a bad idea), there's no need for such
Owen> a distinction.
I disagree.
The lack of distinction is what makes ARIN the role of gatekeeper.
If all addresses can go into the DFZ, then there has to be criteria
appropriate on *ALL* allocations that says, "This might show up".
If there is a distinction, then there is no concern.
In fact, if there is a distinction, not only is there no concern about
end-run-around, but it is also possible to make the criteria stronger,
and push more PA addressing to many organizations which presently own
their own IPv4 address space, but are not really multihomed.
(Serially multihomed... akin to serial monogamy...)
>> 2. With a mostly automated web-based system, accept registration of
>> /48's within the space.
>>
>> 3. A registration account costs $10/year. No concept of organizations;
>> just accounts each billed seperately.
>>
>> 4. All /48's in the account must be contiguous to the maximum extent
>> possible. Each /48 registered costs an additional $1/year. In ULA
>> parlance, each /48 is "one Global ID."
Owen> This pricing strategy, while interesting, isn't particularly
Owen> relevant to a policy discussion. If you want to talk about
Owen> fees ARIN should
Owen> charge, I believe it is better suited to the arin-discuss
Owen> list.
I disagree strongly.
>> 5. Private registration available if desired at no cost. If private,
>> ARIN will publish a relay email address that can be used to contact
>> the registrant's real email address. They'll publish no other
>> information. After all, do we really need to know that the DOJ is
>> using a particular range of private IP addresses privately inside
>> their private system? I don't think we do.
Owen> Depends on whether it leaks into the global routing table or not.
If clearly labelled can not leak into the global routing table.
>> 6. RNDS delegation in the public DNS if desired. Let the registrants
>> decide for themselves if they want leaky name lookups to lead back
>> inside. Could be very helpful in a large private network where you
>> don't want every participant to have to plug lots of exceptions into
>> his DNS server.
>>
Owen> Yep... Alsouseful for the organization that built out a huge "non-
Owen> connected" network that later needs to connect and they'd rather
Owen> bribe their ISP than renumber.
If clearly labelled, the ISP simple can not take the bribe.
That's good for *ALL* of us.
>> 7. Registration is non-binding. ARIN guarantees only that if both
>> networks participate in registration then they won't have conflicting
>> address use.
Owen> Should there be inter-RIR cooperation on this such that if you
Owen> participate
Owen> in ARIN registration, you're not going to conflict with APNIC
Owen> registrants?
Owen> If so, this probably requires a global or globally coordinated
Owen> proposal.
Yes, it has to be coordinated, no this is not such a big deal.
There are enough bits to go around.
- --
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQEVAwUBS1RksICLcPvd0N1lAQKzxgf/ZsOoUbGfLkV3bpa6CqrYbaJBbxXXGeEC
l6QqHpUybBlFRWWOOB7jixLOyGlz/3MxxeMeHEB+MiCgmQi20SHoB5k9OTF4yDOD
7rdEtz9lr1ZxuTrk6cbBcPTp29lgCzwaxf0y7ainMvxwKkPn2oj67PAL8y3XgxMU
JGeucC+AVKaBs9p8nQBLD/wScwm3M17/2wJmH5DHQxbO9O+Df/KY/KdsdAKW+Kp8
Q7C7VbZ/IOq5mFzShvHs525hc04mGUMK947VUhcu79ZANpqmIIrlC6dIkhNqy5eB
IaPCZKwnbFgo8CXRRTZI81PdJ3zqO/1CEFDmBPtJ0Yqpq4VNrkK2iQ==
=i3k2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From terry.l.davis at boeing.com Mon Jan 18 09:37:17 2010
From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:37:17 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To:
References: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B0999@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Martin
We are fine. 6 or 7 years back we got ours.
For small companies, start ups, or lab use, even fees of this scale is often a make or break. We grew our IP infrastructure out of our labs. It would have taken off much slower here if a few of us couldn't have simply emailed in to request public IPv4 class C's for our lab environments; it would have been hard to justify paying for addresses back then.
Take care
Terry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:marty at akamai.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:37 PM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
>
> >
> >
> [ snip ]
>
> > If I represented an IT or comm vendor right now, I'd be doing
> > everything I could to get IPv6 used, including completely re-
> > thinking or totally opening up the allocation policies and
> reducing
> > the costs to near zero, just to protect my investments.
> >
>
>
>
> Interesting. Here is the fee schedule, Terry:
>
> X-small $1,250 /48 to /41
> Small $2,250 /40 to /32
> Medium $4,500 /31 to /30
> Large $9,000 /29 to /27
> X-large $18,000 /26 to /22
> XX-large $36,000 Larger than /22
>
> Which one is too expensive for your actual needs?
>
>
> -M<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From sbarber at theplanet.com Mon Jan 18 09:36:57 2010
From: sbarber at theplanet.com (Barber, Stan)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:36:57 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823521@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
<32402.1263688306@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823522@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
Yes, that's what I understand to be the case.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca]
Sent: Sat 1/16/2010 6:31 PM
To: Barber, Stan
Cc: Davis, Terry L; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Barber writes:
Stan> Terry, NTT has a large v6 deployment to the home in Japan
Stan> called Hakari-TV. This is a walled-garden deployment for VOD
Stan> (and other related features) to the home.
By "walled garden", do you mean that the address space is not
globally routed?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From sbarber at theplanet.com Mon Jan 18 09:45:12 2010
From: sbarber at theplanet.com (Barber, Stan)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:45:12 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.ca><0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com><8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823521@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL><32402.1263688306@marajade.sandelman.ca>
<8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823522@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
Message-ID: <8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823523@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
By the way, I don't know the addressing scheme personally, so I don't know if they created it using globally routable addresses and choose not to route them or using space reserved for private addressing. I am sure Cody could tell you if you want to contact him.
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Barber, Stan
Sent: Mon 1/18/2010 8:36 AM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
Yes, that's what I understand to be the case.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca]
Sent: Sat 1/16/2010 6:31 PM
To: Barber, Stan
Cc: Davis, Terry L; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Barber writes:
Stan> Terry, NTT has a large v6 deployment to the home in Japan
Stan> called Hakari-TV. This is a walled-garden deployment for VOD
Stan> (and other related features) to the home.
By "walled garden", do you mean that the address space is not
globally routed?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jan 18 09:51:18 2010
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:51:18 -0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <8FF49FA5103C8D4DB1933ECE41EB477F04823522@HOUEXCH01.PLANET.LOCAL>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745804DC53AC@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
There is lots of interesting info available in English if you google
hakari-tv ipv6
--Michael Dillon
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Barber, Stan
Sent: 18 January 2010 14:37
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
Yes, that's what I understand to be the case.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca]
Sent: Sat 1/16/2010 6:31 PM
To: Barber, Stan
Cc: Davis, Terry L; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Barber writes:
Stan> Terry, NTT has a large v6 deployment to the home in Japan
Stan> called Hakari-TV. This is a walled-garden deployment for VOD
Stan> (and other related features) to the home.
By "walled garden", do you mean that the address space is not globally
routed?
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! |
firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net
architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device
driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video
then sign the petition.
From terry.l.davis at boeing.com Mon Jan 18 09:52:08 2010
From: terry.l.davis at boeing.com (Davis, Terry L)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:52:08 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <4B50EAD9.2010506@ipinc.net>
References: <4B4FA35F.9070804@arin.net><30072.1263585278@marajade.sandelman.
ca>
<0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<4B50EAD9.2010506@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B099A@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Ted
OS/2 isn't really a good example; I supported some of that for years. IBM tried to make "windows" for the enterprise with enterprise bells and whistles; it was to expensive for the masses and you had to be a pretty darn good sys-adim to set it up. Or maybe it is a good example of what we did with v6?
As to HDTV, the USG provided a cheap shim to let folks decide on their own when to buy an HDTV. In the case of v6, we forgot the shim entirely; and $40 per app would be really good cheap shim even though we have two or more orders of magnitude of v4 apps to convert now than legacy TV's.
I agree we can probably extend the runout some few number of years; my concern remains that all the new apps are still being written mostly without any v6 built in support for future conversion.
Take care
Terry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 2:23 PM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
>
> Davis, Terry L wrote:
> > I've been a big supporter of IPv6 for a decade now since I
> was in the
> > FTTH business for awhile in 2000-2001. Industry has spent an
> > enormous amount in developing it both in network and in the end
> > systems. And I still feel it has huge potentials to allow us to
> > improve the Internet.
> >
> > But yet even with the globe rushing headlong toward the end of IPv4
> > space, probably within 24 months, v6 is still barely
> crawling forward
> > in deployments. It's not going into greenfields, startups, etc. It
> > is still hard to find native v6 transport. I don't know of a v6
> > network anywhere approaching even approaching 100,000
> systems (I hope
> > I'm wrong!) on the globe.
> >
> > Yea I finally realized in doing my Master's paper a couple
> years back
> > that we had really screwed up by not defining a native way to allow
> > v4 to v6 communications.
>
> Not true. I used to run OS/2. Remember that? OS/2 Warp?
>
> Well let me tell you something about transitions. IBM knocked
> themselves out adding seamless windows support into OS/2 Warp.
> They really wanted to be able to say that Warp ran Windows
> better than Windows does. And they succeeded so well that
> their software partners - like DeScribe - who for years ONLY
> produced OS/2 versions of software, ended up going out of
> business because all the Warp users out there simply used
> their legacy Windows applications under OS/2 and never bothered
> switching to OS/2 apps. Why would they, when Windows apps worked so
> well under OS/2?
>
> Some things call for backwards-compatibility. Some things instead
> call for making it very painful for the customers so that they are
> forced to spend money to upgrade - because their upgrades are for
> the greater good of the community. The customers who refuse to
> upgrade are then cast-aside, they are winnowed out. It may seem
> unfair - but to this day there's still people out there who have
> refused to give up their Commodore 64's and buy PCs. That is
> just a fact of life with change. Some people refuse to accept it
> and will just continue on with what they know - until they are
> among a small minority, and then they die of old age.
>
> Look at the HDTV business. We all know the US Government
> gave everyone
> free converter boxes to get their crappy old TV sets to work
> on HD. But, the US Government DID NOT pay for anyone to get a
> brand new HDTV UHF antenna, even though millions of people were
> running set-top rabbit ears, or VHF antennas on the top of their
> roofs. And those millions of people were basically told you
> go spend $35 on a new Channel Master UHF antenna and find some
> handyman to climb around on the top of your roof and install it.
> We aren't going to make the signal backwards compatible to
> your old VHF
> antenna because we know damn well you wouldn't lift a finger
> to replace
> your antenna.
>
> We know that customers aren't going to spend money unless they
> have to. Sometimes you just gotta be a hard-ass and don't give
> them a choice to NOT spend the money. This is one of those times.
>
> > As is, you basically have to open every v4
> > app and re-write it to utilize v6;
>
> correct
>
> > none of the existing transition
> > technologies cover all the v4 to v6 communications scenarios. With
> > this much installed v4, the cost of opening every existing app to
> > change it to be dual-stacked is staggering.
> >
>
> That doesn't matter. All of those apps your talking about are
> going to be obsolete in 20 years and replaced by new versions so
> that staggering cost is going to be spent either way.
>
> > We can argue endlessly about the risks of opening v6 address
> > allocation policy but in the end, if we cannot get the Internet
> > developers to utilize it, all the investment of the IT and comm
> > vendors will be lost. One of the alternatives to IPv6 will win (geo
> > routing, 5th octet, something-out-of-the-blue, etc) and all that
> > investment in IPv6 and its potential enhancements to the Internet
> > will be lost to us.
> >
>
> If you really think that an alternative to IPv6 has a chance then
> where are all those startup software companies writing to one of
> those alternative standards? Why isn't Microsoft pushing one of
> those?
>
> out-of-the-blue laboratory curiosities implemented on Linux just
> aren't going to make any difference. The future is IPv6 and
> all the big players are betting on it, and the economic
> situation in the world right now is not such that anyone is
> going to put any real money into an alternative.
>
> The question isn't whether it's going to be IPv6 vs some kludgy
> IPv4 alternative. The question is going to be how far can we
> stretch the IPv4 that we have.
>
> It's been observed before on this list that most large networks
> have very "loose" allocations. For example the standard customer
> static IPv4 allocation is a /29 and a /30 on a point-to-point link to
> that customer. In reality it could be a /30 and unnumbered on the
> point-to-point link since it's almost a given that all of
> the customers getting /29's are only using a single number.
> And if you want to force the end user to use a /32 you can
> run PPP right to their router.
>
> I think most established ISP's are aware of this and figure they can
> self-generate IPv4 for 3-5 years post-runout. Their feeling is
> why should I kill myself trying to kick my peers asses
> to get them running IPv6 natively, when I can do nothing and allow
> all the deep-pocket startup ISP's out there who are flush with
> VC funding and have no IPv4 stored up, to beat my peers for me. Then
> once my peers are IPv6 native, I'll just switch it on and be gold.
> It kind of sucks for the new guy on the block, but that is also
> a normal characteristic of established markets.
>
> Ted
>
From marty at akamai.com Mon Jan 18 10:14:56 2010
From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:14:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
In-Reply-To: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B0999@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <0267B5481DCC474D8088BF4A25C7F1DF55127B098E@XCH-NW-05V.nw.nos.boeing.com>