The current ISP policy for IPv6 allocations is both short-sighted and
insufficient for rational deployments by most ISPs. We have gained
significant operational experience with IPv6 in the time since it was
written and it is clear that current policy is driving many ISPs to choices
of excess conservatism that will eventually harm innovation in the
consumer space.

Under the proposed policy, the entirety of the ARIN region can still
be numbered in no more than 2 /12s (quite probably 1). There are
still 506 /12s free within the current /3. It is unreasonable to shoot
ourselves in the foot with address scarcity thinking so early into the
IPv6 deployment. This policy seeks to strike a more reasonable and
harmonious balance of the goals stated in NRPM 6.3.

The lower bound of /36 is intended to facilitate extremely small
ISPs getting a smaller block if they do not need to support more
than ~4000 customers. It is hoped that the board will take
subsequent action to adjust the fee structure to eliminate
the $1,000/year price hike for those extremely small ISPs. These
ISPs can, of course, get a /32 if they wish.

The intent of section 6.5.4 is to create and preserve parity between
the requirements for LIR->End User and ARIN->End User policies.
This section presumes that 6.5.8 has already been modified as
described in draft policy 2010-8.

Some examples of determining the size of block for which an
organization is eligible:

Bill's Bait, Sushi, and IP Transit:
	Largest serving site:		200 end sites
	Number of serving sites:	5
	200 rounds up to 256 (nibble boundary, 8 bits). 200 > 192 (256 * 0.75), so, round up to 4096 (12 bits)
	5 rounds up to 16 (nibble boundary, 4 bits). 5 < 12 (16 * 0.75), so, no further round up. 16 (4 bits)
	48 - (12+4) = 32 -- This organization could receive up to a /32.
Lee's Rural Internet, Inc.
	Largest serving site:		1024 end sites
	Number of serving sites:	30
	1024 rounds up to 4096 (nibble boundary, 12 bits) 1024 < 3072 (4096 * 0.75), so 4096 (12 bits)
	30 rounds up to 256 (nibble boundary, 8 bits). 30 < 192 (256 * 0.75), so, 256 (8 bits)
	48 - (12+8) = 28 -- This organization could receive up to a /28.
Paul's Mega Metro ISP, LLC
	Largest serving site:		3,500 end sites
	Number of serving sites:	140
	3,500 rounds up to 4096 (nibble boundary, 12 bits). 3500 > 3072 (4096 * 0.75), so, round up to 65,536 (16 bits)
	140 rounds up to 256 (nibble boundary, 8 bits) 140 < 192 (256 * 0.75), so, 256 (8 bits)
	48 - (16+8) = 24 -- This organization could receive up to a /24
PON's CMTS mega DSL Corp.
	Largest serving site:		30,000 end sites
	Number of serving sites:	700
	30,000 rounds up to 65,536 (nibble boundary, 16 bits). 30,000 < 49,152 (65536 * 0.75), so, 65,536 (16 bits)
	700 rounds up to 4,096 (nibble boundary, 12 bits). 700 < 3072 (4096 * 0.75), so, 4,096 (12 bits)
	48 - (16+12) = 20 -- This organization could receive up to a /20.

Clarifications in response to Staff and Legal Assessment

In the Proposal Summary (Staff understanding) staff states "This policy will lower the current minimum allocation
size from a /32 to a /36 as it allows ISPs to request a /36". It should be noted that this policy still allows any ISP
to receive at least a /32. However, the /36 is provided as an option specifically to allow very small ISPs currently
in the x-small IPv4 category a reduced option. It is the intent that by allowing this, the board may reconsider the
minimum IPv6 ISP fee table and allow these particularly small organizations to obtain IPv6 without increasing their
annual subscription fees from ARIN. Since Fees are not a policy matter, the fee request must be considered
elsewhere, but, the enabling policy language contained in this policy is a precursor to that discussion. The author
has submitted a request that the board consider this fee structure through the ACSP.

Owen

From Curtis.Starnes at granburyisd.org  Mon Jan 31 08:05:55 2011
From: Curtis.Starnes at granburyisd.org (STARNES, CURTIS)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:05:55 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 1296478245wherrin@gmail.com
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

	1296478245wherrin@gmail.com
Message-ID: 

Thanks Bill,
I went back and re-read this section before I received your email and picked your explanation up on the second reading.
It makes sense, from an ISP's stand point, allocating resources rather than my just consuming resources from an end-users perspective and the differences in the yearly fees; $500.00 is not much compared to what ISP's have to pay in yearly recurring costs in ARIN fees.

Thanks for the explanation.  As an end-user, the verbage that makes the resources available to members, I would be opposed to.

As a normal end-user of IP address space, the wording of the prop 131 would exclude organizations like ours from being able to apply for any of the returned IPv4 resources.

Curtis Starnes
Granbury Independent School District
817-408-4104

-----Original Message-----
From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:36 AM
To: STARNES, CURTIS
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:12 AM, STARNES, CURTIS  wrote:
> Ok, now I have a question about your response regarding ARIN membership.
>
> We are an end-user with a /42 IPv6 address block and an ASN assigned 
> to us, which we pay end-user fees for.According to the membership 
> defined page (https://www.arin.net/participate/membership/member.html 
> ) this qualifies my organization to be a General Member of ARIN.
>
> According to your statement below, my organization is not a member of ARIN?
> We have received and paid for direct allocation of IP address space.
> So, am I missing something here?

Maybe. Quoting:

An entity becomes a General Member of ARIN in one of two ways.

    * Membership is accorded automatically when you receive and pay the associated fees for a direct ALLOCATION of IP address space.
    * Any entity that has a signed RSA or Legacy RSA and has received a direct ASSIGNMENT of address space, an AS number, an experimental allocation, or any combination of resources and is currently paying an annual maintenance fee to ARIN may choose to become a member by completing the membership application form. There is an ANNUAL FEE of
$500.00 for membership.

Allocation = ISP/LIR. Pays the $1250+ every year.
Assignment = end user. Pays the $1250+ once and then pays $100/year.

So, as an end-user resource holder you're qualified to become a member with a $500/yr annual fee. But you are not automatically a member like an ISP is.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 09:05:55 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:05:55 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:05 AM, STARNES, CURTIS
 wrote:
> Thanks Bill,
> I went back and re-read this section before I received your email and picked your explanation up on the second reading.
> It makes sense, from an ISP's stand point, allocating resources rather than my just consuming resources from an end-users perspective and the differences in the yearly fees; $500.00 is not much compared to what ISP's have to pay in yearly recurring costs in ARIN fees.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. ?As an end-user, the verbage that makes the resources available to members, I would be opposed to.
>
> As a normal end-user of IP address space, the wording of the prop 131 would exclude organizations like ours from being able to apply for any of the returned IPv4 resources.
>

I'm not positive that this is actually the problem that is being
discussed, but I'll fully explore the question and come up with
something to clarify it in version 2. The intent is that of providing
addresses to legitimate users of ARIN resources. I wouldn't get too
hung up on the language. At least not yet. Thanks for the feedback.

Best,

-M<

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 11:58:53 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:58:53 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:12 AM, STARNES, CURTIS
>  wrote:
>> Ok, now I have a question about your response regarding ARIN membership.
>>
>> We are an end-user with a /42 IPv6 address block and an ASN assigned to
>> us, which we pay end-user fees for.According to the membership defined
>> page (https://www.arin.net/participate/membership/member.html ) this
>> qualifies my organization to be a General Member of ARIN.
>>
>> According to your statement below, my organization is not a member of ARIN?
>> We have received and paid for direct allocation of IP address space.
>> So, am I missing something here?
>
> Maybe. Quoting:
>
> An entity becomes a General Member of ARIN in one of two ways.
>
> ? ?* Membership is accorded automatically when you receive and pay
> the associated fees for a direct ALLOCATION of IP address space.
> ? ?* Any entity that has a signed RSA or Legacy RSA and has received
> a direct ASSIGNMENT of address space, an AS number, an experimental
> allocation, or any combination of resources and is currently paying an
> annual maintenance fee to ARIN may choose to become a member by
> completing the membership application form. There is an ANNUAL FEE of
> $500.00 for membership.
>
> Allocation = ISP/LIR. Pays the $1250+ every year.
> Assignment = end user. Pays the $1250+ once and then pays $100/year.
>
> So, as an end-user resource holder you're qualified to become a member
> with a $500/yr annual fee. But you are not automatically a member like
> an ISP is.
>

William,

Do you think that this will suffice?

"Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."

Best,

-M<

From packetgrrl at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 12:02:42 2011
From: packetgrrl at gmail.com (cja@daydream.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:02:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"

----CJ

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:12 AM, STARNES, CURTIS
> >  wrote:
> >> Ok, now I have a question about your response regarding ARIN membership.
> >>
> >> We are an end-user with a /42 IPv6 address block and an ASN assigned to
> >> us, which we pay end-user fees for.According to the membership defined
> >> page (https://www.arin.net/participate/membership/member.html ) this
> >> qualifies my organization to be a General Member of ARIN.
> >>
> >> According to your statement below, my organization is not a member of
> ARIN?
> >> We have received and paid for direct allocation of IP address space.
> >> So, am I missing something here?
> >
> > Maybe. Quoting:
> >
> > An entity becomes a General Member of ARIN in one of two ways.
> >
> >    * Membership is accorded automatically when you receive and pay
> > the associated fees for a direct ALLOCATION of IP address space.
> >    * Any entity that has a signed RSA or Legacy RSA and has received
> > a direct ASSIGNMENT of address space, an AS number, an experimental
> > allocation, or any combination of resources and is currently paying an
> > annual maintenance fee to ARIN may choose to become a member by
> > completing the membership application form. There is an ANNUAL FEE of
> > $500.00 for membership.
> >
> > Allocation = ISP/LIR. Pays the $1250+ every year.
> > Assignment = end user. Pays the $1250+ once and then pays $100/year.
> >
> > So, as an end-user resource holder you're qualified to become a member
> > with a $500/yr annual fee. But you are not automatically a member like
> > an ISP is.
> >
>
>
> William,
>
> Do you think that this will suffice?
>
> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 14:06:13 2011
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:06:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:02, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"

Agreed.

Also, I am still confused as to why this policy is limited to legacy
resources specifically?
~Chris

> ----CJ
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>> William,
>>
>> Do you think that this will suffice?
>>
>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org

From bill at herrin.us  Mon Jan 31 14:54:05 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:54:05 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>> Do you think that this will suffice?
>>
>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>
> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"

Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
words.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

p.s. Yes, I'm sad to report there is in fact an ARIN-speak -- words
and phrases with special meanings overloaded on the plain English,
meanings that tend to obstruct outsiders' understanding both in the
debate and the policy documents. This is unfortunate since it harms
ARIN's accessibility to the public, but that's a crusade for another
day.

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

From packetgrrl at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 15:10:01 2011
From: packetgrrl at gmail.com (cja@daydream.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:10:01 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

Let's be clear this is not "ARIN speak".  This is RIR speak.    If you have
a better alternative to distinguish between addresses that are given out to
be further assigned to customers as opposed to blocks given that are
intended not to be further delegated then feel free to make a suggestion.
Most of us would love a workable alternative.

Thanks!

----Cathy

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:54 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan 
> wrote:
> >> Do you think that this will suffice?
> >>
> >> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
> >> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
> >> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
> >
> > I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
>
> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
> words.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> p.s. Yes, I'm sad to report there is in fact an ARIN-speak -- words
> and phrases with special meanings overloaded on the plain English,
> meanings that tend to obstruct outsiders' understanding both in the
> debate and the policy documents. This is unfortunate since it harms
> ARIN's accessibility to the public, but that's a crusade for another
> day.
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: 
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 17:31:26 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:31:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Chris Grundemann  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:02, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"

[ clip ]

>
> Also, I am still confused as to why this policy is limited to legacy
> resources specifically?

If someone wants to articulate the problem with this proposal the way
it is, (aside from the language that Bill and Chris commented on, I'd
be happy to consider it.

Best,

-M<

From bill at herrin.us  Mon Jan 31 17:49:43 2011
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:49:43 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:10 PM, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
> Let's be clear this is not "ARIN speak". ?This is RIR speak.

Hi Cathy,

Fair enough; it's RIR-speak.

> ?If you have
> a better alternative to distinguish between addresses that are given out to
> be further assigned to customers as opposed to blocks given that are
> intended not to be further delegated then feel free to make a suggestion.
> Most of us would love a workable alternative.

Okay, I deserved that. The only thing I have is: use more words. One
word whose plain English meaning implies receiving the
allocation/assignment/delegation/registration and a second word or
words whose plain English meaning sets out the difference between
delegable/ISP/LIR registrations and those which are indivisible.

Regards,
Bill

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

From owen at delong.com  Mon Jan 31 18:11:49 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:11:49 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: <1526F6C3-B331-46AF-AEDB-04FC8F1193B9@delong.com>

On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Chris Grundemann  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:02, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
>>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
>> 
>> Also, I am still confused as to why this policy is limited to legacy
>> resources specifically?
> 
> 
> If someone wants to articulate the problem with this proposal the way
> it is, (aside from the language that Bill and Chris commented on, I'd
> be happy to consider it.
> 
Is it intentional to apply the policy to all returned resources or only
to resources that were not originally issued by ARIN?

If the former, then, the current language does not accomplish your
intent.

Owen

From hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 18:23:17 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:23:17 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>>> Do you think that this will suffice?
>>>
>>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>>
>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
>
> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
> words.

In the interest of over simplicity, I think that version 2.0 might be
more clear stating:

"Legacy IPv4 addresses returned to or recovered by ARIN will be made
available for registration within thirty days of their receipt."

I agree with you with respect to more words, but in this case, I think
that less is more.

Best,

-M<

From owen at delong.com  Mon Jan 31 18:30:40 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:30:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

Message-ID: <54562B8B-FF6F-45EE-A2F3-E9E469EF56C3@delong.com>

In the spirit of less is more, may I suggest that you remove the word Legacy
from both the title and the sentence.

Owen

On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>>>> Do you think that this will suffice?
>>>> 
>>>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>>>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>>>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>>> 
>>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
>> 
>> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
>> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
>> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
>> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
>> words.
> 
> 
> In the interest of over simplicity, I think that version 2.0 might be
> more clear stating:
> 
> "Legacy IPv4 addresses returned to or recovered by ARIN will be made
> available for registration within thirty days of their receipt."
> 
> I agree with you with respect to more words, but in this case, I think
> that less is more.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From alh-ietf at tndh.net  Mon Jan 31 19:17:40 2011
From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:17:40 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: <54562B8B-FF6F-45EE-A2F3-E9E469EF56C3@delong.com>
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>						
	<54562B8B-FF6F-45EE-A2F3-E9E469EF56C3@delong.com>
Message-ID: <123a01cbc1a5$7c98bba0$75ca32e0$@net>

Taking Owen's point a little further; IPv4 is 'legacy', so it is
redundant...

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:31 PM
> To: Martin Hannigan
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
> 
> In the spirit of less is more, may I suggest that you remove the word
> Legacy
> from both the title and the sentence.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin 
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com
>  wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan
>  wrote:
> >>>> Do you think that this will suffice?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
> >>>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
> >>>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
> >>>
> >>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
> >>
> >> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
> >> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
> >> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
> >> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
> >> words.
> >
> >
> > In the interest of over simplicity, I think that version 2.0 might be
> > more clear stating:
> >
> > "Legacy IPv4 addresses returned to or recovered by ARIN will be made
> > available for registration within thirty days of their receipt."
> >
> > I agree with you with respect to more words, but in this case, I
> think
> > that less is more.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > -M<
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 hannigan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 31 21:09:06 2011
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:09:06 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: <123a01cbc1a5$7c98bba0$75ca32e0$@net>
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

	<54562B8B-FF6F-45EE-A2F3-E9E469EF56C3@delong.com>
	<123a01cbc1a5$7c98bba0$75ca32e0$@net>
Message-ID: 

It's consistent with terms in the NRPM and with respect to the "L"RSA.
 It's not the regular v4 pool and at least in the interim I think it's
unwise to mix policy across the spectrum with arin or rir-speak.
"Sanctioned" v4 addresses are not going to be part of the fluid v4
economy, but former IANA addresses will be. There is going to be a
level of distinction required hence "section 5.0". Continued policy
writing with respect to, for lack of a better term -- normalized
addresses,  should become sparse as time wears on. At least one would
hope.

Ideas welcomed.

Best.

-M<

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Tony Hain  wrote:
> Taking Owen's point a little further; IPv4 is 'legacy', so it is
> redundant...
>
> Tony
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:31 PM
>> To: Martin Hannigan
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
>>
>> In the spirit of less is more, may I suggest that you remove the word
>> Legacy
>> from both the title and the sentence.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin 
>> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com
>>  wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan
>>  wrote:
>> >>>> Do you think that this will suffice?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>> >>>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>> >>>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>> >>>
>> >>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
>> >>
>> >> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
>> >> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
>> >> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
>> >> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
>> >> words.
>> >
>> >
>> > In the interest of over simplicity, I think that version 2.0 might be
>> > more clear stating:
>> >
>> > "Legacy IPv4 addresses returned to or recovered by ARIN will be made
>> > available for registration within thirty days of their receipt."
>> >
>> > I agree with you with respect to more words, but in this case, I
>> think
>> > that less is more.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > -M<
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PPML
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 owen at delong.com  Mon Jan 31 21:17:50 2011
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:17:50 -0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
In-Reply-To: 
References: <0d3d01cbbe4e$a21c95e0$e655c1a0$@ca>

	<54562B8B-FF6F-45EE-A2F3-E9E469EF56C3@delong.com>
	<123a01cbc1a5$7c98bba0$75ca32e0$@net>

Message-ID: <5D0AEBA8-68E2-486E-81F6-701A15313704@delong.com>

NRPM 8 does not make a distinction about legacy vs. non-legacy
addresses, so, I'm not sure why you think that RIR-issued v4
addresses (sanctioned is a very poor choice of terminology
for them) will not be part of the fluid v4 economy.

I see no reason to maintain any distinction, especially since
once they go through one round of this policy or one round
under section 8, they become non-legacy addresses.

Owen

On Jan 31, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> It's consistent with terms in the NRPM and with respect to the "L"RSA.
> It's not the regular v4 pool and at least in the interim I think it's
> unwise to mix policy across the spectrum with arin or rir-speak.
> "Sanctioned" v4 addresses are not going to be part of the fluid v4
> economy, but former IANA addresses will be. There is going to be a
> level of distinction required hence "section 5.0". Continued policy
> writing with respect to, for lack of a better term -- normalized
> addresses,  should become sparse as time wears on. At least one would
> hope.
> 
> Ideas welcomed.
> 
> Best.
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Tony Hain  wrote:
>> Taking Owen's point a little further; IPv4 is 'legacy', so it is
>> redundant...
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>>> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:31 PM
>>> To: Martin Hannigan
>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
>>> 
>>> In the spirit of less is more, may I suggest that you remove the word
>>> Legacy
>>> from both the title and the sentence.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin 
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com
>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan
>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you think that this will suffice?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>>>>>>> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>>>>>>> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
>>>>> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
>>>>> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
>>>>> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
>>>>> words.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In the interest of over simplicity, I think that version 2.0 might be
>>>> more clear stating:
>>>> 
>>>> "Legacy IPv4 addresses returned to or recovered by ARIN will be made
>>>> available for registration within thirty days of their receipt."
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with you with respect to more words, but in this case, I
>>> think
>>>> that less is more.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> -M<
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.