From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 2 14:52:34 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:52:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers In-Reply-To: <50188D1C.4080800@rollernet.us> References: <501048AA.2090103@arin.net> <5016C583.9010907@rollernet.us> <5016D737.2010104@rollernet.us> <616EFC83-E7B0-4B79-833A-84772D309522@delong.com> <50175610.2030007@rollernet.us> <8DFECC16-DC69-499F-BDA0-442A41465277@delong.com> <50183207.2070904@rollernet.us> <5DE99852-4665-4C9D-B005-67858A2CBCD7@delong.com> <50184C7B.7060706@rollernet.us> <50188D1C.4080800@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <501ACC72.9090904@umn.edu> On 7/31/12 20:57 CDT, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 7/31/12 6:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> There's been a lot of discussion here about this between Seth >> and I. How do others feel about putting in a restriction that subsequent >> non-renumbered requests wait one-year after submitting the prior >> request? >> >> Generally, I oppose the idea of a waiting period as an unnecessary >> inconvenience both to the requestor and to staff which provides little, >> if any benefit to the community. However, if that will help us move the >> policy proposal forward with greater consensus, then I would consider >> it an acceptable tradeoff. I would like to hear more from the community >> about whether such a modification to this proposal would increase or >> decrease your willingness to support it. >> > > > If the goal is uniformity and equality for the benefit of all orgs, then > I would also support including a modification to 4.2.1.5 and 4.2.2.2 to > lower minimum multihomed allocations to /24 concurrent with removing the > renumber requirement in 4.3.2.2 without adding any sort of waiting period. I'd be willing to support a /24 minimum for both ISP and end user Multihomers without a renumbering or waiting period. However, my support for end user /24 Multihomers is stronger. There are a lot of organization that are not ISPs that can make effective use of /24 and they can be sizable organizations. Where as, an ISP that isn't large enough to justify a /20 is generally a much smaller organization than an end users organization that only justifies a /24. Therefore, the distinction between end users and ISPs on this point is not completely arbitrary and has at least some merit. So, I support removing the renumbering requirement for small end user multihomers. Independently, I support /24 minimum for multihomed ISPs as well. But I'm not wiling to tie removing the renumbering requirement for small end user multihomers, to a /24 minimum for multihomed ISPs. If there isn't consensus for the later we should still do the former. Alternatively, I support a more optional renumbering clause for end users kind of like "4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return" for ISPs. At this point in the IPv4 game requiring anyone to renumber seems like a highly punitive requirement. Not because of the work of renumbering but because of issues of the IPv4 exhaustion and having to go to the market to get a /23 and renumber out of their current /24 just to effectively get a /24. If it was only about the cost of renumbering I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but when you end up have to go to the market to get IPv4 addresses then this requirement is doubly punitive to small end users. This is also punitive to the community because there is a supply of swamp /24s out there that could be put to effective use by small end users. If there are going to multihome anyway the route table is going to grow anyway. The only real danger of route table growth is if end users that wouldn't multihome anyway multihome to just to get a /24. Is that going to happen, sure in some cases, but they have to get another ISP contract. So, they will be contributing to the Internet ecosystem to get the privilege of requesting the /24, and that now becomes a market place issue not a policy issue in my book. I just looked; There are 759 and 1745 unaggregateable /23s and /24s respectively in ARIN's inventory right now. I would rather see ~2500 routes from 1000 to 2000 small guys using those prefixes over the next year or so, than fewer bigger guys using them. It will provide the most benefit to the largest number of people in my opinion. -- =============================================== 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 Thu Aug 2 15:14:36 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:14:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2012 In-Reply-To: <501047B5.5050903@arin.net> References: <501047B5.5050903@arin.net> Message-ID: <501AD19C.2000903@arin.net> > The AC abandoned proposals 166, 173, 174, 176, and 178. Anyone > dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The > petition to advance a proposal would be the "Discussion Petition." The > deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting > and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: The minutes of the AC's 19 July 2012 meeting have been published and are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html The deadline to begin a petition is 9 August 2012. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) On 7/25/12 3:23 PM, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN > Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 19 July 2012 and made > decisions about several draft policies and proposals. > > The AC selected the following proposal as a draft policy for adoption > discussion online and at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Dallas in > October (ARIN XXX). The draft policy will be posted shortly to the PPML. > > ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers > > The following proposals were added to the AC's docket for development > and evaluation: > > ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > The AC abandoned the following proposals: > > ARIN-prop-166 Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement > ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 > Specified Transfers > ARIN-prop-178 Regional Use of Resources > > The AC provided the following statements about the abandoned proposals: > > 166. "The Advisory Council abandoned ARIN-Prop-166 because the current > text is not technically sound and there has not been any significant > community support for this policy change. The AC did however want to > address the originator's intent and therefore the proposal's shepherd > submitted the original text to ARINs suggestion process as ACSP > Suggestion 2012.13 - CUSTOMER IDENTITY NOT REQUIRED ON /29 AND SMALLER > REASSIGNMENTS." > > 173. "The ARIN Advisory Council voted to abandon ARIN-prop-173: > Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements. Consensus of the AC was that > prop-173 was a political statement in the context of a larger > discussion and that as such it is not necessary. Moreover, it was felt > that if changes to section 8.2 of the NRPM were required there were > other proposals in play that would make the tweaks in a more > fine-grained manner." > > 174. "The ARIN Advisory Council voted to abandon ARIN-prop-174: > Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry. Consensus of the AC > was that prop-174 was a political statement in the context of a larger > discussion and that as such it is not necessary. Moreover, it was felt > that the issue is handeled sufficiently in the RSA or LRSA contracts." > > 176. "The ARIN Advisory Council voted not to accept onto the docket, > ARIN-prop-176 "Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months". The > AC feels that with the change to 24 month window in 8.3 having not yet > been implemented, it would be premature to increase the window of > justification. As well there was concern over 60 month networking > plans being speculative and difficult to evaluate." > > 178. "The ARIN Advisory Council voted to abandon ARIN-prop-178 > "Regional Use of Resources". This proposal was brought forth in > response to ARIN staff comments at the last public policy meeting > regarding there being a lack of definition of where resources from a > particular RIR could be used. The consensus of the AC was that this is > an issue that merits further discussion and investigation but that the > proposed text in prop-178 is not the solution. The AC plans to work on > this issue at its next working session." > > The AC abandoned proposals 166, 173, 174, 176, and 178. Anyone > dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The > petition to advance a proposal would be the "Discussion Petition." The > deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting > and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available 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 > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 3 00:53:04 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:53:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201208030453.q734r4vp007848@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 54 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 3 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.52% | 10 | 15.70% | 68734 | sethm at rollernet.us 12.96% | 7 | 13.80% | 60431 | owen at delong.com 7.41% | 4 | 7.36% | 32240 | info at arin.net 5.56% | 3 | 6.07% | 26579 | rocca at start.ca 5.56% | 3 | 5.67% | 24802 | jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com 3.70% | 2 | 5.71% | 24987 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 3.70% | 2 | 5.33% | 23330 | farmer at umn.edu 3.70% | 2 | 4.09% | 17913 | kevinb at thewire.ca 3.70% | 2 | 3.97% | 17369 | alh-ietf at tndh.net 3.70% | 2 | 3.29% | 14417 | bill at telnetcommunications.com 3.70% | 2 | 3.14% | 13752 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 3.70% | 2 | 2.84% | 12416 | mysidia at gmail.com 3.70% | 2 | 2.82% | 12333 | bill at herrin.us 3.70% | 2 | 2.76% | 12103 | jmaimon at chl.com 1.85% | 1 | 3.38% | 14788 | kkargel at polartel.com 1.85% | 1 | 2.32% | 10177 | mueller at syr.edu 1.85% | 1 | 2.30% | 10054 | lsawyer at gci.com 1.85% | 1 | 2.00% | 8758 | john.sweeting at twcable.com 1.85% | 1 | 1.90% | 8309 | heather.skanks at gmail.com 1.85% | 1 | 1.55% | 6796 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.85% | 1 | 1.49% | 6509 | george.herbert at gmail.com 1.85% | 1 | 1.42% | 6235 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net 1.85% | 1 | 1.09% | 4760 | john at egh.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 54 |100.00% | 437792 | Total From jcurran at arin.net Mon Aug 6 16:43:39 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 20:43:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics for IPv4 Specified Transfers (NRPM 8.3) Message-ID: <5DF2EEEF-78E9-4907-8516-1F2B3EE7788D@corp.arin.net> ARIN Community - Several folks have asked for more statistics regarding specified transfer request processing. While we are looking into options for producing such information via automation, we have manually reviewed the past tickets to collect the following information: In 2011, there was a total of 24 Specified Transfers (NRPM 8.3) requested. Below is the current status: Total 8.3 transfers 24 Approved 15 Pending/Abandoned 8 Denied 1 (request was actually for simple reassignment) In 2012 through July, there were a total of 19 Specified Transfers (NRPM 8.3) requested. Below is the current status. Total of 8.3 transfers 18 Approved 12 Pending/Abandoned 5 Denied 1 (duplicate ticket) Note that "Pending/Abandoned" is a request which lacks sufficient information from the requestor to process. These may be still be in progress, or approved to transfer a lessor amount than requested and then not further pursued by the requestor. Note also that some transfer requestors later return with a fully qualified recipient so that the address block may later be an approved transfer to another party in these statistics. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Tue Aug 7 12:25:49 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:25:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record Message-ID: APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in ARIN? Yi Chu IP Engineering Sprint ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From heather.skanks at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 12:29:58 2012 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:29:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is a residential privacy policy, though it isn't something that you can apply to an entire range of addresses automatically - you effectively can still see the assignment size, so there is still a swip action for each assignment. https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html 4.2.3.7.3.2. Residential Customer Privacy To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization with downstream residential customers holding /29 and larger blocks may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that block. --Heather On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments > private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same > time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does > seem a superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and > discussed in ARIN? > > > > Yi Chu > > IP Engineering > > Sprint > > > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Aug 7 13:01:16 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:01:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to reach a network administrator directly. Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. Kevin ? ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments? private.? It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns.? It does seem a superb idea.? I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in ARIN? ? Yi Chu IP Engineering Sprint ? ________________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Aug 7 13:40:05 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:40:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who > can > call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to > reach a network administrator directly. > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I > do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > Kevin While I sympathize with Kevin, but from the standpoint of many organizations that (direct contact to an admin) just doesn't make sense. Organizations are generally better off having the listed contact be some sort of CSR/answering service type that has their own private contact/escalation list of who to call for a given situation. The reason is that Engineers tend to be a much more valuable/expensive resource then CSR/Answering Service personnel. You don't want to waste that resource with the initial screening of calls that might include a very high noise to signal ratio. The CSR can perform the initial screening of calls and separate the "Hey I've got a great deal on routers I'd like to sell you" , from the "Your network seems to be flooding me with what looks to be a DOS attack", from the "I sent an e-mail to someone at your network and it bounced back". This is a much more effective use of resources, especially for smaller organizations who may not have 24/7 Engineer staffing. I know if I kept getting calls in the middle of the night from guys wanting to sell me network equipment, I would simply turn off my phone and then you'd have no contact to deal with your emergency. The key here is that the CSR has enough training to separate real emergencies from the chaff and has accurate contact info of who to get ahold of for genuine emergencies. No one likes dealing with layers of abstraction when they have a genuine problem. But the reality is that publicly published information will get abused by people who don't have such problems. It's not an unreasonable trade-off for that to expect to have to deal with some initial screening and a layer or two of abstraction as long as you do eventually get to deal with someone who has authority to act on your problem, and it's done in a reasonably timely fashion. YMMV. Christopher Engel From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Tue Aug 7 14:08:13 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:08:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in pursuing. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to reach a network administrator directly. Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. Kevin ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in ARIN? Yi Chu IP Engineering Sprint ________________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Aug 7 14:12:19 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:12:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F0B@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Engel [mailto:cengel at conxeo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:40 PM > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are > active > > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network > or > > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who > > can > > call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able > to > > reach a network administrator directly. > > > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > > keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. > I > > do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > > information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > > > > Kevin > > > While I sympathize with Kevin, but from the standpoint of many > organizations that (direct contact to an admin) just doesn't make sense. > Organizations are generally better off having the listed contact be some > sort of CSR/answering service type that has their own private > contact/escalation list of who to call for a given situation. The reason > is that Engineers tend to be a much more valuable/expensive resource then > CSR/Answering Service personnel. You don't want to waste that resource > with the initial screening of calls that might include a very high noise > to signal ratio. The CSR can perform the initial screening of calls and > separate the "Hey I've got a great deal on routers I'd like to sell you" > , from the "Your network seems to be flooding me with what looks to be a > DOS attack", from the "I sent an e-mail to someone at your network and it > bounced back". This is a much more effective use of resources, especially > for smaller organizations who may not have 24/7 Engineer staffing. I know > if I kept getting calls in the middle of the night from guys wanting to > sell me network equipment, I would simply turn off my phone and then you'd > have no contact to deal with your emergency. The key here is that the CSR > has enough training to separate real emergencies from the chaff and has > accurate contact info of who to get ahold of for genuine emergencies. No > one likes dealing with layers of abstraction when they have a genuine > problem. But the reality is that publicly published information will get > abused by people who don't have such problems. It's not an unreasonable > trade-off for that to expect to have to deal with some initial screening > and a layer or two of abstraction as long as you do eventually get to deal > with someone who has authority to act on your problem, and it's done in a > reasonably timely fashion. YMMV. > > > > > Christopher Engel > [kjk] How does that help us when an email process or an Ethernet interface runs amok and my servers are in a DoS condition because of traffic from your network? Is my only solution to block all traffic from your entire netblock and wait for you to decide to wake up and call me? One step away with a single triage desk I can handle, as in our case the listed phone number will reach our front desk and you will be forwarded to someone authoritative in the same call. In a worst case scenario where the front desk is overwhelmed you will be given our service that will contact a company manager. I realize this is effectively degrees of separation, but at least you are in the correct organization from the start. The problem I have is in dealing with private registrations often times there are five or more degrees of separation between the listed contact and someone that can actually do anything. It can be as long as a week with that scenario to get to someone that can do anything to actually resolve a problem. That just doesn't work. In the case of abuse and NOC email addresses those certainly need to be actual monitored email addresses, not a mailbox that will get checked once a week and forwarded to someone who knows who to really send it to when they have time. I don't know about how you run your NOC, and I don't mean to tell you what to do, but for our NOC legitimate role contacts are listed that will get to staff. If something is running amok in my network I want to know about it. I don't want to know about it tomorrow. WHOIS Source: ARIN IP Address: 66.231.96.1 Country: USA - North Dakota Network Name: POLARCOMM-BLK-2 Owner Name: Polar Communications >From IP: 66.231.96.0 To IP: 66.231.127.255 Allocated: Yes Contact Name: Polar Communications Address: 110 4th St E, PO Box 270, Park River Email: hostmaster at polarcomm.com Abuse Email: hostmaster at polarcomm.com Phone: +1-701-284-7221 Yes, that is our real name, our real phone number, that is a monitored email address, and if you want you can even send me schwag like coffee cups or t-shirts to the postal address listed and I will greatly appreciate it. I can and do hang up on salesmen. I really do not have a big problem with junk calls. I think you are working on a solution in search of a problem. I will stick to my original statement - a part of transacting on public networks is providing contact information. If you don't want to do that you can always tunnel through someone else's circuits and protect your anonymity. The administrators for routing devices connected directly to the public network need to be reachable without hours of detective work or unreasonable contact delays. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Aug 7 14:21:49 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:21:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F0E@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: Chu, Yi [NTK] [mailto:Yi.Chu at sprint.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:08 PM > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through > a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential > security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, > or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the > private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. This > 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years > (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- > provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would > like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my > customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is > interest in pursuing. [kjk] [kjk] I apologize, I was injecting my thoughts and not responding to your direct questions. I will step aside and let someone more expert in policy respond. I do remember the topic being discussed. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM > To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are > active > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who > can > call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to > reach a network administrator directly. > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I > do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > Kevin > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM > To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments > private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same > time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does > seem a superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and > discussed in ARIN? > > Yi Chu > IP Engineering > Sprint > > > ________________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sethm at rollernet.us Tue Aug 7 14:24:44 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:24:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <50215D6C.2000702@rollernet.us> On 8/7/12 11:08 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in pursuing. > I remember the topic being discussed and the consensus I recall was that residential entries in whois can be private but that businesses should be public. I would be curious to know if the audit identified their postal mailing address as a security risk as well. ~Seth From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Aug 7 14:35:43 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:35:43 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <50215D6C.2000702@rollernet.us> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <50215D6C.2000702@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F10@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Seth Mattinen > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:25 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > On 8/7/12 11:08 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone > through a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a > potential security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record > (inetnum, or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has > access to the private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. > This 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years > (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- > provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would > like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my > customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is > interest in pursuing. > > > > > I remember the topic being discussed and the consensus I recall was that > residential entries in whois can be private but that businesses should > be public. > > I would be curious to know if the audit identified their postal mailing > address as a security risk as well. [kjk] I agree with your recollections. I also remember some consensus that if the ISP is managing the network then the ISP is the appropriate NOC contact. It would seem strange to me if a company wanted to hide their mailing address or even their email addresses. Is this some sort of company that has no advertising and is not listed in the telephone book and has no web page? I suppose there are niche cases where this kind of anonymity would be appropriate, but the NOC responsible for the devices directly connected to the public network still needs to be contactable. JMHO Kevin > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Aug 7 14:41:54 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:41:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Chris Engel wrote: > The reason is that Engineers tend to be a much > more valuable/expensive resource then CSR/Answering > Service personnel. You don't want to waste that resource > with the initial screening of calls that might include a very > high noise to signal ratio. Respectfully, that's a specious argument. My contact information has been published multiple places in the whois system for going on 20 years. Very little that shouldn't reach me gets through the spam filter and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been called based on the whois information by someone who had no business calling. Then too, timeliness is a factor. Whether it's "you're attacking my network, please stop" or "You stole my photo; I'm hopping mad and ready to sue," it's important that an intermediary not exacerbate the situation with delay, confusion and general non-responsiveness. On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments > private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same > time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does > seem a superb idea. It's a superb idea if you're a LIR. If you're any other consumer of the data it sucks. On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > I would like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature > to accommodate my customer's request. No. Identifying information is required of corporate consumers of a /29 or more, including street address, telephone number and email address. That having been said, it is possible for the customer to establish a legal entity to hold his network resources and then report that entitiy's identity. The expense is not trivial but if the security concern is bona fide, it's not excessive either. It will shield the end user's identity from casual inspection. > If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in pursuing. It has been discussed. Every couple of years since the .com and .net registries started allowing it. The short version is that culturally speaking, folks in North America place a much higher stock in process transparency than folks in Asia tend to. Corrupt practices have trouble standing the light. We are suspicious approaching paranoid about public secrets and try to allow them only when it would be exceedingly destructive not to. When it's appropriate that information be reported at all then, everything else being equal, it's also appropriate for that report to be public. Trial records. Real estate taxes. Presidential birth certificates. And the identities of address holders. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Aug 7 14:56:16 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:56:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F0B@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F0B@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: > > > [kjk] How does that help us when an email process or an Ethernet interface > runs amok and my servers are in a DoS condition because of traffic from your > network? Is my only solution to block all traffic from your entire netblock > and wait for you to decide to wake up and call me? > One step away with a single triage desk I can handle, as in our case the > listed phone number will reach our front desk and you will be forwarded to > someone authoritative in the same call. I don't think we're disagreeing all that much in principle, Kevin. In the case of a genuine emergency you should be able to get in touch with an engineer who can act on your problem to resolve it in a reasonable amount of time....a couple hours at most. I'm simply saying that it's not unreasonable to expect some layers of abstraction to filter out genuine emergencies/problems from things that have no business going to that contact. You've got to remember that with WHOIS you are dealing with all shapes and sizes of organizations, and that will likely be even more true in the IPV6 world. Some of those organizations may not have a NOC or their own Call Center, may not have 24/7 Engineer staffing, may not even have an in house resource that handles their network administration. Even for the ones that do it often makes sense to do some low cost pre-screening of problem reports to make sure they are actual problem reports not sales calls. Honestly, why would it even matter to you (aside from mild inconvenience) how many layers of abstraction you have to go through as long as the end result is that you get to speak with a person who has authority to act on your problem in a timely fashion. I suspect that your real problem isn't that, but that effectively abuse/problem reports are black-holed because they go to a contact address that isn't monitored or they goto a contact that doesn't have a clear chain of responsibility of who to contact. Am I wrong in that? Because that's a problem of implementation not design. I'll agree with you that organizations ultimately need to respond to genuine problems in a timely fashion. I wont agree with you if you insist that organizations can't delegate responsibility for that process in whatever fashion or layers of abstraction make sense for them, as long as the process ultimately works. Christopher Engel From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Tue Aug 7 15:17:25 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:17:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <50215D6C.2000702@rollernet.us> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <50215D6C.2000702@rollernet.us> Message-ID: I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network security department in public. Their customer facing department info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. The point is some business and gov entities may consider their network records to be sensitive info, and want to keep them away from general public. As an ISP, it is not my job to question whether they are just hyper-sensitive or not. Those reassignments are leaf records, only one hop away from their upstream's LIR records. Hence if an ISP make a particular leaf network record private, you can always find the immediate upstream ISP and go take up your network problem from there. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:25 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record On 8/7/12 11:08 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in pursuing. > I remember the topic being discussed and the consensus I recall was that residential entries in whois can be private but that businesses should be public. I would be curious to know if the audit identified their postal mailing address as a security risk as well. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From sethm at rollernet.us Tue Aug 7 15:23:51 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:23:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <50215D6C.2000702@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <50216B47.3080607@rollernet.us> On 8/7/12 12:17 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network security department in public. Their customer facing department info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. > > The point is some business and gov entities may consider their network records to be sensitive info, and want to keep them away from general public. As an ISP, it is not my job to question whether they are just hyper-sensitive or not. > > Those reassignments are leaf records, only one hop away from their upstream's LIR records. Hence if an ISP make a particular leaf network record private, you can always find the immediate upstream ISP and go take up your network problem from there. > What would be wrong with using that customer facing department in the whois record? ~Seth From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Aug 7 15:42:12 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:42:12 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: > Respectfully, that's a specious argument. My contact information has > been published multiple places in the whois system for going on 20 > years. Very little that shouldn't reach me gets through the spam > filter and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been > called based on the whois information by someone who had no business > calling. > > Then too, timeliness is a factor. Whether it's "you're attacking my > network, please stop" or "You stole my photo; I'm hopping mad and > ready to sue," it's important that an intermediary not exacerbate the > situation with delay, confusion and general non-responsiveness. > All I can say, Bill, is that your experience is in direct contrast to my own and to that of many of the clients I work with. Any publically listed contact information will be routinely abused for all sorts of purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the listing. The more prominent the brand, the greater the degree of abuse. This does not absolve an organization wishing to operate on the public internet from the responsibility to publish public contact information. However any insistence that they not be allowed to delegate that responsibility to resources that are most cost effective in dealing with it and to put appropriate screening in place to separate legitimate requests from illegitimate one goes too far. At that point you are starting to dictate to the private organization how best to structure it's own internal processes, which goes beyond your prerogative. The only thing which legitimately falls within your prerogative is to insure that the OUTCOME of that process is that a legitimate complaint gets addressed in a timely fashion and to have an accessible method for determining who to hold legally responsible if it doesn't. > It has been discussed. Every couple of years since the .com and .net > registries started allowing it. > > The short version is that culturally speaking, folks in North America > place a much higher stock in process transparency than folks in Asia > tend to. Corrupt practices have trouble standing the light. We are > suspicious approaching paranoid about public secrets and try to allow > them only when it would be exceedingly destructive not to. When it's > appropriate that information be reported at all then, everything else > being equal, it's also appropriate for that report to be public. Trial > records. Real estate taxes. Presidential birth certificates. And the > identities of address holders. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin There are some individuals and even organizations (battered women's shelters, etc.) that have legitimate privacy concerns about cyber-stalking and other forms of abuse. In those cases, as Bill already mentioned, it IS possible to create a legal entity (DBA, Trust, etc.) that is not necessarily reflective of the individuals real name or the organizations actual business purpose. All that's really important that a block is tied back to some legal entity which has legitimate means for contact and who can be held responsible for said block. All you really need to know is that block x.x.x.x is held by "The ACME Group" and here is functional contact information for them for abuse reports or if you need to seek legal recourse against them. You don't necessarily need to know that "the ACME Group" is really a DBA for the Detroit Battered Women's Shelter and the Admin is Sally May who went to Grover Cleveland High School....and here's her direct dial so you can harass her. Concerns for Privacy and Accountability need to be balanced in a sensible fashion. As there are legitimate concerns for both. Christopher Engel From matthew at matthew.at Tue Aug 7 17:13:18 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:13:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> On 8/7/2012 10:01 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I > do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > I don't see how you can reach that conclusion so easily. I drive my vehicles on the public roadway network, and while they all display number plates, you'll find that translating that information to my home address is non-trivial, at least in this state. Why should my home network packets be any different (and yes, I use more than a /29 here)? Matthew Kaufman From patrick at klos.com Tue Aug 7 17:15:35 2012 From: patrick at klos.com (patrick at klos.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:15:35 GMT Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record Message-ID: <201208072115.q77LFZr9013340@sage.klos.com> > I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network > security department in public. Their customer facing department > info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. Please provide an example of how a legitimate business's WHOIS data may be considered "sensitive"? > The point is some business and gov entities may consider their > network records to be sensitive info, and want to keep them away > from general public. As an ISP, it is not my job to question whether > they are just hyper-sensitive or not. I can't think of any legitimate reason why a legitimate business or government entity should have a reason to hide their contact information?!? (I HATE the fact that our "transparent" government has the balls to say that we don't have any legitimate reason to contact them!) The only people I know of that NEED to hide are scammers, spammers, phishers, and other fraudulent entities. And who is to decide who falls under "General Public" and who should be so priviliged to have access to these "private" WHOIS records? I am often (daily) using WHOIS records to report spam, phishing and hacking activities to ISPs and owners of compromised servers. There is nothing more frustrating than looking up someone's contact information only to find that it's missing or incorrect (although spam filters on abuse mailboxes are a close second!!). > Those reassignments are leaf records, only one hop away from their > upstream's LIR records. Hence if an ISP make a particular leaf > network record private, you can always find the immediate upstream > ISP and go take up your network problem from there. Why have a WHOIS record if the information is "hidden" or "private"? Any business or entity who does not want their actual contact info published can hire their ISP or some other company to handle the contact requests, but SOMEONE HAS TO BE THERE to answer the call or email. Patrick Klos Klos Technologies, Inc. From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Aug 7 17:30:36 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:30:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:13 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > On 8/7/2012 10:01 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > > keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. > I > > do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > > information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > > I don't see how you can reach that conclusion so easily. I drive my > vehicles on the public roadway network, and while they all display > number plates, you'll find that translating that information to my home > address is non-trivial, at least in this state. > > Why should my home network packets be any different (and yes, I use more > than a /29 here)? [kjk] Apples and Oranges.. I have no direct need to find your home address because of interaction on the roads. Legislation has been passed to restrict my access to your personal information via your license number. Get similar legislation passed as respects IP addresses and the same will be true in the country the legislation is based in. Taxi and bus services that do provide a public exchange service are in fact required to display their contact information in human readable form. This is a more valid comparison. Kevin > > Matthew Kaufman > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Aug 7 17:33:10 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <157FD824-383A-4131-A5E9-9FEA2970B8C8@corp.arin.net> On Aug 7, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who can > call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to > reach a network administrator directly. > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I > do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. For reference sake, there are already ways for organizations to prevent their identity for being readily obtaining online (this often involves companies becoming part of other holding companies), and we know this is done from time to time. For example, you might find the IP address block for the local domestic abuse shelter is actually registered to a legal owner which is not even in the same state (but is responsive when contacted via the POC information.) I'm not suggesting that this is a general scalable solution for companies which wish to be private, only pointing out that there are viable options today, used by those who have to be hidden. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Aug 7 17:37:20 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <201208072115.q77LFZr9013340@sage.klos.com> References: <201208072115.q77LFZr9013340@sage.klos.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F56@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of patrick at klos.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:16 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network > > security department in public. Their customer facing department > > info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. > > Please provide an example of how a legitimate business's WHOIS data may > be considered "sensitive"? [kjk] Even in the case of the womens abuse shelter who's contact information *may* need to be protected, I don't believe the entity that manages their network need necessarily be afforded the same protection. Those shelters also typically maintain P.O. boxes and/or off premises offices to protect their physical address. {gross snippage} -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From patrick at klos.com Tue Aug 7 17:51:21 2012 From: patrick at klos.com (patrick at klos.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:51:21 GMT Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F56@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <201208072115.q77LFZr9013340@sage.klos.com>, <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F56@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <201208072151.q77LpLRL013817@sage.klos.com> >> > I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network >> > security department in public. Their customer facing department >> > info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. >> >> Please provide an example of how a legitimate business's WHOIS data may >> be considered "sensitive"? > >[kjk] Even in the case of the womens abuse shelter who's contact information >*may* need to be protected, I don't believe the entity that manages their >network need necessarily be afforded the same protection. Those shelters >also typically maintain P.O. boxes and/or off premises offices to protect >their physical address. >{gross snippage} Why would the physical address of the administrators of a women's shelter possibly need to be protected? Where would the women go that need help? Similarly, you can't hide the phone number of a women's shelter or the women would have no place to call. You cannot provide public services without providing public information. Regardless, the entity that manages their network needs to be able to be contacted. Patrick Klos Klos Technologies, Inc. From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 18:38:19 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:38:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <201208072151.q77LpLRL013817@sage.klos.com> References: <201208072115.q77LFZr9013340@sage.klos.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F56@MAIL1.polartel.local> <201208072151.q77LpLRL013817@sage.klos.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, wrote: >>> > I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network >>> > security department in public. Their customer facing department >>> > info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. >>> >>> Please provide an example of how a legitimate business's WHOIS data may >>> be considered "sensitive"? >> >>[kjk] Even in the case of the womens abuse shelter who's contact information >>*may* need to be protected, I don't believe the entity that manages their >>network need necessarily be afforded the same protection. Those shelters >>also typically maintain P.O. boxes and/or off premises offices to protect >>their physical address. >>{gross snippage} > > Why would the physical address of the administrators of a women's shelter > possibly need to be protected? Where would the women go that need help? How is a business network different than a residential network? The differentiation was intended for ISP's. Not for non network oriented businesses. At least initially. > Similarly, you can't hide the phone number of a women's shelter or the > women would have no place to call. You cannot provide public services > without providing public information. > > Regardless, the entity that manages their network needs to be able to be > contacted. > Using "rights" of the commons vs. privacy is a pretty weak argument overall. Having accurate ASN data would be a far more reliable method, more manageable as well, to achieve many of the stated goals of whois policy. Best, -M< From adudek16 at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 19:13:33 2012 From: adudek16 at gmail.com (Aaron Dudek) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:13:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <201208072151.q77LpLRL013817@sage.klos.com> References: <201208072115.q77LFZr9013340@sage.klos.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F56@MAIL1.polartel.local> <201208072151.q77LpLRL013817@sage.klos.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, wrote: > >> > I doubt you can find the street address of BoA's or CIA network > >> > security department in public. Their customer facing department > >> > info is public, but their network org may be considered sensitive. > >> > >> Please provide an example of how a legitimate business's WHOIS data may > >> be considered "sensitive"? > > > >[kjk] Even in the case of the womens abuse shelter who's contact > information > >*may* need to be protected, I don't believe the entity that manages their > >network need necessarily be afforded the same protection. Those shelters > >also typically maintain P.O. boxes and/or off premises offices to protect > >their physical address. > >{gross snippage} > > Why would the physical address of the administrators of a women's shelter > possibly need to be protected? Where would the women go that need help? > Similarly, you can't hide the phone number of a women's shelter or the > women would have no place to call. You cannot provide public services > without providing public information. > [adk] - I can't believe you can't figure this out. Because they all do not have multi office buildings. It is very possible for them to be located in the same office. We are talking about two different things. > Regardless, the entity that manages their network needs to be able to be > contacted. > > Patrick Klos > Klos Technologies, Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mysidia at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 19:58:42 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:58:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: On 8/7/12, Chris Engel wrote: > While I sympathize with Kevin, but from the standpoint of many > organizations that (direct contact to an admin) just doesn't make sense. > Organizations are generally better off having the listed contact be some > sort of CSR/answering service type that has their own private > contact/escalation list of who to call for a given situation. The reason is [snip] Listing an admin or technical contact's E-mail address, and the answering service/NOC phone number is good, as long as the phone number is answered by someone literate in the technical language used by network operators, with at least a basic understanding of what the internet is, and can be used to get at the proper technical contact, without significant delay. -- -JH From jbates at brightok.net Tue Aug 7 20:05:43 2012 From: jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:05:43 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> On 8/7/2012 6:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > Listing an admin or technical contact's E-mail address, and the > answering service/NOC phone number is good, as long as the phone > number is answered by someone literate in the technical language used > by network operators, with at least a basic understanding of what the > internet is, and can be used to get at the proper technical contact, > without significant delay. Because technical people love to get sales calls scraped from whois. Jack From patrick at klos.com Tue Aug 7 20:44:09 2012 From: patrick at klos.com (patrick at klos.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:44:09 GMT Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, , , <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> Message-ID: <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> >On 8/7/2012 6:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> Listing an admin or technical contact's E-mail address, and the >> answering service/NOC phone number is good, as long as the phone >> number is answered by someone literate in the technical language used >> by network operators, with at least a basic understanding of what the >> internet is, and can be used to get at the proper technical contact, >> without significant delay. > >Because technical people love to get sales calls scraped from whois. > >Jack It's not about who wants to receive (or not receive) sales calls? It's about who you trust your organization's network to? It's about who you trust to receive and handle the first notice that your network is either having troubles or causing troubles, or that a server on your network has been compromised and is causing damage to someone else. Who do you think should be in that position? Patrick From matthew at matthew.at Wed Aug 8 02:32:16 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 23:32:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> On 8/7/2012 2:30 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:13 PM >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record >> >> On 8/7/2012 10:01 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: >>> Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to >>> keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. >> I >>> do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any >>> information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. >>> >> I don't see how you can reach that conclusion so easily. I drive my >> vehicles on the public roadway network, and while they all display >> number plates, you'll find that translating that information to my home >> address is non-trivial, at least in this state. >> >> Why should my home network packets be any different (and yes, I use more >> than a /29 here)? > [kjk] Apples and Oranges.. I have no direct need to find your home address > because of interaction on the roads. Legislation has been passed to > restrict my access to your personal information via your license number. You have no direct need to find my home address because I'm using the Internet, either. > > Get similar legislation passed as respects IP addresses and the same will be > true in the country the legislation is based in. Sounds like a good idea to me. > > Taxi and bus services that do provide a public exchange service are in fact > required to display their contact information in human readable form. This > is a more valid comparison. Actually there's quite a few that don't... limo companies typically don't provide anything except their registration number, which may or may not have a public address or phone number associated with it. But if I'm not providing services to you, why should you care anyway? And, for quite some time (perhaps even still) it was possible to obtain an IP address range and use it as a unique identifier on a private network... so should those cases also be required to have public contact information? Matthew Kaufman From patrick at klos.com Wed Aug 8 08:34:48 2012 From: patrick at klos.com (patrick at klos.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:34:48 GMT Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at>, <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local>, <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> Message-ID: <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> >>> Why should my home network packets be any different (and yes, I use more >>> than a /29 here)? You are implying that you use more than 8 IP addresses. Are these 8+ world routable IP addresses being used for business or personal use? >> [kjk] Apples and Oranges.. I have no direct need to find your home address >> because of interaction on the roads. Legislation has been passed to >> restrict my access to your personal information via your license number. > >You have no direct need to find my home address because I'm using the >Internet, either. If a computer on your network is malfunctioning or has been compromised, don't you want to know about it? How does someone contact you to tell you about it without a valid working phone or email address? If you don't want to have your home address, phone and email published, give the responsibility to your provider, but someone has to answer the phone when computers on your network are having issues. >But if I'm not providing services to you, why should you care anyway? Because your machines may adversely effect others, including me and/or my customers, that's why. Patrick From cengel at conxeo.com Wed Aug 8 10:36:15 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:36:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, , , <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> Message-ID: > > It's not about who wants to receive (or not receive) sales calls? It's > about who you trust your organization's network to? It's about who you > trust to receive and handle the first notice that your network is either > having troubles or causing troubles, or that a server on your network has > been compromised and is causing damage to someone else. Who do you > think > should be in that position? > > Patrick You don't need the first point of contact to be a highly paid and highly trained engineer. It doesn't take much technical training to differentiate between a sales call and someone who is experiencing serious disruption coming from your network. It's pretty much the same deal with calling your doctors office outside of normal hours. The first person to pick up the phone isn't the doctor or even an RN. It's an answering service operator, that's because you don't need much training to do some very basic screening and categorization of the call.... and what a Doctor is responsible for is a heck of alot more important then an average endpoint network admin. The only thing that really matters is that for a genuine problem, you get a timely response from someone who can act on it. Needing to speak to an answering service or CSR first to determine that you aren't just some guy trying to sell routers, isn't too much to ask in exchange for a publically published contact that is actively monitored. YMMV. Christopher Engel From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Aug 8 11:57:31 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:57:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, , , <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0FE7@MAIL1.polartel.local> This discussion is getting off track. The point of conflict is not whether the phone call needs to go directly to the NOC but whether the WHOIS information can be completely obfuscated with a private registration. The Administrative PoC is less important and I see no problem hiding that behind an upstream or a legitimate false front, but the NOC and ABUSE PoC's need to terminate somewhere that is one degree of separation from someone who can actually do something. The TECH, NOC and ABUSE PoC's are often most appropriately not even in the same organization as the Admin PoC. I have many customers who outsource their network operations, either to me or another third party. That outsource would be much more appropriate as a TECH/NOC/ABUSE PoC than the poor customer who has no idea what an IP address is. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chris Engel > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:36 AM > To: 'patrick at klos.com'; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > > > It's not about who wants to receive (or not receive) sales calls? It's > > about who you trust your organization's network to? It's about who you > > trust to receive and handle the first notice that your network is either > > having troubles or causing troubles, or that a server on your network > has > > been compromised and is causing damage to someone else. Who do you > > think > > should be in that position? > > > > Patrick > > You don't need the first point of contact to be a highly paid and highly > trained engineer. It doesn't take much technical training to differentiate > between a sales call and someone who is experiencing serious disruption > coming from your network. It's pretty much the same deal with calling > your doctors office outside of normal hours. The first person to pick up > the phone isn't the doctor or even an RN. It's an answering service > operator, that's because you don't need much training to do some very > basic screening and categorization of the call.... and what a Doctor is > responsible for is a heck of alot more important then an average endpoint > network admin. The only thing that really matters is that for a genuine > problem, you get a timely response from someone who can act on it. Needing > to speak to an answering service or CSR first to determine that you aren't > just some guy trying to sell routers, isn't too much to ask in exchange > for a publically published contact that is ! > !a ctively monitored. YMMV. > > > > Christopher Engel > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill at herrin.us Wed Aug 8 12:47:55 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:47:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0FE7@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0FE7@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > The Administrative PoC is less important and I see no problem hiding that > behind an upstream or a legitimate false front, but the NOC and ABUSE PoC's > need to terminate somewhere that is one degree of separation from someone > who can actually do something. I disagree. The administrative POC is every bit as important as the technical POC. It should terminate with someone qualified and authorized to accept legal notice on behalf of the individual or organization holding the addresses. Part of setting up a lawful false front involves hiring or contracting such an agent. That agent has duties for which he is liable under statute and common law... and he charges you for performing them. Those duties go beyond the lackadaisical response ISPs provide when someone seeks to serve one of their residential customers. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 8 13:20:48 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:20:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0FE7@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, , , <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0FE7@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: See inline yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:58 AM To: 'Chris Engel'; 'patrick at klos.com'; 'arin-ppml at arin.net' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record This discussion is getting off track. The point of conflict is not whether the phone call needs to go directly to the NOC but whether the WHOIS information can be completely obfuscated with a private registration. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] You still have the upstream ISP's record in whois, as this is the reassignment out of the ISP block. So you can take it to the upstream ISP, and resolve your issue from there. The Administrative PoC is less important and I see no problem hiding that behind an upstream or a legitimate false front, but the NOC and ABUSE PoC's need to terminate somewhere that is one degree of separation from someone who can actually do something. The TECH, NOC and ABUSE PoC's are often most appropriately not even in the same organization as the Admin PoC. I have many customers who outsource their network operations, either to me or another third party. That outsource would be much more appropriate as a TECH/NOC/ABUSE PoC than the poor customer who has no idea what an IP address is. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] For that matter, one can think of the upstream ISP as the entity being 'outsourced' to. In most cases, ISP's are responsible and managing on behalf of the customer anyway. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chris Engel > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:36 AM > To: 'patrick at klos.com'; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > > > It's not about who wants to receive (or not receive) sales calls? It's > > about who you trust your organization's network to? It's about who you > > trust to receive and handle the first notice that your network is either > > having troubles or causing troubles, or that a server on your network > has > > been compromised and is causing damage to someone else. Who do you > > think > > should be in that position? > > > > Patrick > > You don't need the first point of contact to be a highly paid and highly > trained engineer. It doesn't take much technical training to differentiate > between a sales call and someone who is experiencing serious disruption > coming from your network. It's pretty much the same deal with calling > your doctors office outside of normal hours. The first person to pick up > the phone isn't the doctor or even an RN. It's an answering service > operator, that's because you don't need much training to do some very > basic screening and categorization of the call.... and what a Doctor is > responsible for is a heck of alot more important then an average endpoint > network admin. The only thing that really matters is that for a genuine > problem, you get a timely response from someone who can act on it. Needing > to speak to an answering service or CSR first to determine that you aren't > just some guy trying to sell routers, isn't too much to ask in exchange > for a publically published contact that is ! > !a ctively monitored. YMMV. > > > > Christopher Engel > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From heather.schiller at verizon.com Wed Aug 8 13:26:21 2012 From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:26:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: I offer this info for historical context - to give you an overview of what's been discussed previously. Don't let it get in your way of suggesting an alternative via: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html You may want to address these concerns in writing the rationale. This has come up before. You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion- but so far the community has favored transparency in requiring whois records. I think the prevailing argument has been that "companies" are inherently public - company name and address are already public record, as they are registered and searchable in state records. Law Enforcement folks argue that having whois info published facilitates legal investigations, especially in emergencies. In addition the anti-spam/security community will oppose it - as they use whois information to track badness. Having managed some IP's in the past - the folks who are doing really super s3kr3t stuff aren't doing it on the public internet. Those that are doing sensitive things over the public internet, have a better game plan for security than obscuring whois, and the good ones have implemented that before it gets to asking you not to swip. The rest can get by with listing already publicly identifiable contact info - corp name, corp headquarters, etc. No one should be relying on obscuring swip as a security practice, if you are still accepting packets. An experienced network security auditor would have experience with swip records and would know that in the ARIN region commercial space isn't going to be marked "private". In fact, the point could be made that marking them private is likely to raise more curiosity, especially when its clearly not residential space. --Heather -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:08 PM To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in pursuing. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to reach a network administrator directly. Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. Kevin ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in ARIN? Yi Chu IP Engineering Sprint ________________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 8 14:16:33 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 18:16:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB1009@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, , , <5021AD57.10009@brightok.net> <201208080044.q780i9L1009799@sage.klos.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0FE7@MAIL1.polartel.local> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB1009@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: > This discussion is getting off track. The point of conflict is not > whether > the phone call needs to go directly to the NOC but whether the WHOIS > information can be completely obfuscated with a private registration. > [Chu, Yi [NTK]] You still have the upstream ISP's record in whois, as this > is the reassignment out of the ISP block. So you can take it to the > upstream ISP, and resolve your issue from there. [kjk] The problem is that the upstream ISP in many cases does not have the contact information for the customers NOC.. so you have a problem, you call the ISP, they open a ticket and forward it to the customer, days pass as the ticket goes through the process, it gets to the customer, the customer passes the info to the network admin agency, the network agency opens a ticket, days pass, the ticket gets to the NOC and enters their queue, days pass, finally someone gets back to you if they feel like it. Again, the NOC and ABUSE PoC's need to be responsive and within one degree of separation from someone who can actually do something. I want to call that number and be transferred to a responsible party in the same call. [yi] The ISP is responsible for putting in the info in swip, so the ISP has the customer's contact info. If the ISP swip it private, arin and the swipping ISP still have exactly the same info as swpping it in public. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6735 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Aug 8 14:06:58 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 18:06:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be identified and challenged whenever it occurs. If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? Keep in mind that AP is the world's most populous region with the most Internet users and that the "badness" of which you speak is global and not bounded by any region or territory. I would say that the merit of your arguments regarding transparency may be strong enough to stand on their own; no need to invoke a fictitious "community" > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Schiller, Heather A > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:26 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > I offer this info for historical context - to give you an overview of what's been > discussed previously. Don't let it get in your way of suggesting an alternative > via: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html You may want to > address these concerns in writing the rationale. > > This has come up before. You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & > policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion- but so far the > community has favored transparency in requiring whois records. I think the > prevailing argument has been that "companies" are inherently public - > company name and address are already public record, as they are registered > and searchable in state records. Law Enforcement folks argue that having > whois info published facilitates legal investigations, especially in > emergencies. In addition the anti-spam/security community will oppose it - > as they use whois information to track badness. > > Having managed some IP's in the past - the folks who are doing really super > s3kr3t stuff aren't doing it on the public internet. Those that are doing > sensitive things over the public internet, have a better game plan for security > than obscuring whois, and the good ones have implemented that before it > gets to asking you not to swip. The rest can get by with listing already publicly > identifiable contact info - corp name, corp headquarters, etc. No one should > be relying on obscuring swip as a security practice, if you are still accepting > packets. An experienced network security auditor would have experience > with swip records and would know that in the ARIN region commercial space > isn't going to be marked "private". In fact, the point could be made that > marking them private is likely to raise more curiosity, especially when its > clearly not residential space. > > --Heather > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:08 PM > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a > security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security > risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network > record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as > well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been > incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 > http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- > provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would > like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's > request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in > pursuing. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM > To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who > can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be > able to reach a network administrator directly. > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep > your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do > strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information > the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > Kevin > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM > To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments > private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time > gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a > superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in > ARIN? > > Yi Chu > IP Engineering > Sprint > > > ________________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of > the message. > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of > the message. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From matthew at matthew.at Wed Aug 8 15:09:54 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:09:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at>, <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local>, <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> Message-ID: <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> On 8/8/2012 5:34 AM, patrick at klos.com wrote: >>>> Why should my home network packets be any different (and yes, I use more >>>> than a /29 here)? > You are implying that you use more than 8 IP addresses. Yes, quite a few. > Are these 8+ > world routable IP addresses being used for business or personal use? Personal. >>> [kjk] Apples and Oranges.. I have no direct need to find your home address >>> because of interaction on the roads. Legislation has been passed to >>> restrict my access to your personal information via your license number. >> You have no direct need to find my home address because I'm using the >> Internet, either. > If a computer on your network is malfunctioning or has been compromised, > don't you want to know about it? How does someone contact you to tell > you about it without a valid working phone or email address? If you don't > want to have your home address, phone and email published, give the > responsibility to your provider, but someone has to answer the phone when > computers on your network are having issues. How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem yourself, are you? These days, an email address should be more than sufficient. After all, most of my phone service comes in on the same Internet that my email does. >> But if I'm not providing services to you, why should you care anyway? > Because your machines may adversely effect others, including me and/or > my customers, that's why. Right. So you need a contact means. Not my home address. Matthew Kaufman From owen at delong.com Wed Aug 8 15:25:14 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:25:14 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7679A334-CE0D-46B8-BA3B-203E37784C90@delong.com> On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:06 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be identified and challenged whenever it occurs. > Milton, Heather did not present her views as the community's. She presented a summary of the conclusion of previous discussions of this topic among the community as just that... Historical context of this discussion within the ARIN region. Heather did go on to state some of her own opinions, but she did so in a new paragraph and made it pretty clear that's what she was doing. She also made it pretty clear that she was not discouraging or pre-empting discussion and even provided a link to help someone propose alternative policy, if desired. While members of the APNIC Policy SIG may well be members of the ARIN community also, no, the APNIC Policy SIG is not part of the ARIN community in and of itself. Further, the APNIC Policy SIG is NOT the entire Asia-Pacific region or even the entirety of the region that is served by APNIC. It is merely those people that choose to participate in the policy development process within APNIC, just as PPML and ARIN PPMs are the set of people from throughout the world that choose to participate in the ARIN Policy Development Process. Until your message, I hadn't actually looked into the details of the APNIC policy in this regard, but now that I have, here is what I found: The only references I could find in the APNIC policy documents to "private" all referred to either private networks (those not connected to the internet) or private addresses (RFC-1918 IPv4 addresses). In the former case, it was a statement in the IPv6 policy that private networks might be eligible to receive IPv6 space from APNIC. In the latter case, it was a statement that APNIC did not manage or in any way deal with private addresses. The only reference I could find to privacy in the APNIC policy documents was in the IPv6 policy (no equivalent in the IPv4 policy) and reads as follows: > 3.3 Registration > > Internet address space must be registered in a registry database > accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This > is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and > to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at > all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to end users. > > The goal of registration should be applied within the context of > reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws. I believe that the current ARIN Residential Customer Privacy policy is a more specific, less ambiguous policy which arguably implements exactly what is described in the APNIC policy and which has gained the consensus of the ARIN community. > If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? Keep in mind that AP is the world's most populous region with the most Internet users and that the "badness" of which you speak is global and not bounded by any region or territory. > I'm honestly not sure what Chu Yi was referring to. Perhaps he will clarify. I could not find anything like what he described in the APNIC policy documents at http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/current unless that is his interpretation of section 3.3 of the IPv6 policy at APNIC. If that is his interpretation, then his interpretation differs from mine and I admit I am not sure what the APNIC staff interpretation of that policy is. I will point out that APNIC operates in areas which have radically different societal, cultural, and legal frameworks than those in the ARIN region. As such, it is not unreasonable for their idea of "context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws" to be significantly different from our current policy or even our collective decisions on any future policy in this regard. Owen >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Schiller, Heather A >> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:26 PM >> To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record >> >> >> I offer this info for historical context - to give you an overview of what's been >> discussed previously. Don't let it get in your way of suggesting an alternative >> via: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html You may want to >> address these concerns in writing the rationale. >> >> This has come up before. You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & >> policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion- but so far the >> community has favored transparency in requiring whois records. I think the >> prevailing argument has been that "companies" are inherently public - >> company name and address are already public record, as they are registered >> and searchable in state records. Law Enforcement folks argue that having >> whois info published facilitates legal investigations, especially in >> emergencies. In addition the anti-spam/security community will oppose it - >> as they use whois information to track badness. >> >> Having managed some IP's in the past - the folks who are doing really super >> s3kr3t stuff aren't doing it on the public internet. Those that are doing >> sensitive things over the public internet, have a better game plan for security >> than obscuring whois, and the good ones have implemented that before it >> gets to asking you not to swip. The rest can get by with listing already publicly >> identifiable contact info - corp name, corp headquarters, etc. No one should >> be relying on obscuring swip as a security practice, if you are still accepting >> packets. An experienced network security auditor would have experience >> with swip records and would know that in the ARIN region commercial space >> isn't going to be marked "private". In fact, the point could be made that >> marking them private is likely to raise more curiosity, especially when its >> clearly not residential space. >> >> --Heather >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:08 PM >> To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record >> >> The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a >> security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security >> risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network >> record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as >> well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been >> incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 >> http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- >> provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would >> like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's >> request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in >> pursuing. >> >> yi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Kevin Kargel >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM >> To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record >> >> I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active >> authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or >> abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who >> can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be >> able to reach a network administrator directly. >> >> Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep >> your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do >> strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information >> the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. >> >> >> Kevin >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM >> To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) >> Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record >> >> APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments >> private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time >> gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a >> superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in >> ARIN? >> >> Yi Chu >> IP Engineering >> Sprint >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for >> the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are >> not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of >> the message. >> >> ________________________________ >> >> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for >> the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are >> not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of >> the message. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Aug 8 15:33:13 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:33:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB104B@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:07 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" > views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting > discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be > identified and challenged whenever it occurs. > > If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - > APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, > Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is > not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? Keep in mind [kjk] [kjk] As far as ARIN is concerned the ARIN community is comprised of it's members. APNIC is another community. > that AP is the world's most populous region with the most Internet users > and that the "badness" of which you speak is global and not bounded by any > region or territory. > > I would say that the merit of your arguments regarding transparency may be > strong enough to stand on their own; no need to invoke a fictitious > "community" > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Schiller, Heather A > > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:26 PM > > To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > > > > I offer this info for historical context - to give you an overview of > what's been > > discussed previously. Don't let it get in your way of suggesting an > alternative > > via: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html You may want to > > address these concerns in writing the rationale. > > > > This has come up before. You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & > > policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion- but > so far the > > community has favored transparency in requiring whois records. I think > the > > prevailing argument has been that "companies" are inherently public - > > company name and address are already public record, as they are > registered > > and searchable in state records. Law Enforcement folks argue that > having > > whois info published facilitates legal investigations, especially in > > emergencies. In addition the anti-spam/security community will oppose > it - > > as they use whois information to track badness. > > > > Having managed some IP's in the past - the folks who are doing really > super > > s3kr3t stuff aren't doing it on the public internet. Those that are > doing > > sensitive things over the public internet, have a better game plan for > security > > than obscuring whois, and the good ones have implemented that before it > > gets to asking you not to swip. The rest can get by with listing > already publicly > > identifiable contact info - corp name, corp headquarters, etc. No one > should > > be relying on obscuring swip as a security practice, if you are still > accepting > > packets. An experienced network security auditor would have experience > > with swip records and would know that in the ARIN region commercial > space > > isn't going to be marked "private". In fact, the point could be made > that > > marking them private is likely to raise more curiosity, especially when > its > > clearly not residential space. > > > > --Heather > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:08 PM > > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone > through a > > security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential > security > > risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or > network > > record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private > record, as > > well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has > been > > incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 > > http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- > > provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I > would > > like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my > customer's > > request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest > in > > pursuing. > > > > yi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM > > To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are > active > > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network > or > > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who > > can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be > > able to reach a network administrator directly. > > > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to > keep > > your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do > > strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any > information > > the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM > > To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) > > Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > > APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable > assignments > > private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the > same time > > gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does > seem a > > superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed > in > > ARIN? > > > > Yi Chu > > IP Engineering > > Sprint > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended > for > > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If > you are > > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of > > the message. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended > for > > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If > you are > > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of > > the message. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Aug 8 15:35:30 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:35:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> References: , <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local>, <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at>, <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local>, <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB104F@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:10 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > On 8/8/2012 5:34 AM, patrick at klos.com wrote: > >>>> Why should my home network packets be any different (and yes, I use > more > >>>> than a /29 here)? > > You are implying that you use more than 8 IP addresses. > > Yes, quite a few. > > > Are these 8+ > > world routable IP addresses being used for business or personal use? > > Personal. > > >>> [kjk] Apples and Oranges.. I have no direct need to find your home > address > >>> because of interaction on the roads. Legislation has been passed to > >>> restrict my access to your personal information via your license > number. > >> You have no direct need to find my home address because I'm using the > >> Internet, either. > > If a computer on your network is malfunctioning or has been compromised, > > don't you want to know about it? How does someone contact you to tell > > you about it without a valid working phone or email address? If you > don't > > want to have your home address, phone and email published, give the > > responsibility to your provider, but someone has to answer the phone > when > > computers on your network are having issues. > > How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my > home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem > yourself, are you? > > These days, an email address should be more than sufficient. After all, > most of my phone service comes in on the same Internet that my email does. [kjk] An email address to be useful assumes the network is working. As the prime driver here is reporting network problems I would not depend on email as a delivery method. > > >> But if I'm not providing services to you, why should you care anyway? > > Because your machines may adversely effect others, including me and/or > > my customers, that's why. > > Right. So you need a contact means. Not my home address. [kjk] Agreed. An email address and a telephone number work. ARIN has need of your home address, I don't. > > Matthew Kaufman > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Aug 8 15:59:59 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:59:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB104B@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB104B@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <619808FE-6464-4108-AB7A-C16A4ED21159@delong.com> On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:33 , Kevin Kargel wrote: > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:07 PM >> To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record >> >> I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" >> views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting >> discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be >> identified and challenged whenever it occurs. >> >> If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - >> APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, >> Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is >> not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? Keep in mind > [kjk] > [kjk] As far as ARIN is concerned the ARIN community is comprised of it's > members. APNIC is another community. > Not quite... The ARIN community is comprised of anyone with an interest in IP policy in the ARIN region and an email address. One can become a member of the ARIN community by merely subscribing to arin-ppml. There is no requirement that one be a member of ARIN or live within the ARIN service region to be a member of the ARIN community. Owen From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 8 16:32:06 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:32:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <7679A334-CE0D-46B8-BA3B-203E37784C90@delong.com> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7679A334-CE0D-46B8-BA3B-203E37784C90@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen: Under myapnic portal for inetnum, there are 'private' and 'public' buttons that you can click. If you click 'private', what it amounts to is you have an inetnum registered with apnic, but the record is not visible in the public whois. The policy was discussed and adopted in apnic-16 (2003). See the url for the discussion in apnic-16 http://archive.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/transcripts/database-sig.txt and the presentation Paul Wilson presented http://archive.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/db/db-pres-wilson-privacy.pdf. The policy number is prop-007-v001 I do greatly appreciate Heather's summary. I am still going through the mailing list archives for both ARIN and APNIC around 2003 to understand the dichotomy of the two communities' views on the topic. yi From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:25 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Chu, Yi [NTK]; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:06 , Milton L Mueller > wrote: I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be identified and challenged whenever it occurs. Milton, Heather did not present her views as the community's. She presented a summary of the conclusion of previous discussions of this topic among the community as just that... Historical context of this discussion within the ARIN region. Heather did go on to state some of her own opinions, but she did so in a new paragraph and made it pretty clear that's what she was doing. She also made it pretty clear that she was not discouraging or pre-empting discussion and even provided a link to help someone propose alternative policy, if desired. While members of the APNIC Policy SIG may well be members of the ARIN community also, no, the APNIC Policy SIG is not part of the ARIN community in and of itself. Further, the APNIC Policy SIG is NOT the entire Asia-Pacific region or even the entirety of the region that is served by APNIC. It is merely those people that choose to participate in the policy development process within APNIC, just as PPML and ARIN PPMs are the set of people from throughout the world that choose to participate in the ARIN Policy Development Process. Until your message, I hadn't actually looked into the details of the APNIC policy in this regard, but now that I have, here is what I found: The only references I could find in the APNIC policy documents to "private" all referred to either private networks (those not connected to the internet) or private addresses (RFC-1918 IPv4 addresses). In the former case, it was a statement in the IPv6 policy that private networks might be eligible to receive IPv6 space from APNIC. In the latter case, it was a statement that APNIC did not manage or in any way deal with private addresses. The only reference I could find to privacy in the APNIC policy documents was in the IPv6 policy (no equivalent in the IPv4 policy) and reads as follows: 3.3 Registration Internet address space must be registered in a registry database accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to end users. The goal of registration should be applied within the context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws. I believe that the current ARIN Residential Customer Privacy policy is a more specific, less ambiguous policy which arguably implements exactly what is described in the APNIC policy and which has gained the consensus of the ARIN community. If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? Keep in mind that AP is the world's most populous region with the most Internet users and that the "badness" of which you speak is global and not bounded by any region or territory. I'm honestly not sure what Chu Yi was referring to. Perhaps he will clarify. I could not find anything like what he described in the APNIC policy documents at http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/current unless that is his interpretation of section 3.3 of the IPv6 policy at APNIC. If that is his interpretation, then his interpretation differs from mine and I admit I am not sure what the APNIC staff interpretation of that policy is. I will point out that APNIC operates in areas which have radically different societal, cultural, and legal frameworks than those in the ARIN region. As such, it is not unreasonable for their idea of "context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws" to be significantly different from our current policy or even our collective decisions on any future policy in this regard. Owen -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Schiller, Heather A Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:26 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record I offer this info for historical context - to give you an overview of what's been discussed previously. Don't let it get in your way of suggesting an alternative via: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html You may want to address these concerns in writing the rationale. This has come up before. You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion- but so far the community has favored transparency in requiring whois records. I think the prevailing argument has been that "companies" are inherently public - company name and address are already public record, as they are registered and searchable in state records. Law Enforcement folks argue that having whois info published facilitates legal investigations, especially in emergencies. In addition the anti-spam/security community will oppose it - as they use whois information to track badness. Having managed some IP's in the past - the folks who are doing really super s3kr3t stuff aren't doing it on the public internet. Those that are doing sensitive things over the public internet, have a better game plan for security than obscuring whois, and the good ones have implemented that before it gets to asking you not to swip. The rest can get by with listing already publicly identifiable contact info - corp name, corp headquarters, etc. No one should be relying on obscuring swip as a security practice, if you are still accepting packets. An experienced network security auditor would have experience with swip records and would know that in the ARIN region commercial space isn't going to be marked "private". In fact, the point could be made that marking them private is likely to raise more curiosity, especially when its clearly not residential space. --Heather -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:08 PM To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in pursuing. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be able to reach a network administrator directly. Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. Kevin ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in ARIN? Yi Chu IP Engineering Sprint ________________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Wed Aug 8 17:35:03 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:35:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my > home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem > yourself, are you? Not planning on it. But I might have a cease and desist notice delivered by certified mail. > These days, an email address should be more than sufficient. See above. 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 Wed Aug 8 17:48:43 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:48:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my >> home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem >> yourself, are you? > > Not planning on it. But I might have a cease and desist notice > delivered by certified mail. > > >> These days, an email address should be more than sufficient. > > See above. > Doesn't hold water. You can still receive a letter via a forwarding service. Domain name holders pay for privacy services and they seem to somehow work. And there are ways to address "exigent" circumstances already baked in. There is no need for the physical address to be public at all with respect to "contact" arguments. It's a red herring. Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Wed Aug 8 17:54:46 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:54:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7679A334-CE0D-46B8-BA3B-203E37784C90@delong.com> Message-ID: <088124A5-F1BD-4244-8B60-6112A616FBFC@delong.com> OK... I found the policy (FWIW your link was broken and it is actually at http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-007 ). This goes further than the ARIN policy. Personally, I think it goes too far. Others may disagree. Owen On Aug 8, 2012, at 13:32 , "Chu, Yi [NTK]" wrote: > Owen: > Under myapnic portal for inetnum, there are ?private? and ?public? buttons that you can click. If you click ?private?, what it amounts to is you have an inetnum registered with apnic, but the record is not visible in the public whois. > > The policy was discussed and adopted in apnic-16 (2003). See the url for the discussion in apnic-16http://archive.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/transcripts/database-sig.txt and the presentation Paul Wilson presentedhttp://archive.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/db/db-pres-wilson-privacy.pdf. The policy number is prop-007-v001 > > I do greatly appreciate Heather?s summary. I am still going through the mailing list archives for both ARIN and APNIC around 2003 to understand the dichotomy of the two communities? views on the topic. > > yi > > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:25 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: Chu, Yi [NTK]; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:06 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be identified and challenged whenever it occurs. > > > Milton, > > Heather did not present her views as the community's. She presented a summary of the conclusion of previous discussions of this topic among the community as just that... Historical context of this discussion within the ARIN region. Heather did go on to state some of her own opinions, but she did so in a new paragraph and made it pretty clear that's what she was doing. She also made it pretty clear that she was not discouraging or pre-empting discussion and even provided a link to help someone propose alternative policy, if desired. > > While members of the APNIC Policy SIG may well be members of the ARIN community also, no, the APNIC Policy SIG is not part of the ARIN community in and of itself. Further, the APNIC Policy SIG is NOT the entire Asia-Pacific region or even the entirety of the region that is served by APNIC. It is merely those people that choose to participate in the policy development process within APNIC, just as PPML and ARIN PPMs are the set of people from throughout the world that choose to participate in the ARIN Policy Development Process. > > Until your message, I hadn't actually looked into the details of the APNIC policy in this regard, but now that I have, here is what I found: > > The only references I could find in the APNIC policy documents to "private" all referred to either private networks (those not connected to the internet) or private addresses (RFC-1918 IPv4 addresses). In the former case, it was a statement in the IPv6 policy that private networks might be eligible to receive IPv6 space from APNIC. In the latter case, it was a statement that APNIC did not manage or in any way deal with private addresses. > > The only reference I could find to privacy in the APNIC policy documents was in the IPv6 policy (no equivalent in the IPv4 policy) and reads as follows: > > 3.3 Registration > > Internet address space must be registered in a registry database > accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This > is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and > to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at > all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to end users. > > The goal of registration should be applied within the context of > reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws. > > I believe that the current ARIN Residential Customer Privacy policy is a more specific, less ambiguous policy which arguably implements exactly what is described in the APNIC policy and which has gained the consensus of the ARIN community. > > > If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? Keep in mind that AP is the world's most populous region with the most Internet users and that the "badness" of which you speak is global and not bounded by any region or territory. > > > I'm honestly not sure what Chu Yi was referring to. Perhaps he will clarify. I could not find anything like what he described in the APNIC policy documents at http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/current unless that is his interpretation of section 3.3 of the IPv6 policy at APNIC. If that is his interpretation, then his interpretation differs from mine and I admit I am not sure what the APNIC staff interpretation of that policy is. > > I will point out that APNIC operates in areas which have radically different societal, cultural, and legal frameworks than those in the ARIN region. As such, it is not unreasonable for their idea of "context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws" to be significantly different from our current policy or even our collective decisions on any future policy in this regard. > > Owen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Schiller, Heather A > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:26 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK]; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > > I offer this info for historical context - to give you an overview of what's been > discussed previously. Don't let it get in your way of suggesting an alternative > via: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html You may want to > address these concerns in writing the rationale. > > This has come up before. You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & > policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion- but so far the > community has favored transparency in requiring whois records. I think the > prevailing argument has been that "companies" are inherently public - > company name and address are already public record, as they are registered > and searchable in state records. Law Enforcement folks argue that having > whois info published facilitates legal investigations, especially in > emergencies. In addition the anti-spam/security community will oppose it - > as they use whois information to track badness. > > Having managed some IP's in the past - the folks who are doing really super > s3kr3t stuff aren't doing it on the public internet. Those that are doing > sensitive things over the public internet, have a better game plan for security > than obscuring whois, and the good ones have implemented that before it > gets to asking you not to swip. The rest can get by with listing already publicly > identifiable contact info - corp name, corp headquarters, etc. No one should > be relying on obscuring swip as a security practice, if you are still accepting > packets. An experienced network security auditor would have experience > with swip records and would know that in the ARIN region commercial space > isn't going to be marked "private". In fact, the point could be made that > marking them private is likely to raise more curiosity, especially when its > clearly not residential space. > > --Heather > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:08 PM > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > The situation is my customer (a company, not residential) had gone through a > security audit. The audit identified the whois record as a potential security > risk. What they are asking is for their whois record (inetnum, or network > record) to be private. So the assigning LIR has access to the private record, as > well as ARIN. But not to general public. This 'private' feature has been > incorporated in APNIC for almost 10 years (APNIC-16, 2003 > http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic- > provides/helpdesk/faqs/privacy-of-customer-assignments---faqs) . I would > like to know first if ARIN has a similar feature to accommodate my customer's > request. If not, has the topic been discussed and if there is interest in > pursuing. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Kevin Kargel > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:01 PM > To: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > I see no great problem with private registration so long as there are active > authoritative contacts that can actually do something should a network or > abuse issue occur. Having an abuse or NOC contact point to someone who > can call someone who knows who to call is unacceptable. We need to be > able to reach a network administrator directly. > > Having said that, if you are operating on the public network and wish to keep > your contact information private then something just doesn't jive. I do > strongly support transparency. If you don't want to disclose any information > the solution is simple, don't transact on public networks. > > > Kevin > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:26 AM > To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record > > APNIC has a 'private' option for LIR to make the non-portable assignments > private. It fulfills the LIR's registration requirements, and at the same time > gives LIR option to address its customer's privacy concerns. It does seem a > superb idea. I wonder if the topic has ever been raised and discussed in > ARIN? > > Yi Chu > IP Engineering > Sprint > > > ________________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of > the message. > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of > the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 17:51:09 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:51:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Well, I?m in a quandary and I have decided to come to this Community for help. I am addressing this submission to both the Community and to John Curran as the chief representative for ARIN. We are in the process of building a data center complete with redundant power with Diesel Generator, redundant fiber Internet lines, and the usual data center redundancy stuff. We recently purchased our 2nd Metro Ethernet fiber Internet line and I requested and received from ARIN an AS number to be able to run BGP between our two Metro-E lines. As I have mentioned previously I am the holder of one single Legacy /24 IP Block that I received in 1994. We have begun to bring customers into our data center and we have almost used up this /24 block. So, last week I went back to ARIN and requested the minimum available block size that ARIN will allocate for the purposes of using it with BGP. I believe that the minimum for this is a /22 block and coincidentally that is what we need for the next year or so to run our data center. So far so good. From reading the constant posts to this community I was kind of expecting to be asked to justify if our current block was used up but was surprised when my request was Denied. The blurb they used to deny my request said: To qualify for an initial allocation under the multi-homed policy, you must: - demonstrate an intent to immediately multi-home; - demonstrate you've been reassigned a /23 (or equivalent) from your upstream ISP(s); and - provide data to verify the /23 (or equivalent) is efficiently used. We are multi-homing immediately and we have both of our lines installed so that isn?t an issue. The /23 requirement surprised me because one of the primary reasons why an organization uses BGP is to achieve Internet Line Vendor independence. Utilizing an IP block from one of my upstream providers (AT&T & TW Telecom), takes away our flexibility to change upstream providers easily since their assigned IP Block would go away if I changed to a different upstream provider. With Fiber Internet pricing falling we can?t be locked into an upstream provider for economic reasons. Rescinding an IP Address range from an existing customer who is using it because of a change in an upstream provider would cause hardship to our customers and a possible loss of business to us as they might leave our data center if they were forced to change. When I pointed out to ARIN that I did not want to have to renumber in the future their response was: Thank you for the reply. We understand what you're saying, for sure, but unfortunately, ARIN policy does not allow us to provide an ISP for the purposes of running BGP. Based on the information provided in your request, you do not qualify to receive an initial allocation from ARIN under any current policy. So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable solution. That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or not) and buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay them for it and use that block. I would prefer not to go around ARIN and prefer to get the IP Block we need directly from ARIN ? but - I have now tried to do that without success. I think our request was reasonable based on actual need. I didn?t request something crazy like a /20 or whatever. Therefore I am looking for help from this community. Based on what ARIN has told me I won?t qualify for a /22 unless I first get a block from one of my upstream providers which I won?t do because it locks me into a vendor. So either the Policy has to change or I have to purchase a Legacy block independent of ARIN. I somewhat doubt based on all the submissions that I have observed in this community that I can achieve a change in ARIN?s policy but I?ll give that a try. ARIN?s Mission Statement from their website states: ?Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.? In keeping with ARIN?s mission of ?facilitates the advancement of the Internet?, I propose that an addition to the set of ARIN?s policies be made that says the following: ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? (I will let ARIN determine the appropriate Policy number.) It is my strong opinion that ARIN should not be in the business of denying minimum sized IP blocks (IPv4 or IPv6) to anyone who can demonstrate a need for Internet resources! Such denials go directly against ARIN?s Mission of ?facilitating the advancement of the Internet?. This simple policy change incorporates the ?Stewardship? aspect of ARIN?s mission by requiring the demonstration of need, and also incorporates the ?allocation of IP resources? which is also part of ARIN?s mission statement. Finally it provides ARIN and this community with the flexibility of determining what the current minimum IP Block sizes should be ? now and into the future. Note that ARIN was more than happy to assign us an IPv6 address block when I requested one a couple of months ago. So we ARE acceptable to receive a reasonable sized IPv6 block from ARIN but NOT acceptable to receive a reasonable sized IPv4 block. In my opinion this is inconsistent and arbitrary and is fundamentally opposite of the mission as outlined in ARIN?s Mission Statement. ARIN should have the right to set a reasonable minimum block size for both IPv4 and IPv6 but they shouldn?t have the right to approve one and deny the other to the same organization to meet the same need! So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to enact my proposed policy addition, or am I to be forced to go outside of the normal ARIN allocation process to meet my organization?s needs? This submission is intended to be constructive and I hope it is received that way. I look forward to constructive input from this community. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From patrick at klos.com Wed Aug 8 18:01:23 2012 From: patrick at klos.com (Patrick Klos) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 18:01:23 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: <5022E1B3.2050502@klos.com> Martin Hannigan wrote: > Doesn't hold water. You can still receive a letter via a forwarding > service. Domain name holders pay for privacy services and they seem to > somehow work. No, the fact is, "Domain Privacy" DOESN'T WORK! Maybe it works for the owner of the domain who are worried about a little spam, but NO ONE ELSE! Again, why have a WHOIS record when the information contained within them is useless? If I run across a phishing site on 'www.yourprivatelyregistereddomain.com', and your WHOIS records contain bogus contact information, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT YOU'VE BEEN HACKED! How does that help anyone?!? > And there are ways to address "exigent" circumstances > already baked in. > No there aren't. Not when the WHOIS record is useless. Maybe you mean "someone can do a lot of extra work to TRY to find the owner of a resource (network or domain)"??? Personally, I don't think the Domain Privacy features that are implemented by various registrars comply with the ICANN RAA, but that's a different mailing list. > There is no need for the physical address to be public at all with > respect to "contact" arguments. It's a red herring. > For the most part, physical addresses are hardly ever used or touched (except by "Domain Registry of America" ;^). But I believe they should be included for completeness (at least for businesses - no reason not to!). Patrick From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 18:02:41 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:02:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Steven, Are you planning to use the /22 to number your own equipment, or to reassign to downstream customers? ARIN policy has two different sections that apply to those two different cases. For the End User policy ( https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four322) "the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /24". For ISPs, https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222 (the section you quoted) is what applies. -Scott On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > Well, I?m in a quandary and I have decided to come to this Community for > help. I am addressing this submission to both the Community and to John > Curran as the chief representative for ARIN. We are in the process of > building a data center complete with redundant power with Diesel Generator, > redundant fiber Internet lines, and the usual data center redundancy > stuff. **** > > ** ** > > We recently purchased our 2nd Metro Ethernet fiber Internet line and I > requested and received from ARIN an AS number to be able to run BGP > between our two Metro-E lines. As I have mentioned previously I am the > holder of one single Legacy /24 IP Block that I received in 1994. We have > begun to bring customers into our data center and we have almost used up > this /24 block. So, last week I went back to ARIN and requested the > minimum available block size that ARIN will allocate for the purposes of > using it with BGP. I believe that the minimum for this is a /22 block and > coincidentally that is what we need for the next year or so to run our data > center. So far so good. From reading the constant posts to this community > I was kind of expecting to be asked to justify if our current block was > used up but was surprised when my request was Denied. The blurb they used > to deny my request said:**** > > ** ** > > To qualify for an initial allocation under the multi-homed policy, you > must: **** > > - demonstrate an intent to immediately multi-home; **** > > - demonstrate you've been reassigned a /23 (or equivalent) from your > upstream ISP(s); and **** > > - provide data to verify the /23 (or equivalent) is efficiently used.**** > > ** ** > > We are multi-homing immediately and we have both of our lines installed so > that isn?t an issue. The /23 requirement surprised me because one of the > primary reasons why an organization uses BGP is to achieve Internet Line > Vendor independence. Utilizing an IP block from one of my upstream > providers (AT&T & TW Telecom), takes away our flexibility to change > upstream providers easily since their assigned IP Block would go away if I > changed to a different upstream provider. With Fiber Internet pricing > falling we can?t be locked into an upstream provider for economic reasons. > Rescinding an IP Address range from an existing customer who is using it > because of a change in an upstream provider would cause hardship to our > customers and a possible loss of business to us as they might leave our > data center if they were forced to change.**** > > ** ** > > When I pointed out to ARIN that I did not want to have to renumber in the > future their response was:**** > > ** ** > > Thank you for the reply. We understand what you're saying, for sure, but > unfortunately, ARIN policy does not allow us to provide an ISP for the > purposes of running BGP. Based on the information provided in your request, > you do not qualify to receive an initial allocation from ARIN under any > current policy.**** > > ** ** > > So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me > additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable solution. > That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or not) and > buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay them for it and > use that block. I would prefer not to go around ARIN and prefer to get the > IP Block we need directly from ARIN ? but - I have now tried to do that > without success. I think our request was reasonable based on actual need. > I didn?t request something crazy like a /20 or whatever. ** ** > > ** ** > > Therefore I am looking for help from this community. Based on what ARIN > has told me I won?t qualify for a /22 unless I first get a block from one > of my upstream providers which I won?t do because it locks me into a > vendor. So either the Policy has to change or I have to purchase a Legacy > block independent of ARIN. ** ** > > ** ** > > I somewhat doubt based on all the submissions that I have observed in this > community that I can achieve a change in ARIN?s policy but I?ll give that a > try.**** > > ** ** > > ARIN?s Mission Statement from their website states: ?Applying the > principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates > Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and > facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and > educational outreach.?**** > > ** ** > > In keeping with ARIN?s mission of ?facilitates the advancement of the > Internet?, I propose that an addition to the set of ARIN?s policies be made > that says the following:**** > > ** ** > > ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block > matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or > entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? (I will > let ARIN determine the appropriate Policy number.) **** > > ** ** > > It is my strong opinion that ARIN should not be in the business of denying > minimum sized IP blocks (IPv4 or IPv6) to anyone who can demonstrate a need > for Internet resources! Such denials go directly against ARIN?s Mission of > ?facilitating the advancement of the Internet?. This simple policy change > incorporates the ?Stewardship? aspect of ARIN?s mission by requiring the > demonstration of need, and also incorporates the ?allocation of IP > resources? which is also part of ARIN?s mission statement. Finally it > provides ARIN and this community with the flexibility of determining what > the current minimum IP Block sizes should be ? now and into the future. * > *** > > ** ** > > Note that ARIN was more than happy to assign us an IPv6 address block when > I requested one a couple of months ago. So we ARE acceptable to receive a > reasonable sized IPv6 block from ARIN but NOT acceptable to receive a > reasonable sized IPv4 block. In my opinion this is inconsistent and > arbitrary and is fundamentally opposite of the mission as outlined in > ARIN?s Mission Statement. ARIN should have the right to set a reasonable > minimum block size for both IPv4 and IPv6 but they shouldn?t have the right > to approve one and deny the other to the same organization to meet the same > need! **** > > ** ** > > So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to enact > my proposed policy addition, or am I to be forced to go outside of the > normal ARIN allocation process to meet my organization?s needs? This > submission is intended to be constructive and I hope it is received that > way. I look forward to constructive input from this community. **** > > ** ** > > *Steven L Ryerse* > > *President* > > *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338* > > *770.656.1460 - Cell* > > *770.399.9099 - Office* > > *770.392-0076 - Fax* > > ** ** > > [image: Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse > Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc.**** > > Conquering Complex Networks?**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 8 18:12:52 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:12:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable solution. Steve - ARIN's unwillingness to assign you the resources is the result of ARIN following the policies set by this community, i.e. We cannot issue space simply because we feel that the application is made in earnest; the request has to match the policy set by the community because your use of that address space has implications for all Internet service providers. I will allow others to speak about the merits of the current policies for provider- independent IPv4 address allocations. That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or not) and buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay them for it and use that block. Present transfer policy has the same requirements to receive that block as for ARIN to issue space from the available IPv4 address pool, so no transfer would be possible, even if specified from someone else who had sufficient IPv4 space that could be made available. I somewhat doubt based on all the submissions that I have observed in this community that I can achieve a change in ARIN?s policy but I?ll give that a try. ARIN?s Mission Statement from their website states: ?Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.? In keeping with ARIN?s mission of ?facilitates the advancement of the Internet?, I propose that an addition to the set of ARIN?s policies be made that says the following: ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? (I will let ARIN determine the appropriate Policy number.) ... So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to enact my proposed policy addition, or am I to be forced to go outside of the normal ARIN allocation process to meet my organization?s needs? This submission is intended to be constructive and I hope it is received that way. I look forward to constructive input from this community. The merits of your proposal is should be discussed by the community; I do thank you for raising this issue because that is how address policy is improved over time. Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Wed Aug 8 18:50:48 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:50:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: <5022ED48.7010305@umn.edu> On 8/8/12 16:48 CDT, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my >>> home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem >>> yourself, are you? >> >> Not planning on it. But I might have a cease and desist notice >> delivered by certified mail. >> >> >>> These days, an email address should be more than sufficient. >> >> See above. >> > > Doesn't hold water. You can still receive a letter via a forwarding > service. Domain name holders pay for privacy services and they seem to > somehow work. And there are ways to address "exigent" circumstances > already baked in. I'm probably OK with that, but doesn't ARIN still need to maintain the field for the address of privacy service and client reference number to go into? If not, then how does the privacy service work? > There is no need for the physical address to be public at all with > respect to "contact" arguments. It's a red herring. I'm OK with allowing privacy service for a business entity. However, using a privacy service should not be a requirement either. So, I don't see how ARIN can eliminate the Address field, the address for the privacy service needs to go into it. ARIN still need to require some kind of address in the field as well. Unless you are suggesting that ARIN should provide the privacy service. Oh, and by the way, even if you allow the identity and the street address of the actual user to be obfuscated, the legal jurisdiction shouldn't be. At least country of the actual user should be included in all cases, and the State or Provence within the US and CA. There should also be options for multiple jurisdictions and more detailed jurisdiction or demographic data as appropriate, like county, city, maybe even postal code, again for the actual user. Requiring proper jurisdiction facilitates efficient operation of the legal system by allowing a Jane/John Doe warrant or subpena to be requested within the proper jurisdiction. Privacy is not an excuse to hide illegal activity or intended as a shield from the due process rights by others. Privacy is only intended to shield you from unwarranted intrusion. I'm not saying the legal system is perfect or never abused, but the ARIN Whois database is not the proper way to fix that problem. Finally, in this case privacy is a right of the user not the ISP or LIR, any change we make in this policy needs to be clear on that and the control should be in the hands of the user in question not necessarily the ISP or LIR. -- =============================================== 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 SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 19:04:01 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 23:04:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> ARIN is a Monopoly. As a Monopoly ARIN does not have the right to refuse assignment solely because this community has participated in commenting on a policy. The phone company who also is a monopoly cannot deny me a phone line just because the other folks who already have a phone don?t want me to have one or even a second one. Also, I have requested that the policy I proposed be entered and considered by this community and I expect that you or whoever will make that happen. I have no experience with that so I will need help. I would hope that ARIN would Champion someone like me who is trying to go thru proper ARIN channels for resources, instead of forcing someone like me to go around it. By denying reasonable requests like mine, ARIN is forcing organizations like mine to participate in back-channel IP markets outside of ARIN which per your many comments on the subject ? you don?t want to happen. It is my opinion that ARIN really doesn?t have authority over Legacy resources that are not under contract with ARIN but that isn?t what is happening here. I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. I have a need for resources and I HAVE TO FILL THEM TO STAY IN BUSINESS. Is ARIN going to honor its Mission Statement and allocate the resources we need or not? Also there are a lot of folks out there who are a member of this community. Many have privately told me that they agree with me but I don?t see them commenting publicly. I assume they have tried in the past without success and have given up trying. I would ask them to break their silence and contribute their comments to this subject so that all of the community out there can be heard and not just the vocal minority. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:13 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: IP Address Policy On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable solution. Steve - ARIN's unwillingness to assign you the resources is the result of ARIN following the policies set by this community, i.e. We cannot issue space simply because we feel that the application is made in earnest; the request has to match the policy set by the community because your use of that address space has implications for all Internet service providers. I will allow others to speak about the merits of the current policies for provider- independent IPv4 address allocations. That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or not) and buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay them for it and use that block. Present transfer policy has the same requirements to receive that block as for ARIN to issue space from the available IPv4 address pool, so no transfer would be possible, even if specified from someone else who had sufficient IPv4 space that could be made available. I somewhat doubt based on all the submissions that I have observed in this community that I can achieve a change in ARIN?s policy but I?ll give that a try. ARIN?s Mission Statement from their website states: ?Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.? In keeping with ARIN?s mission of ?facilitates the advancement of the Internet?, I propose that an addition to the set of ARIN?s policies be made that says the following: ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? (I will let ARIN determine the appropriate Policy number.) ... So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to enact my proposed policy addition, or am I to be forced to go outside of the normal ARIN allocation process to meet my organization?s needs? This submission is intended to be constructive and I hope it is received that way. I look forward to constructive input from this community. The merits of your proposal is should be discussed by the community; I do thank you for raising this issue because that is how address policy is improved over time. Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 19:27:29 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:27:29 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > Also, I have requested that the policy I proposed be entered and > considered by this community and I expect that you or whoever will make > that happen. I have no experience with that so I will need help. > That is one of the most important role that those of us on the Advisory Council volunteer for when we run for election: helping those who want to propose policy do so. I'm happy to help craft policy language, if you can identify which part of the currently policy language you'd like changed, and a rough idea of how you think it could be changed, ideally in a way that's fair to new entrants and to organizations running default-free routers that have to carry each new route that is added to the BGP table. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cblecker at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 19:35:01 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:35:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Hi Stephen, The usual procedure most new providers go through would be to go to one of your upstream providers (in your case AT&T or TW Telecom) and request a "portable /24 via BGP, with an LOA". Let's say you got this block from AT&T. You'd then take the LOA (Letter of Approval/Authorization) to your other provider, in this case TW Telecom, and ask them to add it to their BGP filters. Once you start advertising this block to both upstreams, you have the same redundancy as a PI block. The only restriction would be if you discontinued your customer relationship with AT&T, they would likely require you to return the block to them. This new assignment, along with your legacy assignment, would bring you up to /23 of non-contiguous space (enough to meet ARIN's requirement). Once you achieve 80% utilization of this space (410 out of 512 IPs) then you will meet ARIN's requirement for getting PI space directly from them. Yes, there are a number of hoops that the policy makes you jump though to get an initial assignment, but there are very good reasons for these (including routing table size issues, and the want to protect from a shell company starting up, calling themselves an ISP, and immediately eligible for a /22 from ARIN). Cheers, Christoph On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > ARIN is a Monopoly. As a Monopoly ARIN does not have the right to refuse > assignment solely because this community has participated in commenting on a > policy. The phone company who also is a monopoly cannot deny me a phone > line just because the other folks who already have a phone don?t want me to > have one or even a second one. > > > > Also, I have requested that the policy I proposed be entered and > considered by this community and I expect that you or whoever will make that > happen. I have no experience with that so I will need help. > > > > I would hope that ARIN would Champion someone like me who is trying to go > thru proper ARIN channels for resources, instead of forcing someone like me > to go around it. By denying reasonable requests like mine, ARIN is forcing > organizations like mine to participate in back-channel IP markets outside of > ARIN which per your many comments on the subject ? you don?t want to happen. > > > > It is my opinion that ARIN really doesn?t have authority over Legacy > resources that are not under contract with ARIN but that isn?t what is > happening here. I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed > resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. > > > > I have a need for resources and I HAVE TO FILL THEM TO STAY IN BUSINESS. > Is ARIN going to honor its Mission Statement and allocate the resources we > need or not? > > > > Also there are a lot of folks out there who are a member of this > community. Many have privately told me that they agree with me but I don?t > see them commenting publicly. I assume they have tried in the past without > success and have given up trying. I would ask them to break their silence > and contribute their comments to this subject so that all of the community > out there can be heard and not just the vocal minority. > > > > Steven L Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099 - Office > > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks?\ From heather.schiller at verizon.com Wed Aug 8 19:37:23 2012 From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:37:23 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Policy Proposal Template: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html Description of policy proposal process: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html The quick version: Once submitted your text will go to the Advisory Council - the chair will assign a shepherd who will help you through the process. Your proposal will get discussed on ppml, text will be refined, it will probably be presented and debated at a public policy meeting, after which it may advance to the board, be revised or abandoned. Regarding a point from your earlier email- "So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to enact my proposed policy addition" - ARIN staff can not propose text, can not support or oppose a proposal, and they do not decide whether there is consensus. Reviewing the Policy development process or talking to an AC member can help with further understanding how a proposal becomes policy. It might be worth trying to understand why the existing text is what it is, and what other's experiences have been when writing your proposal and rationale. --Heather ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:04 PM To: John Curran Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy ARIN is a Monopoly. As a Monopoly ARIN does not have the right to refuse assignment solely because this community has participated in commenting on a policy. The phone company who also is a monopoly cannot deny me a phone line just because the other folks who already have a phone don?t want me to have one or even a second one. Also, I have requested that the policy I proposed be entered and considered by this community and I expect that you or whoever will make that happen. I have no experience with that so I will need help. I would hope that ARIN would Champion someone like me who is trying to go thru proper ARIN channels for resources, instead of forcing someone like me to go around it. By denying reasonable requests like mine, ARIN is forcing organizations like mine to participate in back-channel IP markets outside of ARIN which per your many comments on the subject ? you don?t want to happen. It is my opinion that ARIN really doesn?t have authority over Legacy resources that are not under contract with ARIN but that isn?t what is happening here. I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. I have a need for resources and I HAVE TO FILL THEM TO STAY IN BUSINESS. Is ARIN going to honor its Mission Statement and allocate the resources we need or not? Also there are a lot of folks out there who are a member of this community. Many have privately told me that they agree with me but I don?t see them commenting publicly. I assume they have tried in the past without success and have given up trying. I would ask them to break their silence and contribute their comments to this subject so that all of the community out there can be heard and not just the vocal minority. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:13 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: IP Address Policy On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: ... So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable solution. Steve - ARIN's unwillingness to assign you the resources is the result of ARIN following the policies set by this community, i.e. We cannot issue space simply because we feel that the application is made in earnest; the request has to match the policy set by the community because your use of that address space has implications for all Internet service providers. I will allow others to speak about the merits of the current policies for provider- independent IPv4 address allocations. That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or not) and buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay them for it and use that block. Present transfer policy has the same requirements to receive that block as for ARIN to issue space from the available IPv4 address pool, so no transfer would be possible, even if specified from someone else who had sufficient IPv4 space that could be made available. I somewhat doubt based on all the submissions that I have observed in this community that I can achieve a change in ARIN?s policy but I?ll give that a try. ARIN?s Mission Statement from their website states: ?Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach.? In keeping with ARIN?s mission of ?facilitates the advancement of the Internet?, I propose that an addition to the set of ARIN?s policies be made that says the following: ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? (I will let ARIN determine the appropriate Policy number.) ... So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to enact my proposed policy addition, or am I to be forced to go outside of the normal ARIN allocation process to meet my organization?s needs? This submission is intended to be constructive and I hope it is received that way. I look forward to constructive input from this community. The merits of your proposal is should be discussed by the community; I do thank you for raising this issue because that is how address policy is improved over time. Thanks again! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mysidia at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 19:46:56 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 18:46:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On 8/8/12, Steven Ryerse wrote: > with BGP. I believe that the minimum for this is a /22 block and > coincidentally that is what we need for the next year or so to run our data > center. So far so good. From reading the constant posts to this community The minimum is /24, but if you consider it necessary that you avoid renumbering, you should obtain the /23 from an upstream provider, and retain that upstream provider under long-term contract for such time as you wish to avoid renumbering. IPv4 resource policy is not that you get a 12 month supply of IPv4 addresses to run your datacenter for a year. If you actually had immediate requirement to fully utilize an entire /22 within 30 days, the immediate need policy 4.2.1.6 could apply. But you said you were expecting to coincidentally require just that much over the course of a year, which is a much longer duration than the supply of addresses you are supposed to be able to get through free pool allocations from ARIN. If you can provide the needs justification, and you can find someone with an existing allocation to transfer resources under 8.3 specified transfer, that would be allowed under current policy -- -JH From tvest at eyeconomics.com Wed Aug 8 20:17:33 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:17:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: <0631E707-0E2C-4FEF-890A-823EC70C1535@eyeconomics.com> On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:48 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my >>> home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem >>> yourself, are you? >> >> Not planning on it. But I might have a cease and desist notice >> delivered by certified mail. >> >> >>> These days, an email address should be more than sufficient. >> >> See above. >> > > Doesn't hold water. You can still receive a letter via a forwarding > service. Domain name holders pay for privacy services and they seem to > somehow work. Using the same logic, we could also argue that the public automotive transportation infrastructure systems works just fine even though bus and auto passengers are not subject to any intrusive licensing or registration requirements, and that fact demonstrates that all vehicle registration and driver's licensing laws are unnecessary; they could all be abolished without consequence. The obvious counterargument in both cases is that the "passengers" enjoy those freedoms -- i.e., to get around relatively easily, and in relative safety, and to do so without being burdened by inconvenient licensing/registration requirements -- precisely and *solely* because of the imposition and enforcement of such rules on the underlying factors upon which every "passenger" necessarily depends. If the registration requirements that apply at the lower levels of either of those systems ever disappeared or ceased to be enforced (or to be enforceable), that "free option" would immediately disappear, and all of its former beneficiaries would be forced to accept some new mix of tradeoffs between (i.e., reductions in) their former freedoms -- either less mobility/access, or less reliability/greater risk. Alternately, they might wish to restore the old set of tradeoffs -- i.e., the set that many former "passengers" had never even noticed, much less consciously acknowledged -- by collectively establishing some basic rules of the (road/shared infrastructure), and delegating responsibility for promoting and monitoring compliance with those rules to some some neutral but accountable entity. However, such "collective action" solutions are invariably contentious, time-consuming, and difficult, even under the best of circumstances -- and under less favorable conditions the option may not exist at all. So choose carefully. TV > And there are ways to address "exigent" circumstances > already baked in. > > There is no need for the physical address to be public at all with > respect to "contact" arguments. It's a red herring. > > > 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 jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 8 20:30:44 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 00:30:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. Steve - You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid as it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate IPv4 resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request. As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation policies (NRPM 4.2.2.2), there is a requirement to utilized the equivalent of a /23 (generally from your upstream ISP) before receiving for initial allocation from ARIN. This is not a policy requirement which is unique to your business but long-standing requirement in policy that all service providers have had to satisfy when making that transition. Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers - under the 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24 months can be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may be more helpful with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to follow the existing policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely option that developing a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 20:31:41 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 00:31:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583B78@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I understand the each new route technical issue but it really is the same as the IPv4 issue vs. the IPv6 issue. Saying we can?t allow too many IP blocks because of the increase size in the routing table is just like saying IPv4 has only so many IP addresses and if you don?t get one tough. IPv6 is there and it is a big change but unfortunately necessary. It will cost everyone money to fix. Once the routing table gets bigger than the max size of the older routers then they will have to be replaced with bigger newer ones. That costs money too. It is inevitable to happen ? just a matter of when ? just like IPv6. Everyone who is purchasing routers for this better get one with a higher capacity. Nothing wrong with trying to manage the process of the routing table getting bigger or too many bits but we shouldn?t tell folks they can?t route the Internet ? just like we shouldn't tell folks they can?t have IPv4 addresses when there are still some available. If someone gets the smallest IP block like a /22 and sits on them so what. Anything they get thru this minimum block policy I proposed pales in comparison to the total legacy /8 blocks out there. Those are already starting to come on the market and will have the effect of making IPv4 last longer as they do. It is crazy to expect someone to have to renumber in the real world. Sounds good in a theoretical discussion on a community board but did you ever have to do one. No fun and customers will not like it. It is reasonable for me to get my own block so that my upstream providers don't control the numbers if that is what I want to do. There is no real good argument that I shouldn't get a minimum block if I can prove I need it. Larger blocks are a different story but a /22 - that shouldn't be an issue at all! This community can decide what the minimum block size should be from time to time. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:35 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Stephen, The usual procedure most new providers go through would be to go to one of your upstream providers (in your case AT&T or TW Telecom) and request a "portable /24 via BGP, with an LOA". Let's say you got this block from AT&T. You'd then take the LOA (Letter of Approval/Authorization) to your other provider, in this case TW Telecom, and ask them to add it to their BGP filters. Once you start advertising this block to both upstreams, you have the same redundancy as a PI block. The only restriction would be if you discontinued your customer relationship with AT&T, they would likely require you to return the block to them. This new assignment, along with your legacy assignment, would bring you up to /23 of non-contiguous space (enough to meet ARIN's requirement). Once you achieve 80% utilization of this space (410 out of 512 IPs) then you will meet ARIN's requirement for getting PI space directly from them. Yes, there are a number of hoops that the policy makes you jump though to get an initial assignment, but there are very good reasons for these (including routing table size issues, and the want to protect from a shell company starting up, calling themselves an ISP, and immediately eligible for a /22 from ARIN). Cheers, Christoph On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > ARIN is a Monopoly. As a Monopoly ARIN does not have the right to > refuse assignment solely because this community has participated in > commenting on a policy. The phone company who also is a monopoly > cannot deny me a phone line just because the other folks who already > have a phone don?t want me to have one or even a second one. > > > > Also, I have requested that the policy I proposed be entered and > considered by this community and I expect that you or whoever will > make that happen. I have no experience with that so I will need help. > > > > I would hope that ARIN would Champion someone like me who is trying to > go thru proper ARIN channels for resources, instead of forcing someone > like me to go around it. By denying reasonable requests like mine, > ARIN is forcing organizations like mine to participate in back-channel > IP markets outside of ARIN which per your many comments on the subject ? you don?t want to happen. > > > > It is my opinion that ARIN really doesn?t have authority over Legacy > resources that are not under contract with ARIN but that isn?t what is > happening here. I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed > resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. > > > > I have a need for resources and I HAVE TO FILL THEM TO STAY IN BUSINESS. > Is ARIN going to honor its Mission Statement and allocate the > resources we need or not? > > > > Also there are a lot of folks out there who are a member of this > community. Many have privately told me that they agree with me but I > don?t see them commenting publicly. I assume they have tried in the > past without success and have given up trying. I would ask them to > break their silence and contribute their comments to this subject so > that all of the community out there can be heard and not just the vocal minority. > > > > Steven L Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099 - Office > > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks?\ From bill at herrin.us Wed Aug 8 20:55:00 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:55:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502184EE.2040802@matthew.at> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0F4E@MAIL1.polartel.local> <502207F0.4030601@matthew.at> <201208081234.q78CYmYZ023727@sage.klos.com> <5022B982.2040702@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> How does "a valid working phone or email address" suddenly turn into "my >>> home address"? You're not going to drive up here to fix the problem >>> yourself, are you? >> >> Not planning on it. But I might have a cease and desist notice >> delivered by certified mail. > > Doesn't hold water. You can still receive a letter via a forwarding > service. Domain name holders pay for privacy services and they seem to > somehow work. Hi Martin, I've never actually tried sending a certified letter to, let's say, one of my Godaddy domains by proxy addresses. Have you? What happened? Did they sign for it? What happened next? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 21:05:32 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 01:05:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in my community don?t want me to have one or another one. I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:31 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. Steve - You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid as it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate IPv4 resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request. As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation policies (NRPM 4.2.2.2), there is a requirement to utilized the equivalent of a /23 (generally from your upstream ISP) before receiving for initial allocation from ARIN. This is not a policy requirement which is unique to your business but long-standing requirement in policy that all service providers have had to satisfy when making that transition. Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers - under the 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24 months can be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may be more helpful with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to follow the existing policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely option that developing a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 8 21:36:58 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 01:36:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. Steve - If you make a valid request, we will promptly issue IPv4 resources to your organization. We will not issue against invalid requests for number resources, and compliance with number resource policy is required for a valid request. If believe that the policies are unreasonable, then proposing changes to policy as appropriate on this mailing list is a good start in getting it changed (but may take several public policy meetings before being adopted.) You can find more information on the Policy Development Process here: Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mysidia at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 22:13:25 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:13:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7679A334-CE0D-46B8-BA3B-203E37784C90@delong.com> Message-ID: On 8/8/12, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Owen: > Under myapnic portal for inetnum, there are 'private' and 'public' buttons > that you can click. If you click 'private', what it amounts to is you have > an inetnum registered with apnic, but the record is not visible in the > public whois. [snip] I have a name for "inetnums" not showing up in a public WHOIS directory with some contact information. It's called bogon. There's a recommended practice for dealing with bogons: it's called filter and do not route or peer. -- -JH From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 22:19:00 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:19:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. Sincerely, Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:37 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. Steve - If you make a valid request, we will promptly issue IPv4 resources to your organization. We will not issue against invalid requests for number resources, and compliance with number resource policy is required for a valid request. If believe that the policies are unreasonable, then proposing changes to policy as appropriate on this mailing list is a good start in getting it changed (but may take several public policy meetings before being adopted.) You can find more information on the Policy Development Process here: Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 22:27:47 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:27:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] private whois record In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB0EF8@MAIL1.polartel.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DF9FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I just love the way people present their own views as "the community's" > views. Intentionally or not, it can have the effect of pre-empting > discussion of things that need to be discussed, and thus needs to be > identified and challenged whenever it occurs. > > If I am not mistaken - or more accurately, if Chu Yi is not mistaken - > APNIC already has the kind of policy or practice he is requesting. Thus, > Heather, I must ask: are you saying that the entire Asia-Pacific region is > not part of "the community" that has favored transparency? She was clearly referring to the ARIN community: "You can look through meeting minutes, ppml & policy proposal archives for the past versions of this discussion" > Keep in mind that AP is the world's most populous region with the most > Internet users and that the "badness" of which you speak is global and not > bounded by any region or territory. > > I would say that the merit of your arguments regarding transparency may be > strong enough to stand on their own; no need to invoke a fictitious > "community" > a fictitious "community" in which you participate? ;-) -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dmiller at tiggee.com Wed Aug 8 22:33:36 2012 From: dmiller at tiggee.com (David Miller) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:33:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in my community don?t want me to have one or another one. Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a limited resource, thus their management is distinctly different from an unlimited resource. ARIN is not a monopoly. The internet community as a whole is necessarily a monopoly (of sorts) since there in only one global internet - "the Internet". You are welcome to use whatever pattern of bits you like to address your devices. Noone has any interest in controlling or limiting the pattern of bits that you use. However, if you want the rest of the internet community to treat the pattern of bits that you use to address your devices as meaningful - i.e. those who run internet connected networks will pass traffic for you, accept traffic from you, and/or send traffic to you - then that pattern of bits that you use to address your devices must be unique. The internet community has agreed (nem. con.) that IANA and the RIRs will control, register, and document allocations from the pool of unique patterns of bits to address your devices. The internet community has agreed that IANA and the RIRs will be governed by community developed policies. The policies that the ARIN RIR community have developed require needs justification for address allocations. There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources. > > I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:31 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: > > > ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. > > Steve - > > You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid as > it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate IPv4 > resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request. > > As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation policies > (NRPM 4.2.2.2), there is a requirement to utilized the equivalent of a /23 > (generally from your upstream ISP) before receiving for initial allocation > from ARIN. This is not a policy requirement which is unique to your business > but long-standing requirement in policy that all service providers have had > to satisfy when making that transition. > Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers - under the > 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24 months can > be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may be more helpful > with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to follow the existing > policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely option that developing > a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations. > > 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. From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 22:47:55 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:47:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. > I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. > I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES > AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! > not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. > I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and > approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not > reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations > don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your > staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them > allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have > the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. > While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. > **** > > ** ** > > Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff > should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! > It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). > **** > > ** ** > > You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill > your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. > He rightly can IMHO. > Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on > and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no > legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies > in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both > approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - > you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do > just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to > your mission, regardless of what this community thinks.**** > > ** ** > > This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, > therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. > **** > > ** ** > > I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these > resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate > them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request > ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request > with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately > those are my only two choices. > See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). > If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your > web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our > new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN > is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or > lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would > come back to this community and ask for their help.**** > > ** ** > > John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate > resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if > you would approve our allocation request. > Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. > **** > > ** ** > > I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this > issue as it is very important. > See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Wed Aug 8 22:57:50 2012 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (aaron at wholesaleinternet.net) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:57:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <14b8246e9e8549450cf13f27e6d3b447.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> You're going about this the wrong way. You already have an allocation. You are not looking for an initial allocation. You need to apply for additional space under section 4.2.4. There is no "inital requirement" under 4.2.4, just the requirement that you show 80% utilization. If I were you I would resubmit my request using that as the basis. Aaron > John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I HAVE ALREADY > MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR > ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! I am formally requesting here and now > that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am > going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for > months since others who get allocations don???t have to wait for months. > What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my > request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block > requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO > to do that if you decide to. > > Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff > should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! > > You cannot use this community as your reason why you won???t fully fulfill > your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. > Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and > approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal > standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in > force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both > approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - > you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to > do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary > to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. > > This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, > therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. > > I???m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these > resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN > allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that > request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my > request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. > Unfortunately those are my only two choices. If I???m forced to go that > route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request > for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional > Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing > to do since I don???t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If > that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community > and ask for their help. > > John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate > resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if > you would approve our allocation request. > > I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this > issue as it is very important. > > Sincerely, > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks > Logo_small.png]??? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks??? > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:37 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse > > > wrote: > > > I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is > for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable > request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. > Period. I???ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ??? it > says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. > > Steve - > > If you make a valid request, we will promptly issue IPv4 resources > to your organization. We will not issue against invalid requests for > number resources, and compliance with number resource policy is > required for a valid request. > > If believe that the policies are unreasonable, then proposing changes > to policy as appropriate on this mailing list is a good start in > getting it > changed (but may take several public policy meetings before being > adopted.) You can find more information on the Policy Development > Process here: > > > 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. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 8 23:02:50 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:02:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <0757E15F-DCF7-4BF3-8EF2-7F533F4A93CD@arin.net> On Aug 8, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. Not quite correct, as I am obligated (and honored) to follow the policies that have been adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors The particular policy language that you do not qualify under is in ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), Section 4.2.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs - Multihomed) - "When requesting a /22, demonstrate the efficient utilization of a minimum contiguous or noncontiguous /23 (two /24s) from an upstream." This policy language in question was adopted by the Board of Trustees on 29 September 2004, in the first enumerated version of the NRPM. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. Actually, the Board is fairly rigorous about such changes, and follows the ARIN Policy Development Process which I referenced earlier. This provides that any policy changes are fully discussed by the community in open and transparent manner. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. Indeed. The Board of Trustees must be the judge of our performance in compliance of our mission, and they adopted the policies in question. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I will note this discussion to the ARIN Board of Trustees, but they are quite unlikely to overturn existing policy without a compelling mandate from the community. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. As I noted earlier, we have a specified transfer policy for just such occasions, and will promptly process any valid transfer request that you submit. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. ARIN can't approve a request which is invalid per adopted policy; I actually do not get any choice in this matter. I do wish you best in whatever course of action you choose. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mysidia at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 22:59:14 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:59:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> Message-ID: On 8/8/12, David Miller wrote: > On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they >> are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just >> because the folks who already have phones in my community don?t want me to >> have one or another one. > Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a limited > resource, thus their management is distinctly different from an [snip] Phone lines are not a resource with a specific numerical limit. There is only a question of how much money are you willing to spend to have additional phone lines built. Phone NUMBERs are a limited resource. You can buy as many phone lines as you want, there is a significant cost associated, with the purchase of a phone line. You cannot just go to a phone company, and get as many phone numbers as you want for free, regardless of your claimed need, but you can generally get 1 at least phone number for each phone line you buy. Phone numbers are a poor comparison, because ARIN doesn't sell IP connectivity that the IP addresses you are assigned are used with. ARIN administers the database and stewardship of the resources assigned to it according to community policies; ARIN doesn't sell resources, and they don't have a "monopoly" over IP addreses. On your private LAN which is not internet connected and not interoperable with the internet as defined by community defined technical and policy standards, you are free to use any IP address you want, and establish whatever registration conventions you like. It would be correct to say that ARIN is the exclusive public provider of registration service for numbers that were allocated by IANA to the ARIN region recognized by those networks who cooperate with the IETF RFC-defined internet. -- -J From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 23:13:21 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:13:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583E79@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I appreciate your input but I strongly disagree. John said in one of his earlier emails that the reason we were denied is because of policy and that policy of course comes the this "community" and that sounds like a cabal to me. Obviously it is target at organizations like us. IP addresses are essentially not limited either since IPv6 is there to take the load once the IPv4 is exhausted. IPv6 is going to happen pretty soon so there is no reason to stop assigning IPv4 until they are gone. We've already got our IPv6 addresses. It is pretty silly to tell me I can use whatever bits I want when you know we have to join in with everyone else. Was that really a constructive comment. There is no question that ARIN has a monopoly on the north American continent. Where else can I go to an authorized registry for additional IP addresses for North America. Obviously you know that too so another really constructive comment. I put constructive comments out there and if you have constructive real comments then please share them and we can have a constructive dialog. Otherwise you are not helping anyone. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:34 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in my community don?t want me to have one or another one. Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a limited resource, thus their management is distinctly different from an unlimited resource. ARIN is not a monopoly. The internet community as a whole is necessarily a monopoly (of sorts) since there in only one global internet - "the Internet". You are welcome to use whatever pattern of bits you like to address your devices. Noone has any interest in controlling or limiting the pattern of bits that you use. However, if you want the rest of the internet community to treat the pattern of bits that you use to address your devices as meaningful - i.e. those who run internet connected networks will pass traffic for you, accept traffic from you, and/or send traffic to you - then that pattern of bits that you use to address your devices must be unique. The internet community has agreed (nem. con.) that IANA and the RIRs will control, register, and document allocations from the pool of unique patterns of bits to address your devices. The internet community has agreed that IANA and the RIRs will be governed by community developed policies. The policies that the ARIN RIR community have developed require needs justification for address allocations. There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources. > > I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:31 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: > > > ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. > > Steve - > > You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid > as it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate > IPv4 resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request. > > As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation > policies (NRPM 4.2.2.2), there is a requirement to utilized the > equivalent of a /23 (generally from your upstream ISP) before > receiving for initial allocation from ARIN. This is not a policy > requirement which is unique to your business but long-standing > requirement in policy that all service providers have had to satisfy when making that transition. > Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers - > under the > 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24 > months can be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may > be more helpful with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to > follow the existing policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely > option that developing a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations. > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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 SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 23:27:18 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:27:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 23:40:23 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:40:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <0757E15F-DCF7-4BF3-8EF2-7F533F4A93CD@arin.net> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <0757E15F-DCF7-4BF3-8EF2-7F533F4A93CD@arin.net> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F1A@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Well John I didn?t see you be fully transparent with the Microsoft/Nortel agreement which I believe you haven?t shared with this community yet, so it seems that you can choose not to share if you don?t want to for any reason ? and that of course is your right. I believe I saw a mention of a change the board made without this community?s input which of course y?all have every right to do also. Just saying that you are either obligated 100% or you are not. If not then you can fix this if you want to without community involvement - just saying. I?m not against community involvement which is why I brought this issue to the community in the first place. As you have seen I have twice today asked for community members to give their comments and have had several off list emails sent to me as well. Hopefully a lot more comments will be submitted as well. This policy does not align with your mission and as such needs to be modified or removed and IPv4 addresses need to be reasonably allocated. I appreciate you bringing this up with the board as they should address this issue. ARIN should not be in the business of unreasonably denying IP allocation requests and that is what has happened here. I hope you see fit to resolve this problem for us and others. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:03 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Aug 8, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. Not quite correct, as I am obligated (and honored) to follow the policies that have been adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors The particular policy language that you do not qualify under is in ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), Section 4.2.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs - Multihomed) - "When requesting a /22, demonstrate the efficient utilization of a minimum contiguous or noncontiguous /23 (two /24s) from an upstream." This policy language in question was adopted by the Board of Trustees on 29 September 2004, in the first enumerated version of the NRPM. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. Actually, the Board is fairly rigorous about such changes, and follows the ARIN Policy Development Process which I referenced earlier. This provides that any policy changes are fully discussed by the community in open and transparent manner. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. Indeed. The Board of Trustees must be the judge of our performance in compliance of our mission, and they adopted the policies in question. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I will note this discussion to the ARIN Board of Trustees, but they are quite unlikely to overturn existing policy without a compelling mandate from the community. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. As I noted earlier, we have a specified transfer policy for just such occasions, and will promptly process any valid transfer request that you submit. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. ARIN can't approve a request which is invalid per adopted policy; I actually do not get any choice in this matter. I do wish you best in whatever course of action you choose. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Wed Aug 8 23:50:15 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:50:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy portion that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the approval of this community - as they should as an independent corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North America is essentially the customers of ARIN. Any organization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:59 PM To: David Miller Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/8/12, David Miller wrote: > On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because >> they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone >> line just because the folks who already have phones in my community >> don?t want me to have one or another one. > Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a > limited resource, thus their management is distinctly different from > an [snip] Phone lines are not a resource with a specific numerical limit. There is only a question of how much money are you willing to spend to have additional phone lines built. Phone NUMBERs are a limited resource. You can buy as many phone lines as you want, there is a significant cost associated, with the purchase of a phone line. You cannot just go to a phone company, and get as many phone numbers as you want for free, regardless of your claimed need, but you can generally get 1 at least phone number for each phone line you buy. Phone numbers are a poor comparison, because ARIN doesn't sell IP connectivity that the IP addresses you are assigned are used with. ARIN administers the database and stewardship of the resources assigned to it according to community policies; ARIN doesn't sell resources, and they don't have a "monopoly" over IP addreses. On your private LAN which is not internet connected and not interoperable with the internet as defined by community defined technical and policy standards, you are free to use any IP address you want, and establish whatever registration conventions you like. It would be correct to say that ARIN is the exclusive public provider of registration service for numbers that were allocated by IANA to the ARIN region recognized by those networks who cooperate with the IETF RFC-defined internet. -- -J _______________________________________________ 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 jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 8 23:51:19 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:51:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F1A@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <0757E15F-DCF7-4BF3-8EF2-7F533F4A93CD@arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F1A@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <66842EE8-A1E4-4C0D-B4C6-62F998FDC97A@arin.net> On Aug 8, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: Well John I didn?t see you be fully transparent with the Microsoft/Nortel agreement which I believe you haven?t shared with this community yet, so it seems that you can choose not to share if you don?t want to for any reason ? and that of course is your right. Steve - As noted several times before, Microsoft qualified to receive address space under the transfer policy, and they further agreed the the space received would be subject to ARIN's policies. Just saying that you are either obligated 100% or you are not. If not then you can fix this if you want to without community involvement - just saying. The Policy Development Process provides a specific process for changing policy, and none provides for the staff creating policy on its own or disregarding adopted policy. I?m not against community involvement which is why I brought this issue to the community in the first place. As you have seen I have twice today asked for community members to give their comments and have had several off list emails sent to me as well. Hopefully a lot more comments will be submitted as well. Agreed. This policy does not align with your mission and as such needs to be modified or removed and IPv4 addresses need to be reasonably allocated. I appreciate you bringing this up with the board as they should address this issue. ARIN should not be in the business of unreasonably denying IP allocation requests and that is what has happened here. I hope you see fit to resolve this problem for us and others. I will note your concern with the existing policy to the Board, but note that the Board is quite likely to seek the ARIN Advisory Council's view on what change to policy (if any) is appropriate. The best way to make sure that reasonable requests are approved is to work on policy that meets your definition of reasonable. Others may have differing views, and it is the policy discussion on this list and during the public policy meetings that will drive the final result. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zolla at neonet.org Wed Aug 8 23:50:32 2012 From: zolla at neonet.org (Zolla, Christopher) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:50:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From mysidia at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 23:58:25 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:58:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On 8/8/12, Steven Ryerse wrote: > fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is > of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. So you say, but it would be incorrect. > They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound > by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a There are certain US laws ARIN have to follow, with regards to their activities in the US. There are certain rights that ARIN has due to being a person in the US. There are certain global policies and other policies and RFCs that ARIN has to adhere to. Not all rules ARIN must adhere to are necessarily "legally" imposed requirements; they may be restricted from certain actions for technical reasons, or specifications not existing, for example, allocating IPs from Class E space. > fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to > honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are Those people have fiduciary responsibilities, but one of those fiduciary responsibilities is to implement consensus-established policies, follow their bylaws, and do what they are telling their members that they are doing. It could be a fiduciary breach to tell the ARIN membership that they implement this particular consensus-driven policy and then fail to do so in practice when pressed about it. The ARIN staff are not empowered to arbitrarily bypass policy, based on merely an applicant's opinion about the policy's appropriateness. > It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission > in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are Their mission says "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." So in this instance, they are applying principles of stewarship (resource conservation), and implementation of the consensus-based policy that was put in place. You are free to disagree with the policy, and propose changes, to be made in the future, or look for other options available under the policy. As you pointed out, the CEO has fiduciary responsibilities. Therefore the CEO is not really free to simply bypass the established policy based on an opinion that it is denying an otherwise reasonable request. > Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not There's nothing in the ARIN mission statement, Global policies, or RFCs that ARIN follows which discusses ensuring applicants meet their competitive needs. -- -JH From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 00:15:05 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 04:15:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM To: Steven Ryerse; McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 00:15:36 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:15:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. I do not speak for ARIN, but I am confident that they want to help their "customers" follow the policies as adopted by the board. You should also accept that you are not the only customer of ARIN. So are "the members", and "the community". Those customers have, over many years (and enough debate on PPML and in ARIN meetings that if printed would de-forest entire small countries) come up with a set of policies that ARIN staff has followed. Those community driven policies are revised when there is agreement that those policies need to be changed. It is entirely possible that if you propose specific language it can be adopted, but such proposals certainly need more justification that your business model depends on it. And asserting that your business model is predicated on not understanding the "regulatory" environment before entering into that business model is actually more of an indictment of your process than that of ARIN following its charter. Gary From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 00:24:55 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 04:24:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285840B9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Jimmy I agree with almost every word you wrote. I am also a CEO and am bound by the same fiduciary responsibilities. But and this is a big BUT, they absolutely do have the power and they have the responsibility to fix a policy that is negatively affecting the customers they serve, if that policy is contrary to their mission. They do not need anyone else's permission to fix a bad or broken policy however well-intentioned it was - they can solicit input but they are not required to do so. This is especially true since they are a defacto monopoly and are a special organization chartered to serve the Internet community. When they say no to a request there isn't another IANA charted source an organization can go to for North America internet resources. That puts them in a special category and I hope they will work to resolve this issue for us and others. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:58 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/8/12, Steven Ryerse wrote: > fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the > community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. So you say, but it would be incorrect. > They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually > bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board > have a There are certain US laws ARIN have to follow, with regards to their activities in the US. There are certain rights that ARIN has due to being a person in the US. There are certain global policies and other policies and RFCs that ARIN has to adhere to. Not all rules ARIN must adhere to are necessarily "legally" imposed requirements; they may be restricted from certain actions for technical reasons, or specifications not existing, for example, allocating IPs from Class E space. > fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty > to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there > are Those people have fiduciary responsibilities, but one of those fiduciary responsibilities is to implement consensus-established policies, follow their bylaws, and do what they are telling their members that they are doing. It could be a fiduciary breach to tell the ARIN membership that they implement this particular consensus-driven policy and then fail to do so in practice when pressed about it. The ARIN staff are not empowered to arbitrarily bypass policy, based on merely an applicant's opinion about the policy's appropriateness. > It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their > mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do > what they are Their mission says "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." So in this instance, they are applying principles of stewarship (resource conservation), and implementation of the consensus-based policy that was put in place. You are free to disagree with the policy, and propose changes, to be made in the future, or look for other options available under the policy. As you pointed out, the CEO has fiduciary responsibilities. Therefore the CEO is not really free to simply bypass the established policy based on an opinion that it is denying an otherwise reasonable request. > Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does > not There's nothing in the ARIN mission statement, Global policies, or RFCs that ARIN follows which discusses ensuring applicants meet their competitive needs. -- -JH From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 00:41:20 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 04:41:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285840EE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I really appreciate your input! I'm absolutely sure you are right about the deforestation. I guess we will agree to disagree on the rest. What you don't see is some of the scathing emails I get from folks like us off-list - who say they have tried to work with ARIN and have nothing but negative things to say about their experience. I wouldn't share them here as they are obviously sent in confidence but something is really wrong here and this community needs to work with ARIN and fix it. All organizations who can demonstrate need should be able to get a /22 or whatever size block this community and ARIN thinks make sense to be the minimum. There is no good reason why some organizations should be shut out while other organizations get them. If IPv4 gets exhausted sooner then so be it. That is why IPv6 exists to solve that problem. I don't want to quibble about it but that is similar to saying only a large company can get a domain name - that would be very unfair and arbitrary. And by the way, it isn't ARIN's or this community's business to withhold internet resources because they don't like a business model. Again I say, their mission statement doesn't stipulate that only a perceived "good" business model should be supported by ARIN. Bad models should be supported too. It should be a level playing field for everyone. I guess you don't agree with that. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Gary Buhrmaster [mailto:gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:16 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Jimmy Hess; David Miller; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. I do not speak for ARIN, but I am confident that they want to help their "customers" follow the policies as adopted by the board. You should also accept that you are not the only customer of ARIN. So are "the members", and "the community". Those customers have, over many years (and enough debate on PPML and in ARIN meetings that if printed would de-forest entire small countries) come up with a set of policies that ARIN staff has followed. Those community driven policies are revised when there is agreement that those policies need to be changed. It is entirely possible that if you propose specific language it can be adopted, but such proposals certainly need more justification that your business model depends on it. And asserting that your business model is predicated on not understanding the "regulatory" environment before entering into that business model is actually more of an indictment of your process than that of ARIN following its charter. Gary From paul at redbarn.org Thu Aug 9 01:03:53 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:03:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285840EE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285840EE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <502344B9.20401@redbarn.org> On 2012-08-09 4:41 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > ... What you don't see is some of the scathing emails I get from folks like us off-list - who say they have tried to work with ARIN and have nothing but negative things to say about their experience. ... speaking as a member of arin's board of trustees, i invite you or anyone to contact me privately with any detailed information as to how arin can improve its services to the community. be aware that the company is bound by its its bylaws to a set of policies which have been determined by the internet community, and that if your complaint is that arin is following those policies, i will not be able to help you much. > All organizations who can demonstrate need should be able to get a /22 or whatever size block this community and ARIN thinks make sense to be the minimum. There is no good reason why some organizations should be shut out while other organizations get them. If IPv4 gets exhausted sooner then so be it. that position has been well represented in the policy discussions in this and other forums over the last ten years or so, but it has never been the community's consensus position, and so has never been arin policy. > And by the way, it isn't ARIN's or this community's business to withhold internet resources because they don't like a business model. the entity who created these resources originally (IETF) once wrote down their thoughts about allocation models (RFC2050). the internet as you see it today is largely the result of those thoughts. it's a good read. paul From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 9 02:31:24 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:31:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me > additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable solution. > That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or not) and > buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay them for it and > use that block. I would prefer not to go around ARIN and prefer to get the > IP Block we need directly from ARIN ? but - I have now tried to do that > without success. I think our request was reasonable based on actual need. > I didn?t request something crazy like a /20 or whatever. > Hi Steven, You don't have any interface addresses from your two ISPs? They haven't assigned you /28's and /27's to anchor functions which should only appear on one or the other link? What about the /26 of RFC1918 space for your corporate LAN, can you easily move that into part of a global /24 assigned by one of the ISPs? Surely at least a couple friendly customers have a short-term need for extra /28's. You only need to fill one more /24 to justify that /22. There's actually a point to jumping through these seemingly silly hoops: it causes you to gain and demonstrates that you have gained something more than the most basic understanding of the issues surrounding IP address management. You're going to need that later when you look for yet more addresses and, to be blunt, the rest of we consumers of IP address blocks are going to need you to be both able and willing to shuffle creatively when addresses are tight. Regards, Bill Herrin -- 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 dmiller at tiggee.com Thu Aug 9 02:39:05 2012 From: dmiller at tiggee.com (David Miller) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 02:39:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583E79@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583E79@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <50235B09.2090309@tiggee.com> On 8/8/2012 11:13 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I appreciate your input but I strongly disagree. Welcome to the community. We don't always agree. > John said in one of his earlier emails that the reason we were denied is because of policy and that policy of course comes the this "community" and that sounds like a cabal to me. Obviously it is target at organizations like us. No policy is designed to deny resources to organizations "like" yours. There are, as you have been told, methods under current policy that will allow your organization to acquire resources. You just don't "want" to use those methods. Do I find those methods difficult? Yes. My organization followed the path of [provider /23, utilization, allocation, renumber, and then return], so I know the pain of that path. Do I think that any organization with what they believe is a "good idea" should be allocated large blocks of addresses from the start? I do not. Can we discuss the actual size of a "large" block of addresses? Absolutely. I would argue that if the policy you seem to favor had been policy since 2004, that there would be no IPv4 addresses left to allocate now. We can also break out the way back machine and discuss whether or not the internet would be a better place if we had already run out of IPv4 addresses. > IP addresses are essentially not limited either since IPv6 is there to take the load once the IPv4 is exhausted. IPv6 is going to happen pretty soon so there is no reason to stop assigning IPv4 until they are gone. We've already got our IPv6 addresses. We can't just start using IPv6 addresses in place of IPv4 addresses when the IPv4 addresses run out. There is a bit more required. I would guess that you know that. I agree that IPv6 is going to happen. I don't know that I would characterize it as "pretty soon" though. Eyeball networks / CPE seem to me to be the major sticking point - thus we have the glories of CGN. > It is pretty silly to tell me I can use whatever bits I want when you know we have to join in with everyone else. Was that really a constructive comment. It was in fact a constructive comment. You "want" unique resources. You appear to have built a business plan that "requires" unique resources for it to be successful. This does not mean that you are owed unique resources in whatever quantity you like. Joining in with "everyone else" requires acquiring allocations of unique resources from the common pool under the policies that "everyone" created. You appear to want to "join in with everyone else" without actually "joining in" with everyone else. > There is no question that ARIN has a monopoly on the north American continent. Where else can I go to an authorized registry for additional IP addresses for North America. Obviously you know that too so another really constructive comment. IMHO, ARIN is not a monopoly in the sense that you are implying. That is, in the sense that some sort of "monopoly" status requires certain legal requirements and limits be followed in behavior - for example DOJ vs. Microsoft (however, IANAL). > > I put constructive comments out there and if you have constructive real comments then please share them and we can have a constructive dialog. Otherwise you are not helping anyone. Here we disagree. Once again, welcome to the community. You put out some constructive comments. You also put out some demands, commands, thinly veiled threats, and you shouted in all caps - none of which I found constructive. The above statement in particular, which I read as "Be quiet if you don't agree with me.", is out of place on a public policy mailing list. You will not find bullying to be an effective strategy to either get me to be silent or to convince me to agree with you. I am more than happy to constructively discuss your arguments in a civil manner. You can leave out the bullying, demands, commands, threats, and shouting. The only position that I hold with respect to ARIN is that of a member. I speak for only myself. -DMM > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Miller > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:34 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in my community don?t want me to have one or another one. > Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a limited resource, thus their management is distinctly different from an unlimited resource. > > ARIN is not a monopoly. The internet community as a whole is necessarily a monopoly (of sorts) since there in only one global internet - "the Internet". > > You are welcome to use whatever pattern of bits you like to address your devices. Noone has any interest in controlling or limiting the pattern of bits that you use. > > However, if you want the rest of the internet community to treat the pattern of bits that you use to address your devices as meaningful - i.e. those who run internet connected networks will pass traffic for you, accept traffic from you, and/or send traffic to you - then that pattern of bits that you use to address your devices must be unique. The internet community has agreed (nem. con.) that IANA and the RIRs will control, register, and document allocations from the pool of unique patterns of bits to address your devices. The internet community has agreed that IANA and the RIRs will be governed by community developed policies. The policies that the ARIN RIR community have developed require needs justification for address allocations. > > There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources. > >> I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. >> >> Steven L Ryerse >> President >> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 >> 770.656.1460 - Cell >> 770.399.9099 - Office >> 770.392-0076 - Fax >> >> [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. >> Conquering Complex Networks? >> >> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:31 PM >> To: Steven Ryerse >> Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy >> >> On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: >> >> >> ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. >> >> Steve - >> >> You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid >> as it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate >> IPv4 resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request. >> >> As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation >> policies (NRPM 4.2.2.2), there is a requirement to utilized the >> equivalent of a /23 (generally from your upstream ISP) before >> receiving for initial allocation from ARIN. This is not a policy >> requirement which is unique to your business but long-standing >> requirement in policy that all service providers have had to satisfy when making that transition. >> Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers - >> under the >> 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24 >> months can be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may >> be more helpful with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to >> follow the existing policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely >> option that developing a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations. >> >> 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. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From heather.skanks at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 03:13:20 2012 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather.skanks) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:13:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. --heather Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! > > Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. > > There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. > > So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM > To: Steven Ryerse; McTim > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Steven, > > I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. > > Christopher Zolla > Assistant Director, Network Manager > NEOnet > (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM > To: McTim > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. > > It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. > > Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Hi Steven, > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. > > I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. > > In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. > > There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. > > > > I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! > > > not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. > > > I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. > > > While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. > > > > Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! > > > It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). > > > > You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. > > He rightly can IMHO. > > > Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. > > This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. > > I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. > > See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). > > > If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. > > John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. > > > Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. > > > I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. > > > See above. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > _______________________________________________ > 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 SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 04:01:49 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:01:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Well now that is constructive isn?t it. I don?t see how this comment helps anyone in this community. I think it would be more helpful if you disagree with my opinion to just state that. Then maybe there is a chance at something positive coming out of these submissions. I might also offer this question to you: If an organization our size can?t get approval for an IP address block from ARIN, just exactly how do you think one of our customers whose IP needs are much smaller than ours is going to get approved. I can?t wait to hear the solution. Do you really think I should be recommending my customers who only need 5 IP addresses to apply for independent space so they can have independence ? what a great idea. In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less than a /24. Doubt that will ever happen though. I have made sure my customers are listed as the Administrative contact for their web domain names for about 15 years now even though I could have put their domain names in our name and married them to us in that way. Some companies actually do try to look out for the best interests of their customers. Those are the companies that keep customers for a long time. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Heather.skanks [mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:13 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. --heather Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM To: Steven Ryerse; McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From zolla at neonet.org Thu Aug 9 08:11:51 2012 From: zolla at neonet.org (Zolla, Christopher) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:11:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022EF89@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> Steven, If your customer base has small consumption that doesn?t line up with your previous statement about renumbering not being possible to complete in a weekend. I am not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand your perspective. With what I know right now, the 600 user company with only 5 addresses would be very simple to convert in a weekend. Did I misunderstand? Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: Steven Ryerse [mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:02 AM To: Heather.skanks Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Well now that is constructive isn?t it. I don?t see how this comment helps anyone in this community. I think it would be more helpful if you disagree with my opinion to just state that. Then maybe there is a chance at something positive coming out of these submissions. I might also offer this question to you: If an organization our size can?t get approval for an IP address block from ARIN, just exactly how do you think one of our customers whose IP needs are much smaller than ours is going to get approved. I can?t wait to hear the solution. Do you really think I should be recommending my customers who only need 5 IP addresses to apply for independent space so they can have independence ? what a great idea. In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less than a /24. Doubt that will ever happen though. I have made sure my customers are listed as the Administrative contact for their web domain names for about 15 years now even though I could have put their domain names in our name and married them to us in that way. Some companies actually do try to look out for the best interests of their customers. Those are the companies that keep customers for a long time. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Heather.skanks [mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:13 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. --heather Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM To: Steven Ryerse; McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 09:50:34 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:50:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Hi again, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN > tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. > However they do this voluntarily > I think they are mandated to do this by the By-Laws actually. > and the community does not have any real legal vote > correct, policy decisions are reached by consensus, not by vote of members. > Hi again,. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to > the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal > requirement to do so. > I think they are legally obligated to follow their by-laws. > They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually > bound by the corporate laws of the United States. > certainly the state of VA. > The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any > corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should > not hold office. > yes, and what you are asking is that they violate their responsibility in this case so you don't have to renumber. > If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a > fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need > to change the mission they were chartered under. > The mission seems to me to allocate/assign according to community set policy, so how can a consensus-made policy be contrary to this mission? > I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what > they are chartered to do. > **** > > ** ** > > It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission > in this instance. > Well here we differ. It is my opinion that they are actually fulfilling their mission by adhering to the policy (which of course can be changed). > It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. > Which is to follow policy set by the community. If they act in a way that violates that policy, then they destroy the trust they have built over a very long time. > They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community > Of course, these decisions are made under NDAs. We (the community) do not get to see the details of every request, nor would you want us to see those details. > and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are > following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do > so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their > mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and > responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? > if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things > contrary to his mission? Make no sense. > To be clear, here is the exchange: ---------------------- SR said: > You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill > your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. > McTim said: He rightly can IMHO. ----------------------- Perhaps I wasn't strong enough in my statement. It is my opinion that staff MUST use the community based policies to make decisions. IMHO staff are carrying out their mission. You think they are acting in opposition to the mission. > **** > > ** ** > > Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. > Everybody is in this particular boat. As we have seen from others, they have had to go thru this process as well. > If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts > eventually will. > That remains to be seen. > Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just > that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails > here! > We can agree on reasonableness as a useful way forward! The question is, who decides what is reasonable!? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Aug 9 10:30:33 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:30:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583E79@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583E79@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Aug 8, 2012, at 20:13 , Steven Ryerse wrote: > I appreciate your input but I strongly disagree. John said in one of his earlier emails that the reason we were denied is because of policy and that policy of course comes the this "community" and that sounds like a cabal to me. Obviously it is target at organizations like us. IP addresses are essentially not limited either since IPv6 is there to take the load once the IPv4 is exhausted. IPv6 is going to happen pretty soon so there is no reason to stop assigning IPv4 until they are gone. We've already got our IPv6 addresses. It is pretty silly to tell me I can use whatever bits I want when you know we have to join in with everyone else. Was that really a constructive comment. There is no question that ARIN has a monopoly on the north American continent. Where else can I go to an authorized registry for additional IP addresses for North America. Obviously you know that too so another really constructive comment. > Steve, The "community" consists of anyone who wishes to take an interest in setting addressing policy in the ARIN region, so, it is not a cabal and it is not targeted at organizations like you. It is people interested in the subject genuinely trying to balance a set of tradeoffs to the overall greatest benefit of the internet as a whole. Multiple people have tried to help you, but you seem determined to have an adversarial relationship with the community. Your idea that ARIN does not have to listen to the community is utterly and completely false. ARIN is obliged by it's articles of incorporation and its bylaws to listen to the community and for policies to be developed by the community. It is not a cabal because the community is open to anyone who wishes to participate. A cabal, by definition, must be exclusive. The ARIN community is not in any way exclusive, so it is not a cabal. ARIN was established for the purpose of giving the community a voice in internet policy, so to ignore that voice and/or to override it in the administration of the community's resources would be to abandon that mission. Bottom line, the internet works because of cooperation and approaching it from an adversarial perspective is rarely beneficial in obtaining the results on seeks. The statement that you can use any bit pattern you want is not as silly as you think... It is a critical part of how this all works. ARIN doesn't have a monopoly on internet numbers. They have control of a database where they make registrations of unique sets of numbers. That database is used voluntarily by a set of cooperating entities (as are the other cooperating RIR databases) to guarantee uniqueness of numbers among those cooperating entities. If you don't like the RIR system, you are welcome to run your own routers using whatever numbering system and registry you wish. If you can convince enough other ISPs to go along with you, you can literally wrest control of the internet from the existing RIR system and there is no law that prevents it. As I have said before, I am happy to help you draft a policy proposal through the policy process to get policy changed to meet your needs. I am happy to try and help you navigate the allocation process to get what you need under current policy, if possible (and I think it may well be possible). Owen > I put constructive comments out there and if you have constructive real comments then please share them and we can have a constructive dialog. Otherwise you are not helping anyone. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Miller > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:34 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On 8/8/2012 9:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in my community don?t want me to have one or another one. > > Phone lines are not a limited resource. Internet addresses are a limited resource, thus their management is distinctly different from an unlimited resource. > > ARIN is not a monopoly. The internet community as a whole is necessarily a monopoly (of sorts) since there in only one global internet - "the Internet". > > You are welcome to use whatever pattern of bits you like to address your devices. Noone has any interest in controlling or limiting the pattern of bits that you use. > > However, if you want the rest of the internet community to treat the pattern of bits that you use to address your devices as meaningful - i.e. those who run internet connected networks will pass traffic for you, accept traffic from you, and/or send traffic to you - then that pattern of bits that you use to address your devices must be unique. The internet community has agreed (nem. con.) that IANA and the RIRs will control, register, and document allocations from the pool of unique patterns of bits to address your devices. The internet community has agreed that IANA and the RIRs will be governed by community developed policies. The policies that the ARIN RIR community have developed require needs justification for address allocations. > > There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources. > >> >> I am not asking for a crazy amount of resources like a /16, my request is for a very small amount of resources (/22) and it is a reasonable request. Your mission is to fulfill reasonable resource requests. Period. I?ve read it 10 times today and every time I read it ? it says you are to allocate resources not withhold them. >> >> Steven L Ryerse >> President >> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 >> 770.656.1460 - Cell >> 770.399.9099 - Office >> 770.392-0076 - Fax >> >> [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. >> Conquering Complex Networks? >> >> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:31 PM >> To: Steven Ryerse >> Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy >> >> On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: >> >> >> ... I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me. >> >> Steve - >> >> You have applied through proper channels but your request is not valid >> as it does not meet allocation policy criteria. ARIN cannot allocate >> IPv4 resources to your organization as a result of that invalid request. >> >> As others have noted, under the ISP multi-homed initial allocation >> policies (NRPM 4.2.2.2), there is a requirement to utilized the >> equivalent of a /23 (generally from your upstream ISP) before >> receiving for initial allocation from ARIN. This is not a policy >> requirement which is unique to your business but long-standing >> requirement in policy that all service providers have had to satisfy when making that transition. >> Jimmy Hess did make an excellent point with regard to transfers - >> under the >> 8.3 specified transfer policy, your full IP address needs for 24 >> months can be considered in approving a transfer, and as such that may >> be more helpful with your present situation. As ARIN is obligated to >> follow the existing policy as adopted, a transfer may be a more timely >> option that developing a policy change to these requirements for initial ISP allocations. >> >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 info at arin.net Thu Aug 9 11:32:57 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:32:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Message-ID: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment ARIN received the following policy proposal. The ARIN Advisory Council (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. 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, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment 2. Proposal Originator 1. name: Yi Chu 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 4. organization: Sprint 3. Proposal Version: 1 4. Date: 2012-08-09 5. Proposal type: new 6. Policy term: permanent 7. Policy statement: NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. 8. Rationale: Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 11:36:18 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:36:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5023D8F2.9050101@rollernet.us> On 8/8/12 6:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in > the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly > to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t > want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a > monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny > resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny > me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in > my community don?t want me to have one or another one. > While your frustration is apparent, throwing the world "monopoly" around constantly is less likely to get you anywhere. Your request simply did not conform to current policy as written, so it's denied, end of story. Others have suggested how this can be corrected. ~Seth From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 11:45:06 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:45:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy portion that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the approval of this community - as they should as an independent corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North America is essentially the customers of ARI N. Any o rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. > ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we wish them to do through the policy process. There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is today. ~Seth From owen at delong.com Thu Aug 9 11:42:32 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:42:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> Opposed. This goes too far. The current residential customer privacy provision is sufficient. Owen On Aug 9, 2012, at 08:32 , ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 9 11:49:40 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:49:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A > private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private > reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a > reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the > direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is > publically registered in the whois database. Opposed. This has the effect of removing all public accountability for the ARIN-region consumers of IP addresses. It makes our reliance on ARIN absolute and, without public scrutiny, the community is placed in a position where it will have to demand ARIN engage in much more expensive auditing practices to assure ISPs with private whois entries are not cheating. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 11:53:01 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:53:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> Message-ID: <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Opposed. This goes too far. > > The current residential customer privacy provision is sufficient. > Agreed and opposed as well. In the thread that preceded this it was said that the org in question has a public facing department. I asked why not use that department's already public contact info for whois as well, and I'd still like to know why that isn't a possibility because it seems reasonable (and policy complying) to me. ~Seth From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 9 11:54:44 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:54:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:50 AM, McTim wrote: >> and the community does not have any real legal vote > > correct, policy decisions are reached by consensus, not by vote of members. Policy decisions are reached by a vote of of representatives elected by a vote of the members who are almost exclusively service providers of non-trivial size. Their biases tend to reflect the biases of the folks who elected them. They endeavor to include and respect views from the community at large and consider such inclusion a major goal. Sometimes they do a better job than others. Like the U.S. First Amendment, this behavior is self-preservative. If I'm forced to respect the practice of your religion then you are forced to respect the practice of mine. Ditto the way you and I differently choose to use IP addresses. Unlike the First Amendment, ARIN's consent-based rule-making is not codified in hard requirements. Regrettably, our makers of decisions only choose to act with something reasonably resembling consensus somewhere between 25% and 50% of the time. The rest of the time it's a majority vote by the member representatives, whatever ideology we may proclaim. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Brian at StealthyHosting.com Thu Aug 9 11:49:33 2012 From: Brian at StealthyHosting.com (Brian Kearney) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:49:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> This could easily be abused for utilization justification. Thank You, Brian Kearney Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 12:10:37 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:10:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: I support this with the caveat that I think we can improve it further by eliminating the SWIP requirement for ISP's altogether. The logic of why it exists in the first place is stale. Best, -M< On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A > private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private > reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a > reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the > direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is > publically registered in the whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment > private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the > customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They > in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By > not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of > the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte > whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Thu Aug 9 12:15:38 2012 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:15:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I support this with the caveat that I think we can improve it further > by eliminating the SWIP requirement for ISP's altogether. The logic of > why it exists in the first place is stale. > > Best, > > -M< > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >> >> 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, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >> >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >> 2. Proposal Originator >> 1. name: Yi Chu >> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >> 4. organization: Sprint >> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >> 5. Proposal type: new >> 6. Policy term: permanent >> 7. Policy statement: >> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A >> private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private >> reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a >> reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the >> direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is >> publically registered in the whois database. >> >> 8. Rationale: >> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment >> private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the >> customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They >> in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By >> not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of >> the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte >> whois database more accurate and cleaner. >> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. I am willing to support on the basis that there are plenty of other ways to forge justification. Not allowing this proposal on that basis does not serve any tangible result. When we submit for additional resources, a large percentage of our space is "Internal Infrastructure." One could argue that we could abuse this and make our entire space "Internal Infrastructure." The reality is that ARIN will begin to ask questions if a large proportion of your space is ambiguous and ask for more specific details. -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP President, Black Lotus Communications mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 12:39:05 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:39:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <5023E7A9.6070108@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I support this with the caveat that I think we can improve it further > by eliminating the SWIP requirement for ISP's altogether. The logic of > why it exists in the first place is stale. > Wait, I don't understand. If an ISP doesn't swip and doesn't run rwhois then what? Go back to flat text files? ~Seth From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Aug 9 12:55:25 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:55:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB10D5@MAIL1.polartel.local> Mr. Ryerse, Perhaps I can relate what has been my personal experience. When our organization started out we were quite small and needed limited space. We originally were not multi-homed and obtained a /24 of PA space from our provider. We had the provider SWIP the /24 to us so we could advertise our space in BGP. As time went on we got a second upstream connection and were given another /24 from that provider. This provider also willingly registered a SWIP for this block of IP addresses. Neither of our providers gave us any trouble at all in assigning PA space for us to use. We got an ASN from ARIN and both providers were very amenable to setting up BGP peering sessions and advertising the PA space we were using in our ASN. As time went on and we grew and needed more IP space we did a couple of times get larger blocks from our upstreams. Also as time went on for economic reasons we changed upstream providers a couple of times. Because we were operating in PA space we needed to renumber some devices. Yes, this was a bit of work, but with some organization and planning it is neither onerous or painful. It all depends on how you manage the renumbering. After doing that a couple of times and noting that we were still growing we applied for and received a PI allocation from ARIN. The first time through that process was a learning curve. We ended up resubmitting that initial application a few times with assistance and suggestions from ARIN staff. We have subsequently gotten further allocations from ARIN and as we grow familiar with the application process it gets easier. We took our time renumbering and moving things until we were able to return the PA space to our upstreams. Neither the upstreams nor ARIN gave us any grief or tried to hurry that process or force us to deadlines. I am sure this story is pretty textbook similar to the story of many if not most of the organizations out there. We all pretty much went through the same steps. 1. Get PA space from upstream 2. Get multi-homed with more PA space. 3. Get PI space from ARIN (Yes, renumber and return) 4. Get more PI space from ARIN It really isn't that hard, though I understand you want to shortcut the process and don't think you need to do what everyone else has done. I know you have already gotten ahead of the game by multi-homing at the start. I think though, the shortest path for you is going to be to take the same steps the rest of us have taken. It is not terribly surprising that you don't get a lot of sympathy from the rest of the community when you don't think you need to follow the same rules we do and you don't think you should have to jump through the same hoops we did. We really do welcome you to the community. We really are on your side and want to help you get through all of this as painlessly as possible. I would suggest that if you try and work within the system you will get to your goal with munch less aggregation and expense. Perhaps if you do as I did, and when someone at ARIN rejects your application, ask that particular person for their advice and what they think is your best course you will find that they really will help you get there as quickly and painlessly as possible. Of course this only works if you actually take heed of their advice. I myself have had for the most part good experiences when dealing with ARIN. Part of this was because of realizing that it is easier to work with the rules than trying to buck the system. Good Luck with your endeavors. Kevin ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:02 AM To: Heather.skanks Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Well now that is constructive isn?t it. I don?t see how this comment helps anyone in this community. I think it would be more helpful if you disagree with my opinion to just state that. Then maybe there is a chance at something positive coming out of these submissions. I might also offer this question to you: If an organization our size can?t get approval for an IP address block from ARIN, just exactly how do you think one of our customers whose IP needs are much smaller than ours is going to get approved. I can?t wait to hear the solution. Do you really think I should be recommending my customers who only need 5 IP addresses to apply for independent space so they can have independence ? what a great idea. In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less than a /24. Doubt that will ever happen though. I have made sure my customers are listed as the Administrative contact for their web domain names for about 15 years now even though I could have put their domain names in our name and married them to us in that way. Some companies actually do try to look out for the best interests of their customers. Those are the companies that keep customers for a long time. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Heather.skanks [mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:13 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. --heather Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM To: Steven Ryerse; McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From heather.skanks at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 12:57:35 2012 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:57:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023E7A9.6070108@rollernet.us> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5023E7A9.6070108@rollernet.us> Message-ID: "Go back to flat text files" huh? Hopefully folks aren't keeping track of their own assignments strictly via SWIP. I think most folks have an address management tool that maintains a db of assignments and pushes that info to SWIP. I always wondered why ARIN didn't offer a web based address management tool/service (as in pay extra for it) for folks who didn't want the hassle of maintaining a db/tool. Something that would let users create and maintain subnets and specific assignments to customers/hosts, in a private portal, with more details than get published in SWIP. I thought this would come with the deployment of the ARIN Online portal. --Heather On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 8/9/12 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> I support this with the caveat that I think we can improve it further >> by eliminating the SWIP requirement for ISP's altogether. The logic of >> why it exists in the first place is stale. >> > > Wait, I don't understand. If an ISP doesn't swip and doesn't run rwhois > then what? Go back to flat text files? > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 13:07:46 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:07:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5023E7A9.6070108@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5023EE62.8080301@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 9:57 AM, Heather Schiller wrote: > "Go back to flat text files" huh? > > Hopefully folks aren't keeping track of their own assignments strictly > via SWIP. I think most folks have an address management tool that > maintains a db of assignments and pushes that info to SWIP. > It comes across to me as "track nothing, good luck finding any responsible party". ~Seth From heather.schiller at verizon.com Thu Aug 9 13:14:07 2012 From: heather.schiller at verizon.com (Schiller, Heather A) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:14:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: If you plan to continue railing against every response, please do us all the favor of being well informed by reading the Number Resource Policy Manual and the Policy Development Process information folks keep trying to provide you. The minimum assignment window for a multihomed enduser is a /24. (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four32) Your customer that has 600 end users, for whom it would be such a hardship to renumber, could probably qualify. An organization of that size may see the other benefits of being multihomed, even if they are not so today. If this, or any other of your customers has 5 IP addresses, each should be able to renumber within a couple of months. No one said it all had to be done in a weekend. I doubt you will find much sympathy for small renumbering projects. As you have already heard in several responses, many folks here have completed renumbering projects both for ISP allocations and other reasons. Having personally renumbered out of a /10 and several other netblocks for my employer, several netblocks at home, and having helped numerous customers through the process, I can say it does take planning, it does take work, but plenty of people have conquered the complexities of renumbering networks. As for my personal opinion, I'm in favor of the slow start model (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four214) I think it does a good job of trying to strike a balance between aggregation, conservation, and preventing fraud. I think that it gives new entrants time to see how their network will grow. Regarding your comment, "In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less than a /24." See earlier comment. It is not "ARIN" that would have to "allow" it, but the ARIN community. The people actually using the IP's must first agree to change the policy to lower the minimum assignment window. "ARIN" doesn't decide prefix filtering boundaries and practices, the internet community does. If you read the NRPM, you will see phrases like "routability not guaranteed" ARIN doesn't guarantee that anyone will accept your prefix, regardless of size. --Heather ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:02 AM To: Heather.skanks Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Well now that is constructive isn?t it. I don?t see how this comment helps anyone in this community. I think it would be more helpful if you disagree with my opinion to just state that. Then maybe there is a chance at something positive coming out of these submissions. I might also offer this question to you: If an organization our size can?t get approval for an IP address block from ARIN, just exactly how do you think one of our customers whose IP needs are much smaller than ours is going to get approved. I can?t wait to hear the solution. Do you really think I should be recommending my customers who only need 5 IP addresses to apply for independent space so they can have independence ? what a great idea. In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less than a /24. Doubt that will ever happen though. I have made sure my customers are listed as the Administrative contact for their web domain names for about 15 years now even though I could have put their domain names in our name and married them to us in that way. Some companies actually do try to look out for the best interests of their customers. Those are the companies that keep customers for a long time. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Heather.skanks [mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:13 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. --heather Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM To: Steven Ryerse; McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ 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 Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 13:27:20 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:27:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> Message-ID: Seth: I can't go further into any details of my customer, hence I did not answer your question. I do think your question is valid. However, as ISP, it is not at our discretion to get into our customers' business. They gave their justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is). In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their request. That was my response to them in this case. However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a customer to make such a request. There are many legitimate reasons not wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP addresses. For instance, if they only need to set up their IPSec VPN across the Internet. Also in some cases they do not have the admin staff and outsource the network management to the upstream ISP. A substantial portion of ISP's business customers are managed by the ISP, statically routed, or both. In term of routing, the prefix is not relevant to anyone else except the ISP. Outside the ISP, only the ISP aggregate is (should be) visible. And since the ISP is the only one responsible for routing to that IP address block, it can be argued that it makes sense for ISP to be the POC listed in public. I do not believe ISP would indiscriminately register all reassignments as private, as it is contrary to their interest. They would have to have a bigger NOC to answer all the inquiries on all customers' behalf. What I try to propose here is to give ISP and their customers an option. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:53 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Opposed. This goes too far. > > The current residential customer privacy provision is sufficient. > Agreed and opposed as well. In the thread that preceded this it was said that the org in question has a public facing department. I asked why not use that department's already public contact info for whois as well, and I'd still like to know why that isn't a possibility because it seems reasonable (and policy complying) to me. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 13:33:46 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:33:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: ISP is still bound by the RSA. I think we should assume innocence before proven guilty. Somewhere in the PDP process, I think ARIN staff would comment on effort/impact. I agree that it could be nontrivial. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM To: ARIN Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A > private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private > reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a > reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the > direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is > publically registered in the whois database. Opposed. This has the effect of removing all public accountability for the ARIN-region consumers of IP addresses. It makes our reliance on ARIN absolute and, without public scrutiny, the community is placed in a position where it will have to demand ARIN engage in much more expensive auditing practices to assure ISPs with private whois entries are not cheating. 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Aug 9 13:38:19 2012 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (aaron at wholesaleinternet.net) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:38:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: Support --- but let me tell you how this is going to go down --- 1. The AC is going to abandon it. 2. You'll petition and get it to the meeting. 3. In the months leading up to the meeting you'll receive e-mails from people calling you every name you can think of. Saying you're a spammer and that you're trying to hide criminals and that you rape babies. A few security "experts" will write in their blogs about how you must be some criminal yourself. They'll try to get to your wife and kids and use them to squeeze you. Keep in mind none of these people will have actually read your proposal. 4. You'll go to the meeting to present it. Law enforcement will be there and try to appeal to your sense of good to drop the policy. When that fails they meet with you late at night and try to make some back room deal with you. 5. Realizing that you're life could become very difficult very fast you'll get up at the podium the next day and retract your support for your own proposal. 6. Two years later someone else will propose the same thing. 7. Rinse, repeat. > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as > private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois > database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP > utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes > responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the > reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the > whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment > private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the > customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. > They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream > ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the > whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the > reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 13:40:55 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:40:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> Message-ID: The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM To: ARIN Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment This could easily be abused for utilization justification. Thank You, Brian Kearney Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 13:43:16 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks for your support. If your 4-7 becomes reality, I would have a very good story to tell my kids... -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:38 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Support --- but let me tell you how this is going to go down --- 1. The AC is going to abandon it. 2. You'll petition and get it to the meeting. 3. In the months leading up to the meeting you'll receive e-mails from people calling you every name you can think of. Saying you're a spammer and that you're trying to hide criminals and that you rape babies. A few security "experts" will write in their blogs about how you must be some criminal yourself. They'll try to get to your wife and kids and use them to squeeze you. Keep in mind none of these people will have actually read your proposal. 4. You'll go to the meeting to present it. Law enforcement will be there and try to appeal to your sense of good to drop the policy. When that fails they meet with you late at night and try to make some back room deal with you. 5. Realizing that you're life could become very difficult very fast you'll get up at the podium the next day and retract your support for your own proposal. 6. Two years later someone else will propose the same thing. 7. Rinse, repeat. > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as > private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois > database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP > utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes > responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the > reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the > whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment > private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the > customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. > They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream > ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the > whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the > reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 13:53:54 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:53:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > I am willing to support on the basis that there are plenty of other > ways to forge justification. Not allowing this proposal on that basis > does not serve any tangible result. When we submit for additional > resources, a large percentage of our space is "Internal > Infrastructure." One could argue that we could abuse this and make our > entire space "Internal Infrastructure." The reality is that ARIN will > begin to ask questions if a large proportion of your space is > ambiguous and ask for more specific details. I don't think it's a good move to say that because there is one way to game the system is justification that we should remove all rules. TL;DR version: Opposed as written. Existing is enough. Long version: I think that the existing residential privacy provisions should be enough. While there may be legitimate reasons for a company to prefer going private with their addresses, the reality is that those preferences have to be weighed against other community interests like transparency of assignments and law enforcement considerations. Here's a scenario to think about. In many cases, ISPs are really tight with their customer data and will not release it without a court order. Say there is some sort of time sensitive issue that law enforcement needs to track down an IP address. Getting a court order for the ISP to release their customer information, then getting another court order against the entity takes time. At least having a clue if they're on the right track as far as the owner of an IP can help law enforcement speed things up. There is a lot of other background that may be best for a separate discussion, but in Canada the government is looking at changing laws that law enforcement doesn't need a court order to force ISPs to give up customer details. Allowing ISPs to hide reassignments only plays into that hand, where we force law makers to give law enforcement more powers, which can potentially lead to abuses by government and law enforcement themselves. In reality, I think what exists now is a good balance between transparency and privacy. Unfortunately, without more specifics about what Yi's customer is trying to achieve (which at this point is all speculation), I don't think there is enough justification to change policy. Cheers, Christoph From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 13:56:20 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:56:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 10:27 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Seth: > I can't go further into any details of my customer, hence I did not answer your question. > > I do think your question is valid. However, as ISP, it is not at our discretion to get into our customers' business. They gave their justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is). In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their request. That was my response to them in this case. > > However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a customer to make such a request. There are many legitimate reasons not wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP addresses. For instance, if they only need to set up their IPSec VPN across the Internet. Also in some cases they do not have the admin staff and outsource the network management to the upstream ISP. > > A substantial portion of ISP's business customers are managed by the ISP, statically routed, or both. In term of routing, the prefix is not relevant to anyone else except the ISP. Outside the ISP, only the ISP aggregate is (should be) visible. And since the ISP is the only one responsible for routing to that IP address block, it can be argued that it makes sense for ISP to be the POC listed in public. > > I do not believe ISP would indiscriminately register all reassignments as private, as it is contrary to their interest. They would have to have a bigger NOC to answer all the inquiries on all customers' behalf. What I try to propose here is to give ISP and their customers an option. > I can't really think of a reason why their already public point of contact isn't good enough for whois. It seems to be good enough for the US DoD and I'm relatively certain the DoD does secret stuff. PO boxes are acceptable in whois as well, aren't they? Because I see valid alternatives to work within current policy I don't see a reason to support the policy proposal unless there's a reason why they aren't acceptable, hence my original question. ~Seth From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 14:02:01 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:02:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5023FB19.9050709@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 10:27 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Seth: > I can't go further into any details of my customer, hence I did not answer your question. > > I do think your question is valid. However, as ISP, it is not at our discretion to get into our customers' business. They gave their justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is). In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their request. That was my response to them in this case. > > However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a customer to make such a request. There are many legitimate reasons not wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP addresses. For instance, if they only need to set up their IPSec VPN across the Internet. Also in some cases they do not have the admin staff and outsource the network management to the upstream ISP. > On this point specifically, if they only need to set up a VPN tunnel to run everything through the head office then give them a single /30: one IP for the gateway and one IP for the VPN device. Since it's below the /29 threshold stated in 4.2.3.7.1 it doesn't need to be registered in whois. ~Seth From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Aug 9 14:05:33 2012 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (aaron at wholesaleinternet.net) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:05:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> > I can't really think of a reason why their already public point of > contact isn't good enough for whois. It seems to be good enough for the > US DoD and I'm relatively certain the DoD does secret stuff. PO boxes > are acceptable in whois as well, aren't they? The address on a SWIP is supposed to be the address at which service is delivered. So if you deliver service in a datacenter some place you'd use the address of that datacenter. If you're delivering to the CIA's local safe house that swip had damn well better have the CIA as the customer and the address of the safe house. From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 14:09:59 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:09:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 11:05 AM, aaron at wholesaleinternet.net wrote: >> I can't really think of a reason why their already public point of >> contact isn't good enough for whois. It seems to be good enough for the >> US DoD and I'm relatively certain the DoD does secret stuff. PO boxes >> are acceptable in whois as well, aren't they? > > The address on a SWIP is supposed to be the address at which service is > delivered. > > So if you deliver service in a datacenter some place you'd use the address > of that datacenter. If you're delivering to the CIA's local safe house > that swip had damn well better have the CIA as the customer and the > address of the safe house. > Where in 4.2.3.7 does it say whois registration has to be the address where service is delivered? ~Seth From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 14:34:01 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:34:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023FB19.9050709@rollernet.us> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023FB19.9050709@rollernet.us> Message-ID: Well, what if they happen to have a few sites in one location and on metro-E before connecting to the ISP? There are of course other situations that would require more than /30. I don't think we should limit our policy just for some special cases. yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:02 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12 10:27 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Seth: > I can't go further into any details of my customer, hence I did not answer your question. > > I do think your question is valid. However, as ISP, it is not at our discretion to get into our customers' business. They gave their justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is). In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their request. That was my response to them in this case. > > However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a customer to make such a request. There are many legitimate reasons not wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP addresses. For instance, if they only need to set up their IPSec VPN across the Internet. Also in some cases they do not have the admin staff and outsource the network management to the upstream ISP. > On this point specifically, if they only need to set up a VPN tunnel to run everything through the head office then give them a single /30: one IP for the gateway and one IP for the VPN device. Since it's below the /29 threshold stated in 4.2.3.7.1 it doesn't need to be registered in whois. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 9 14:54:30 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:54:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> Message-ID: <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like to see more flexibility provided on this issue. So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, I'm not fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your proposing. As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as private. You seem to be saying the that everyone can make all their data private without any consequences to the current system. To be honest I think your wrong, others seem to think so as well. However, I also don't believe that all data needs to be public for the system to work as intended either, just a majority of it. My suggestion is to go one of two directions, propose a complete rethink of the current system that doesn't need public data, or provide some limits to how much data can be private or provide other compensating policy controls that make up for the lack of public data. Some examples of possible options, only allow a certain threshold of private data, say 10% or 20% by volume of addresses, or after a threshold of private data require escrow of all records with an independent custodian and who that custodian is must be published, or require an annual audit of records by ARIN, etc... Without a complete rethink of the system there needs to be some consequence for having to much data marked as private or a limit on the amount of data that can be marked as private. Thanks On 8/9/12 12:40 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. > > ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM > To: ARIN > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > This could easily be abused for utilization justification. > > > Thank You, > Brian Kearney > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > >> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >> >> 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, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >> >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >> 2. Proposal Originator >> 1. name: Yi Chu >> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >> 4. organization: Sprint >> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >> 5. Proposal type: new >> 6. Policy term: permanent >> 7. Policy statement: >> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. >> >> 8. Rationale: >> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. >> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate -- =============================================== 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 hannigan at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 14:58:09 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:58:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Jeffrey Lyon > wrote: [ clip ] > Here's a scenario to think about. In many cases, ISPs are really tight > with their customer data and will not release it without a court > order. Say there is some sort of time sensitive issue that law > enforcement needs to track down an IP address. Getting a court order > for the ISP to release their customer information, then getting > another court order against the entity takes time. At least having a > clue if they're on the right track as far as the owner of an IP can > help law enforcement speed things up. In order to issue a subpoena for subscriber data, an officer of the court needs an open case and typically the signature of a supervisor in many jurisdictions in order to serve for documents or appearance at their offices. Your argument about the time disparity is unfortunately inaccurate, but I hope this helps a bit. I'm not a lawyer, so as with any legal issue you should consider asking a real lawyer to validate that for the most part. Using inaccurate WHOIS data to "help" in addressing exigent situations is a red-herring in the argument against the proposed policy in my opinion. Your mileage may vary, of course. Best Regards, -M< From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 15:00:35 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:00:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: > First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like to > see more flexibility provided on this issue. > > So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private > isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is > private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start > marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. > Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, I'm not > fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your proposing. > > As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as private. I too and not in favor of this in case that's not clear. My intention in supporting this is to improve upon the proposal by clearly differentiating the dis aggregates from the direct allocations and providing a smaller, but potentially more accurate (and less expensive e.g. cutting network operating cost), data set as a reference for points of contact. Best, -M< From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 15:05:02 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:05:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Christoph Blecker Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:54 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment [Chu, Yi [NTK]] Here's a scenario to think about. In many cases, ISPs are really tight with their customer data and will not release it without a court order. Say there is some sort of time sensitive issue that law enforcement needs to track down an IP address. Getting a court order for the ISP to release their customer information, then getting another court order against the entity takes time. At least having a clue if they're on the right track as far as the owner of an IP can help law enforcement speed things up. There is a lot of other background that may be best for a separate discussion, but in Canada the government is looking at changing laws that law enforcement doesn't need a court order to force ISPs to give up customer details. Allowing ISPs to hide reassignments only plays into that hand, where we force law makers to give law enforcement more powers, which can potentially lead to abuses by government and law enforcement themselves. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] I don't think we want to second guess what government(s) would or wouldn't do. There are other governments that may want to do exactly the opposite, that is mandating that business critical to their economy (banking section for instance) to conform to certain security standards or recommendations that prevent company names showing in the public whois database. I am not saying there are such cases, but Internet is global, and there are multi-national companies in ARIN region that are also subject to their own government in their home region. yi _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 15:13:22 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:13:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> Message-ID: APNIC has been operating with the 'private' registration since 2004. I think their database is still as good as ours. (They did run out before everyone else, but I think that is a different topic.) As I stated in another email, ISP's are not going to make all the reassignments private, as this would increase the need to staff up the NOC and abuse phone line. What is needed, as you mentioned below, is a flexibility, an option. yi -----Original Message----- From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:55 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: Brian Kearney; ppml at arin.net; David Farmer Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like to see more flexibility provided on this issue. So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, I'm not fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your proposing. As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as private. You seem to be saying the that everyone can make all their data private without any consequences to the current system. To be honest I think your wrong, others seem to think so as well. However, I also don't believe that all data needs to be public for the system to work as intended either, just a majority of it. My suggestion is to go one of two directions, propose a complete rethink of the current system that doesn't need public data, or provide some limits to how much data can be private or provide other compensating policy controls that make up for the lack of public data. Some examples of possible options, only allow a certain threshold of private data, say 10% or 20% by volume of addresses, or after a threshold of private data require escrow of all records with an independent custodian and who that custodian is must be published, or require an annual audit of records by ARIN, etc... Without a complete rethink of the system there needs to be some consequence for having to much data marked as private or a limit on the amount of data that can be marked as private. Thanks On 8/9/12 12:40 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. > > ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM > To: ARIN > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > This could easily be abused for utilization justification. > > > Thank You, > Brian Kearney > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > >> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >> >> 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, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >> >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >> 2. Proposal Originator >> 1. name: Yi Chu >> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >> 4. organization: Sprint >> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >> 5. Proposal type: new >> 6. Policy term: permanent >> 7. Policy statement: >> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. >> >> 8. Rationale: >> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. >> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 15:18:02 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:18:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate resources. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources. It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that governing solely by consensus is not always smart. The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:45 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization > I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North > America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy portion > that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my > comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. > Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes > decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the > Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then > obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the > approval of this community - as they should as an independent > corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community > and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy > that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of > us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North > America is essentially the customers of ARI N. Any o rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. > ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we wish them to do through the policy process. There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is today. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From patrick at klos.com Thu Aug 9 15:09:29 2012 From: patrick at klos.com (Patrick Klos) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:09:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <50240AE9.2000700@klos.com> ARIN wrote: > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment > private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the > customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. > They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream > ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the > whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the > reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. Opposed. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of how a public WHOIS record can become a security risk? If the customer is outsourcing various ARIN roles listed in the WHOIS record, then listing the company that is handling such roles is appropriate for the specific roles they are handling. Patrick From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 15:22:31 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:22:31 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I have to say I agree with William. Is there not a way that access to this database can be limited to ARIN membership? This won't fully satisfy his request for security which is reasonable, but maybe it reduces his security issue and at the same time provides members with the ability to find out who really is assigned a block. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM To: ARIN Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as > private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois > database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP > utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes > responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the > reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. Opposed. This has the effect of removing all public accountability for the ARIN-region consumers of IP addresses. It makes our reliance on ARIN absolute and, without public scrutiny, the community is placed in a position where it will have to demand ARIN engage in much more expensive auditing practices to assure ISPs with private whois entries are not cheating. 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. From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Thu Aug 9 15:24:03 2012 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (aaron at wholesaleinternet.net) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:24:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: > > Where in 4.2.3.7 does it say whois registration has to be the address > where service is delivered? > > ~Seth No where, however, that's how ARIN staff impliments it. explained here: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Sunday/Huberman_Hosting_Provider_BOF.pdf Page 10. From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 9 15:24:46 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:24:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> Message-ID: I understand the concern, I hope. I do welcome all the comments. My counter points are 1. Empirical evidence doesn't suggest whois falling apart because of private registraton. APNIC has adopted the similar policy since 2004. 2. It is not in the best of interest of ISP to mark all reassignments 'private'. ISP's would want to have their customers be the first to field those pesky abuse calls. 3. ISP's legal department may not want to it be the POC for a customer unless some legal agreement is signed. Maybe we can recommend some verbiage that ISP has to sign with the customer for those private reassignments? That should set up some barriers so not everything becomes private. yi -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:01 PM To: David Farmer Cc: Chu, Yi [NTK]; ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: > First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like to > see more flexibility provided on this issue. > > So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private > isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is > private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start > marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. > Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, I'm not > fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your proposing. > > As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as private. I too and not in favor of this in case that's not clear. My intention in supporting this is to improve upon the proposal by clearly differentiating the dis aggregates from the direct allocations and providing a smaller, but potentially more accurate (and less expensive e.g. cutting network operating cost), data set as a reference for points of contact. Best, -M< ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 15:26:25 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:26:25 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Jeffrey Lyon >> wrote: > > [ clip ] > >> Here's a scenario to think about. In many cases, ISPs are really tight >> with their customer data and will not release it without a court >> order. Say there is some sort of time sensitive issue that law >> enforcement needs to track down an IP address. Getting a court order >> for the ISP to release their customer information, then getting >> another court order against the entity takes time. At least having a >> clue if they're on the right track as far as the owner of an IP can >> help law enforcement speed things up. > > In order to issue a subpoena for subscriber data, an officer of the > court needs an open case and typically the signature of a supervisor > in many jurisdictions in order to serve for documents or appearance at > their offices. Your argument about the time disparity is unfortunately > inaccurate, but I hope this helps a bit. I'm not a lawyer, so as with > any legal issue you should consider asking a real lawyer to validate > that for the most part. The argument presented by the Canadian government as to why the Lawful Access provisions of Bill C-30 are required, is to speed up law enforcement access to data. What I'm suggesting is that a change like this would play in to such an argument. The goal of this proposal is to increase the privacy of this data, but I'm saying is that there is the possibility that this may actually serve to accomplish the opposite. While yes, it's speculation, it's important to consider all the possible consequences of a proposed change. > Using inaccurate WHOIS data to "help" in addressing exigent > situations is a red-herring in the argument against the proposed > policy in my opinion. Your mileage may vary, of course. While I realize that whois data in reality can be unreliable and out of date, it's "supposed" to be accurate. It's listed as a responsibility under the RSA. That's really what we're talking about here -- entities who are actually diligent to their responsibilities under the RSA. However, you're right in that the same facts could be used in an argument to remove the SWIPing requirement as well. It's still my opinion though that more information is a good thing. If the SWIP is inaccurate, the upstream ISP's contact information is still available in other ways, such as in the larger Direct Allocation block, or in the whois for the AS number. Cheers, Christoph From adudek16 at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 15:26:47 2012 From: adudek16 at gmail.com (Aaron Dudek) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:26:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy > as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. > ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft > and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. > Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us > should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically > designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting > organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > Just because you do not understand how to do things you feel that the policy is bad. There is no size requirement to run BGP. You need to show that you actually need it based on growth. There was a time when /24s were filtered out. Actually anything smaller then what was in the initial allocation. This policy was created and approved by the members of ARIN. Including those who have been in the same boat as you. They got it done. There is no entitlement here just because you want it. > Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship, > ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; > develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the > Internet through information and educational outreach." > > This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate > resources. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find > reasons and ways to deny resources. It should be finding reasons and ways > to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do > anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can > demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs > mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this > policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet > usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or > not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. > You are more then welcome to start that process. > > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the > this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over > again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be > fixed. I am part of this community too. > > I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous > and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices > that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do > existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give > you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad > policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in > the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast > majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of > slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good > for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being > good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to > die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority > in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part > of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" > created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very > WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big > trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. > Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this > community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that > governing solely by consensus is not always smart. The beauty and the > power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - but IS the > ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That > is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to > give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this > community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by > ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! > > This is uncalled for. > Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular > point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really > address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it > misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be > FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. Until we come to agreement that ARIN > needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can > demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points > of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am > asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying > problem first. I hope you will join me! > > Your are not doing a lot to win people over in your current attempt. Everyone doesn't get address space from ARIN. Those that do have shown valid justification. That is the reality of the situation. > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Seth Mattinen > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:45 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization > > I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North > > America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy portion > > that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my > > comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. > > Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes > > decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the > > Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then > > obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the > > approval of this community - as they should as an independent > > corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community > > and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy > > that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of > > us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North > > America is essentially the customers of ARI > N. Any o > rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help > solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of > conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to > decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. > > > > ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is > policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we > wish them to do through the policy process. > > There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how > policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So > you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going > after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is > today. > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > 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 sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 15:32:20 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:32:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <50241044.3070306@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 12:24 PM, aaron at wholesaleinternet.net wrote: >> >> Where in 4.2.3.7 does it say whois registration has to be the address >> where service is delivered? >> >> ~Seth > > No where, however, that's how ARIN staff impliments it. > > explained here: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Sunday/Huberman_Hosting_Provider_BOF.pdf > > Page 10. > I suppose mine and ARIN's interpretation of policy differ. ~Seth From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 15:35:42 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:35:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I have to say I agree with William. Is there not a way that access to this database can be limited to ARIN membership? This won't fully satisfy his request for security which is reasonable, but maybe it reduces his security issue and at the same time provides members with the ability to find out who really is assigned a block. As somebody who has advocated for the rights of legacy registration holders, would this not introduce a disparity between these holders and those who have signed an RSA/LRSA and those who have not? Membership to ARIN requires a signed RSA/LRSA, as well as potentially a membership fee if you are not an allocation holder. How would you also account for other groups that would have reason to access this information, such as law enforcement? Cheers, Christoph > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM > To: ARIN > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> 7. Policy statement: >> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as >> private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois >> database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP >> utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes >> responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the >> reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. > > Opposed. This has the effect of removing all public accountability for the ARIN-region consumers of IP addresses. It makes our reliance on ARIN absolute and, without public scrutiny, the community is placed in a position where it will have to demand ARIN engage in much more expensive auditing practices to assure ISPs with private whois entries are not cheating. > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 15:39:10 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:39:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB10D5@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB10D5@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Very much appreciated! You were forced to do things you preferred not to do because of hurdles placed in front of you by a bad policy. I'm guessing this resulted in you incurring additional expenses and addition time solely to get around this. We can all just try to make do with a bad policy and incur the problems associated with that, OR we change the bad policy! I prefer to lead the charge to change a bad policy! I will be submitting it thru the formal process to try to do just that. I also will be forced to go one route or another to obtain the IP resources our organization needs and have received a few decent ideas on how best to do that which I am considering. I thank those folks for sharing their ideas! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:55 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net)' Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Mr. Ryerse, Perhaps I can relate what has been my personal experience. When our organization started out we were quite small and needed limited space. We originally were not multi-homed and obtained a /24 of PA space from our provider. We had the provider SWIP the /24 to us so we could advertise our space in BGP. As time went on we got a second upstream connection and were given another /24 from that provider. This provider also willingly registered a SWIP for this block of IP addresses. Neither of our providers gave us any trouble at all in assigning PA space for us to use. We got an ASN from ARIN and both providers were very amenable to setting up BGP peering sessions and advertising the PA space we were using in our ASN. As time went on and we grew and needed more IP space we did a couple of times get larger blocks from our upstreams. Also as time went on for economic reasons we changed upstream providers a couple of times. Because we were operating in PA space we needed to renumber some devices. Yes, this was a bit of work, but with some organization and planning it is neither onerous or painful. It all depends on how you manage the renumbering. After doing that a couple of times and noting that we were still growing we applied for and received a PI allocation from ARIN. The first time through that process was a learning curve. We ended up resubmitting that initial application a few times with assistance and suggestions from ARIN staff. We have subsequently gotten further allocations from ARIN and as we grow familiar with the application process it gets easier. We took our time renumbering and moving things until we were able to return the PA space to our upstreams. Neither the upstreams nor ARIN gave us any grief or tried to hurry that process or force us to deadlines. I am sure this story is pretty textbook similar to the story of many if not most of the organizations out there. We all pretty much went through the same steps. 1. Get PA space from upstream 2. Get multi-homed with more PA space. 3. Get PI space from ARIN (Yes, renumber and return) 4. Get more PI space from ARIN It really isn't that hard, though I understand you want to shortcut the process and don't think you need to do what everyone else has done. I know you have already gotten ahead of the game by multi-homing at the start. I think though, the shortest path for you is going to be to take the same steps the rest of us have taken. It is not terribly surprising that you don't get a lot of sympathy from the rest of the community when you don't think you need to follow the same rules we do and you don't think you should have to jump through the same hoops we did. We really do welcome you to the community. We really are on your side and want to help you get through all of this as painlessly as possible. I would suggest that if you try and work within the system you will get to your goal with munch less aggregation and expense. Perhaps if you do as I did, and when someone at ARIN rejects your application, ask that particular person for their advice and what they think is your best course you will find that they really will help you get there as quickly and painlessly as possible. Of course this only works if you actually take heed of their advice. I myself have had for the most part good experiences when dealing with ARIN. Part of this was because of realizing that it is easier to work with the rules than trying to buck the system. Good Luck with your endeavors. Kevin ________________________________________ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:02 AM To: Heather.skanks Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Well now that is constructive isn?t it. I don?t see how this comment helps anyone in this community. I think it would be more helpful if you disagree with my opinion to just state that. Then maybe there is a chance at something positive coming out of these submissions. I might also offer this question to you: If an organization our size can?t get approval for an IP address block from ARIN, just exactly how do you think one of our customers whose IP needs are much smaller than ours is going to get approved. I can?t wait to hear the solution. Do you really think I should be recommending my customers who only need 5 IP addresses to apply for independent space so they can have independence ? what a great idea. In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less than a /24. Doubt that will ever happen though. I have made sure my customers are listed as the Administrative contact for their web domain names for about 15 years now even though I could have put their domain names in our name and married them to us in that way. Some companies actually do try to look out for the best interests of their customers. Those are the companies that keep customers for a long time. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Heather.skanks [mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:13 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. --heather Sent from my iPhone On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. They need to serve us and you as well! Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would let us keep an IP block. There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't compete with my competitors lower price. So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM To: Steven Ryerse; McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Steven, I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go beyond that. Christopher Zolla Assistant Director, Network Manager NEOnet (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM To: McTim Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are chartered to do. It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things contrary to his mission? Make no sense. Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy Hi Steven, On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule making community. In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org that does the allocation and assigning according to community set policies. There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore them. I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR follow Jimmy's advice. I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide to. While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to uphold in order for you to get your data center going. Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by us (we are ARIN). You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. He rightly can IMHO. Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this community thinks. This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. Unfortunately those are my only two choices. See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an upstream, at least for the short-term). If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would come back to this community and ask for their help. John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if you would approve our allocation request. Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this issue as it is very important. See above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ 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 cengel at conxeo.com Thu Aug 9 15:39:29 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:39:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> <50240766.7050503@umn.edu>, Message-ID: While I'm generaly pretty sympathetic to privacy concerns, they do have to be counter-balanced with a need for accountability and that requires some degree of transparency. As long as ARIN is willing to accept a DBA/ Legal Trust in WHOIS for the name of the entity reassigned the block and a mailing address (e.g. .P.O box) for the address, then I don't see much issue there. That provides a degree of privacy for entities that have serious privacy concerns while preserving the ability to hold those entities accountable. If ARIN doesn't accept those (I don't know, I've never tried using either for a WHOIS) then that's a problem that should be addressed. Chris Engel From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 15:43:18 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:43:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > > Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." > > This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate resources. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources. It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. > > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. > > I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that governing solely by consensus is not always smart. The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! > > Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! One of the key points here is the *demonstration of need*. Without jumping through the hoops that ARIN policy would have you jump through, how are you demonstrating to ARIN and to the community that you're appealing to, that you have *need*. You've for sure demonstrated *want*, but want isn't good enough. If you have a suggestion of how you can demonstrate need, balance the concerns that have been raised around topics like preventing abuse, and make everybody happy.. We are all ears. We are all ears. Cheers, Christoph > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:45 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization >> I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North >> America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy portion >> that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my >> comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. >> Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes >> decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the >> Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then >> obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the >> approval of this community - as they should as an independent >> corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community >> and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy >> that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of >> us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North >> America is essentially the customers of ARI > N. Any o > rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. >> > > ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we wish them to do through the policy process. > > There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is today. > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > 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 sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 15:45:33 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:45:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5024135D.3070202@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 12:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > Then propose a policy change. It's not a secret or anything, go read up and learn how it's done. You can preach all you want on this list but it won't go anywhere. > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. Starting out in this community by calling us a "cabal" and yelling at everyone is, quite frankly, a crap way to start things off. You're unlikely to get much support that way. You're being far more offensive than simply "ruffling feathers" with injecting long winded off topic political BS that is counterproductive to the list's mission. ~Seth From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 15:48:28 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:48:28 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859584B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Thanks for your response! I am merely trying to point out with a graphic example of how consensus is not always right. Consensus is frequently used for justification in this community and somebody has to burst that bubble and substitute for it that doing the right thing is more important than doing the consensus thing. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:27 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Seth Mattinen; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! Just because you do not understand how to do things you feel that the policy is bad. There is no size requirement to run BGP. You need to show that you actually need it based on growth. There was a time when /24s were filtered out. Actually anything smaller then what was in the initial allocation. This policy was created and approved by the members of ARIN. Including those who have been in the same boat as you. They got it done. There is no entitlement here just because you want it. Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate resources. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources. It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. You are more then welcome to start that process. I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that governing solely by consensus is not always smart. The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! This is uncalled for. Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! Your are not doing a lot to win people over in your current attempt. Everyone doesn't get address space from ARIN. Those that do have shown valid justification. That is the reality of the situation. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:45 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other organization > I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned for North > America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy portion > that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my > comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. > Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes > decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the > Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then > obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the > approval of this community - as they should as an independent > corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community > and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy > that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of > us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North > America is essentially the customers of ARI N. Any o rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. > ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we wish them to do through the policy process. There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is today. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 15:55:45 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:55:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: hello again, On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy > as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. > ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft > and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. > Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us > should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically > designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting > organization. This is your perception. It is designed to aid in the mission of stewardship. > This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > > Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship This is the bit of the mission you seem to be missing. there is a reason it is the first thing in the mission. > , ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; > develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the > Internet through information and educational outreach." > > This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate > resources. by applying the principles of stewardship, yes. > It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways > to deny resources. nor does it. You just happened to have run afoul of current policy, which you can try to change. > It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources > to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources > to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the > exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the > test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it > advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone > or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. > I would be in favor of such a change to the PDP. > > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the > this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over > again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be > fixed. I am part of this community too. > You are welcome. I doubt you will find a warm welcome if you keep insisting you are right and the majority is wrong however. Everybody wants a pony, few actually get one ;-) > I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous > and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices > that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do > existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give > you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad > policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in > the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast > majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of > slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good > for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being > good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to > die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority > in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part > of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" > created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very > WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big > trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. > Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this > community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that > governing solely by consensus is not always smart. Most folk in the places you cite were disenfranchised. No one is disenfranchised in making Internet resource administration/ditribution policies. All are welcome, all have an equal voice in this meritocracy. > The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus We differ in this as well. I think the beauty of the system IS exactly is ins Bottom-up, transparent, open and consensus based decsion making processes. > - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what > ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission > statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If > the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should > always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary > responsibility! > > Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular > point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really > address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it > misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be > FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. see the stewardship phrase. > Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered > mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement > level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help > solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this > Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! > You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, just saying!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 15:56:41 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:56:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285958CB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Thank you for your constructive input! I would say that any organization who can prove that they are using an ASN number to run BGP and prove that - like I had to in order to get our ASN number - should be granted the minimum block size unless they can demonstrate a larger need. This community and ARIN can from time to time set that minimum block size. All organizations should be treated the same and the minimum allocation should be open and available to ALL organizations regardless of size. Withholding allocations does not advance the Internet! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:43 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > > Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." > > This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate resources. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources. It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. > > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. > > I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that governing solely by consensus is not always smart. The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! > > Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! One of the key points here is the *demonstration of need*. Without jumping through the hoops that ARIN policy would have you jump through, how are you demonstrating to ARIN and to the community that you're appealing to, that you have *need*. You've for sure demonstrated *want*, but want isn't good enough. If you have a suggestion of how you can demonstrate need, balance the concerns that have been raised around topics like preventing abuse, and make everybody happy.. We are all ears. We are all ears. Cheers, Christoph > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:45 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On 8/8/12 8:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> You can mince words but unless you can tell me what other >> organization I can go to get vendor independent IP addresses assigned >> for North America then ARIN is indeed a monopoly. The phone analogy >> portion that applies to this discussion is the monopoly portion of my >> comments. The phone company has a monopoly and ARIN has a monopoly. >> Because of this they have certain obligations. Since ARIN sometimes >> decides to not share everything they do with this community, like the >> Microsoft/Nortel agreement they chose not to share with us, then >> obviously they do have the authority to make decisions without the >> approval of this community - as they should as an independent >> corporation. I applaud their willingness to listen to the community >> and this is one member of the community who is pointing out a policy >> that is contrary to their mission and they should fix it for all of >> us. Also this community plus a lot of other Internet users in North >> America is essentially the customers of ARI > N. Any o > rganization worth their salt will work with their "customers" to help solve business problems and not let a silly policy get in the way of conducting business. That is what I am asking for here. ARIN has to decide whether they want to help this "customer" and other like us. >> > > ARIN can't help you. They have no obligation to you or anyone. Policy is policy. We, the communicate, made it, not ARIN. ARIN is only doing what we wish them to do through the policy process. > > There is not a "willingness" to listen to the community, rather that's how policies come to be. ARIN nor ARIN staff are allowed to propose policy. So you're barking up the wrong tree going after ARIN. You should be going after the community (everyone on this list) for making policy the way it is today. > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > 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 sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 16:00:46 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:00:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859584B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859584B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <502416EE.8070408@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 12:48 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > Thanks for your response! I am merely trying to point out with a > graphic example of how consensus is not always right. Consensus is > frequently used for justification in this community and somebody has to > burst that bubble and substitute for it that doing the right thing is > more important than doing the consensus thing. > > It's not a justification, it's how the policy process works. Read: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html ~Seth From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 16:02:16 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:02:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> <50240766.7050503@umn.edu>, Message-ID: <50241748.5020707@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 12:39 PM, Chris Engel wrote: > While I'm generaly pretty sympathetic to privacy concerns, they do have to be counter-balanced with a need for accountability and that requires some degree of transparency. As long as ARIN is willing to accept a DBA/ Legal Trust in WHOIS for the name of the entity reassigned the block and a mailing address (e.g. .P.O box) for the address, then I don't see much issue there. That provides a degree of privacy for entities that have serious privacy concerns while preserving the ability to hold those entities accountable. If ARIN doesn't accept those (I don't know, I've never tried using either for a WHOIS) then that's a problem that should be addressed. > The way I interpret current policy says to me ARIN should accept such substitutes, but it was pointed out to me that that's not how it's practiced. ~Seth From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 16:15:25 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:15:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5024135D.3070202@rollernet.us> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5024135D.3070202@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859595B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I didn't bring up the word cabal, somebody else used that term and I loosely concurred with it. It is not the word I would have used but this policy and others are stacked against smaller organizations and that could be construed a cabal - larger/older organizations against smaller/newer ones. Anyway I did propose a one line policy in my first post on this subject and I will list it here again for you. I have since been furnished with the documentation to formally submit it which I will do when I get some time to go thru it. Here it is again: ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? I understand from some of the responses I've gotten that this appears to be radical thinking but it does advances the Internet and that is a central part of ARINs mission. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:46 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/9/12 12:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > Then propose a policy change. It's not a secret or anything, go read up and learn how it's done. You can preach all you want on this list but it won't go anywhere. > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. Starting out in this community by calling us a "cabal" and yelling at everyone is, quite frankly, a crap way to start things off. You're unlikely to get much support that way. You're being far more offensive than simply "ruffling feathers" with injecting long winded off topic political BS that is counterproductive to the list's mission. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 16:15:16 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:15:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I have to say I agree with William. Is there not a way that access to > this database can be limited to ARIN membership? This won't fully satisfy > his request for security which is reasonable, but maybe it reduces his > security issue and at the same time provides members with the ability to > find out who really is assigned a block. > The ARIN Database serves the entire Internet community, not just those who are members. That is the point of a Public Network Information Database. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 16:19:46 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:19:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285959AD@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Yes you bring up a good point. I was trying to see if anyone in the community had an idea to find some middle ground to his reasonable request for security. Maybe there isn't a middle ground on this one. Of course ARIN could decide to allow any Legacy holder to update their information in the ARIN database without having to sign any agreement with ARIN. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:36 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I have to say I agree with William. Is there not a way that access to this database can be limited to ARIN membership? This won't fully satisfy his request for security which is reasonable, but maybe it reduces his security issue and at the same time provides members with the ability to find out who really is assigned a block. As somebody who has advocated for the rights of legacy registration holders, would this not introduce a disparity between these holders and those who have signed an RSA/LRSA and those who have not? Membership to ARIN requires a signed RSA/LRSA, as well as potentially a membership fee if you are not an allocation holder. How would you also account for other groups that would have reason to access this information, such as law enforcement? Cheers, Christoph > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM > To: ARIN > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> 7. Policy statement: >> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as >> private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois >> database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP >> utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes >> responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of >> the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. > > Opposed. This has the effect of removing all public accountability for the ARIN-region consumers of IP addresses. It makes our reliance on ARIN absolute and, without public scrutiny, the community is placed in a position where it will have to demand ARIN engage in much more expensive auditing practices to assure ISPs with private whois entries are not cheating. > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Aug 9 16:21:14 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:21:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859595B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5024135D.3070202@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859595B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I didn't bring up the word cabal, somebody else used that term and I loosely concurred with it. It is not the word I would have used but this policy and others are stacked against smaller organizations and that could be construed a cabal - larger/older organizations against smaller/newer ones. Anyway I did propose a one line policy in my first post on this subject and I will list it here again for you. I have since been furnished with the documentation to formally submit it which I will do when I get some time to go thru it. Here it is again: > > ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? > > I understand from some of the responses I've gotten that this appears to be radical thinking but it does advances the Internet and that is a central part of ARINs mission. > I'd support this and, if you need assistance in getting it into "proper" policy form, please let me know, I'm an elected Advisory Council member and I'd be happy to assist. Best, -M< From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 16:30:25 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:30:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> It?s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but it sure generated some aimed at me! Based on your reponses I don?t think we disagree on very much. Obviously I?ve set out to change some hearts and minds and as these seem to be sacred cows I?ve stepped on but so be it. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:56 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy hello again, On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is your perception. It is designed to aid in the mission of stewardship. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship This is the bit of the mission you seem to be missing. there is a reason it is the first thing in the mission. , ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate resources. by applying the principles of stewardship, yes. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources. nor does it. You just happened to have run afoul of current policy, which you can try to change. It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. I would be in favor of such a change to the PDP. I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. You are welcome. I doubt you will find a warm welcome if you keep insisting you are right and the majority is wrong however. Everybody wants a pony, few actually get one ;-) I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I will give you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. Thank goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that governing solely by consensus is not always smart. Most folk in the places you cite were disenfranchised. No one is disenfranchised in making Internet resource administration/ditribution policies. All are welcome, all have an equal voice in this meritocracy. The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus We differ in this as well. I think the beauty of the system IS exactly is ins Bottom-up, transparent, open and consensus based decsion making processes. - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. see the stewardship phrase. Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, just saying!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jlewis at lewis.org Thu Aug 9 16:10:18 2012 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > I do think your question is valid. However, as ISP, it is not at our > discretion to get into our customers' business. They gave their > justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is). > In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their > request. That was my response to them in this case. I've been in the ISP business 18 years and have only encountered this sort of situation ("customer" wanting or requiring that their IPs not be SWIP'd) twice. One was a customer request, the other a gov requirement. I think this is an unusual enough request that you should be able to handle it on a case by infrequent case basis internally without need for a public policy. Just label the space as internally used or fail to SWIP it. The percentage of your space likely to fall into such a category should be small enough as to not matter for future reassignment justifications (if there are any), and if necessary, you can probably give the assignment info to ARIN under NDA. > However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a > customer to make such a request. There are many legitimate reasons not > wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP > addresses. Unfortunately, there are also many illegitimate reasons for customers to want to hide their IPs / not be associated with them, and some providers would be all too happy to accomodate them, especially if public reassignment registration (SWIP or rwhois) effectively became entirely optional. > I do not believe ISP would indiscriminately register all reassignments > as private, Some certainly would. In case it's not abundantly clear, I'm opposed to their proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 16:36:09 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:36:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859595B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5024135D.3070202@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859595B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <50241F39.1070407@rollernet.us> On 8/9/2012 13:15, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I didn't bring up the word cabal, somebody else used that term and I loosely concurred with it. It is not the word I would have used but this policy and others are stacked against smaller organizations and that could be construed a cabal - larger/older organizations against smaller/newer ones. Anyway I did propose a one line policy in my first post on this subject and I will list it here again for you. I have since been furnished with the documentation to formally submit it which I will do when I get some time to go thru it. Here it is again: > > ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? > > I understand from some of the responses I've gotten that this appears to be radical thinking but it does advances the Internet and that is a central part of ARINs mission. > Are you going to read the PDP and NRPM or not? ~Seth From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 16:43:46 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:43:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Absolutely. > Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. And policy is not bad just because it means you do not get what you want, when you want, just because you want it, no matter how many times you assert it. In any community/society there are rules and covenants that one accepts to become a participant. Being a participant means that you can propose and suggest changes, but that by no means assures you that there will be agreement that your proposals will win the day. As a participant in the community, I would suggest that you consider taking advantage of the offers that others have made to help you propose policy changes since you clearly believe that existing policy is not in the best interest of the community. That is a constructive way to move forward. So would be taking advantage of some of the alternative ways people have proposed to you to frame the issue (to ARIN). What is not especially constructive is simply asserting the policies are bad for one request, so ARIN should tear them all up. You also keep throwing out the term "Fiduciary Responsibilities". I will quote a movie: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Gary From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 16:44:10 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:44:10 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Hello Steven, If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the first to use the word cabal in this thread. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > It?s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but it > sure generated some aimed at me! > your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar. Read them again, you want a pony and threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way it reads to me). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 9 17:31:41 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:31:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <50242C3D.3040005@umn.edu> On 8/9/12 14:35 CDT, Christoph Blecker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: >> I have to say I agree with William. Is there not a way that access to this database can be limited to ARIN membership? This won't fully satisfy his request for security which is reasonable, but maybe it reduces his security issue and at the same time provides members with the ability to find out who really is assigned a block. > > As somebody who has advocated for the rights of legacy registration > holders, would this not introduce a disparity between these holders > and those who have signed an RSA/LRSA and those who have not? > Membership to ARIN requires a signed RSA/LRSA, as well as potentially > a membership fee if you are not an allocation holder. How would you > also account for other groups that would have reason to access this > information, such as law enforcement? There is a difference between published information and public information, The government makes all kinds of information available to the public upon request, but most public information isn't actually published. There is a process to obtain most public information, frequently with some kind of cost recovery. However, only limited information is actually published, made available on the Internet, or printed in a newspaper. In particular news organization frequently request public information analyze it and then publish what they find if it is interesting to their readers or viewers. An example of this distinction is present today within Whois already; "The published" Whois is searchable with a limited number of responses per search. Where as Bulk Whois is also public information but requires a signed agreement with terms and conditions of use and a different process to access it, I support Whois data being mostly public information. But, I also support "the published" Whois, what is anonymously available, being limited to allocations and direct assignments made by ARIN. And, then the subscriber reassignment data only being available on a more limited basis with an explicit agreement and user login. The point being while public data, subscriber reassignment data, doesn't necessarily need to be anonymously available either, and there are valid privacy concerns with it. You shouldn't have to be a member or even have an assignment to get access to subscriber reassignment data, but requiring an explicit agreement and adherence to legal terms and conditions of use, with revokable access, might not be a bad idea either. This would even allow for people to watch the watchers so to speak. Allowing ARIN and subscribers clear recourse if access to subscriber reassignment data is being abused. -- =============================================== 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 kkargel at polartel.com Thu Aug 9 17:47:56 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:47:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583D8B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583EB5@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <295BFB8F6FBD3F45B44F231226C2DE533022E79B@NEONET-EXCHMB3.neonetda.org> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858405C@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <1A0A977A-03B8-4A98-AAE9-5BBD0C84F45E@gmail.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285938E9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB10D5@MAIL1.polartel.local> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB1130@MAIL1.polartel.local> I absolutely do not agree that I was forced to do things I preferred not to do. I wanted to get to a goal. I found the path from where I was to where I wanted to be and I followed that path. It was neither onerous nor painful and I did what was needed to do to meet my needs. I also, BTW, do not agree that it is bad policy simply because it runs counter to your particular use case. No policy will be entirely favorable to all use cases. Everyone needs to bend a little to conform if we want to have a society and work together. This (internet) is not a government, but rather a cooperative anarchy that allows us all to work together by agreement. If you don't want to cooperate and work with everyone else nobody is forcing you to do that. I fully support your efforts to amend the policy to what you see as a better way of doing things. I may not support your policy but I certainly support and appreciate your efforts to make things better. Best of luck! Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Ryerse [mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:39 PM > To: Kevin Kargel > Cc: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Very much appreciated! You were forced to do things you preferred not to > do because of hurdles placed in front of you by a bad policy. I'm > guessing this resulted in you incurring additional expenses and addition > time solely to get around this. We can all just try to make do with a bad > policy and incur the problems associated with that, OR we change the bad > policy! I prefer to lead the charge to change a bad policy! I will be > submitting it thru the formal process to try to do just that. > > I also will be forced to go one route or another to obtain the IP > resources our organization needs and have received a few decent ideas on > how best to do that which I am considering. I thank those folks for > sharing their ideas! > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:55 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: 'ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net)' > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > > Mr. Ryerse, > Perhaps I can relate what has been my personal experience. When our > organization started out we were quite small and needed limited space. We > originally were not multi-homed and obtained a /24 of PA space from our > provider. We had the provider SWIP the /24 to us so we could advertise > our space in BGP. > > As time went on we got a second upstream connection and were given another > /24 from that provider. This provider also willingly registered a SWIP > for this block of IP addresses. > > Neither of our providers gave us any trouble at all in assigning PA space > for us to use. > We got an ASN from ARIN and both providers were very amenable to setting > up BGP peering sessions and advertising the PA space we were using in our > ASN. > > As time went on and we grew and needed more IP space we did a couple of > times get larger blocks from our upstreams. > Also as time went on for economic reasons we changed upstream providers a > couple of times. Because we were operating in PA space we needed to > renumber some devices. Yes, this was a bit of work, but with some > organization and planning it is neither onerous or painful. It all > depends on how you manage the renumbering. > > After doing that a couple of times and noting that we were still growing > we applied for and received a PI allocation from ARIN. The first time > through that process was a learning curve. We ended up resubmitting that > initial application a few times with assistance and suggestions from ARIN > staff. > We have subsequently gotten further allocations from ARIN and as we grow > familiar with the application process it gets easier. > > We took our time renumbering and moving things until we were able to > return the PA space to our upstreams. Neither the upstreams nor ARIN gave > us any grief or tried to hurry that process or force us to deadlines. > > I am sure this story is pretty textbook similar to the story of many if > not most of the organizations out there. We all pretty much went through > the same steps. > 1. Get PA space from upstream > 2. Get multi-homed with more PA space. > 3. Get PI space from ARIN (Yes, renumber and return) > 4. Get more PI space from ARIN > > It really isn't that hard, though I understand you want to shortcut the > process and don't think you need to do what everyone else has done. I > know you have already gotten ahead of the game by multi-homing at the > start. > > I think though, the shortest path for you is going to be to take the same > steps the rest of us have taken. It is not terribly surprising that you > don't get a lot of sympathy from the rest of the community when you don't > think you need to follow the same rules we do and you don't think you > should have to jump through the same hoops we did. > > We really do welcome you to the community. We really are on your side and > want to help you get through all of this as painlessly as possible. I > would suggest that if you try and work within the system you will get to > your goal with munch less aggregation and expense. > > Perhaps if you do as I did, and when someone at ARIN rejects your > application, ask that particular person for their advice and what they > think is your best course you will find that they really will help you get > there as quickly and painlessly as possible. Of course this only works if > you actually take heed of their advice. > > I myself have had for the most part good experiences when dealing with > ARIN. Part of this was because of realizing that it is easier to work > with the rules than trying to buck the system. > > Good Luck with your endeavors. > Kevin > > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:02 AM > To: Heather.skanks > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Well now that is constructive isn?t it. I don?t see how this comment > helps anyone in this community. I think it would be more helpful if you > disagree with my opinion to just state that. Then maybe there is a chance > at something positive coming out of these submissions. I might also offer > this question to you: If an organization our size can?t get approval for > an IP address block from ARIN, just exactly how do you think one of our > customers whose IP needs are much smaller than ours is going to get > approved. I can?t wait to hear the solution. Do you really think I > should be recommending my customers who only need 5 IP addresses to apply > for independent space so they can have independence ? what a great idea. > > In fact I would do that if ARIN allowed it and it could be done on less > than a /24. Doubt that will ever happen though. I have made sure my > customers are listed as the Administrative contact for their web domain > names for about 15 years now even though I could have put their domain > names in our name and married them to us in that way. Some companies > actually do try to look out for the best interests of their customers. > Those are the companies that keep customers for a long time. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: Heather.skanks [mailto:heather.skanks at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:13 AM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: Zolla, Christopher; McTim; John Curran; ARIN PPML > (ppml at arin.net)(ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Then why aren't you advising and helping your customer get provider > independent space from ARIN so they can drop you without the hassle of > renumbering? When it becomes competitively advantageous of course.. > > --heather > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: > Glad to hear from you! Hopefully more will respond. I don?t recall > threatening any legal action on my part over this in any of my > submissions. If you inferred that I am very unhappy over ARIN denying my > request then you inferred correctly. I did say that there are larger > company?s out there who might want to use a denial like mine for their > legal purposes. Of course any legal action would be counterproductive and > should only be used as a last resort after all reasonable avenues have > been explored. I would never threaten to sue someone unless I actually > intended to do so and I didn?t here. I also haven?t questioned anyone?s > character. I don?t think this policy is against our company, I think it > is against all smaller companies. Sounds like you agree with that based > on your actual experience. I don?t see anything in ARIN?s mission > statement that says that they are only to serve larger organizations. > They need to serve us and you as well! > > Renumbering in the future is out of the question as for just one of my > customers it affects over 600 end users. It is a physical impossibility > since they would all have to be renumbered over a weekend and there isn?t > enough time in a weekend to do it all. I?m not willing to risk > significant customers business in the hope that an upstream provider would > let us keep an IP block. > > There is a lot of theoretical discussion in a community like this which is > mostly productive. In the real world that you and I have to live in there > is competition that wants to sell similar services to the ones we sell. > When bandwidth prices go down significantly as they have just in the last > year, I have to be able to purchase from the less expensive vendor just > like my competitors do - or they will take my customers by offering lower > prices. If I'm locked into a long term contract just to keep my IP > addresses then I can't switch to the lower cost vendor and then I can't > compete with my competitors lower price. > > So I really don't have a choice. I have to control my own IP addresses, > and ARIN, which is a monopoly has denied my request. A request which is > very reasonable. One /22 is peanuts compared to all of the /8's out there > in legacy status. Anyone who can demonstrate a need should be able to get > a /22. In my opinion for ARIN to deny my reasonable request is a blatant > disregard and is opposite of their mission. ARIN publicly states that no > address blocks should change hands without their involvement and approval, > but when they deny a request like mine they force a secondary market to > exist which they don't control and don't like. Doesn?t make sense. They > can either fix the policy to make it more reasonable or the secondary > market will take away their monopoly status by creating an above ground > second market and the beginnings of that are happening already. I hope I > don't have to utilize that market but I have a business to run. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: Zolla, Christopher [mailto:zolla at neonet.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:51 PM > To: Steven Ryerse; McTim > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Steven, > > I can understand you frustration and can sympathize. I also understand > the policy all too well as my organization did follow the procedure to > obtain a /22 assignment. Consequently we did readdress at a reasonable > pace and with good planning. Most ISPs require multiple year contracts to > obtain optimal pricing so there is nothing here that your organization > can?t overcome like the rest of us did. I don?t normally get involved in > these discussions as I don?t follow ARIN policy close enough to provide > much insight, but in this particular instance the opinion of the community > is what you asked for. I did my due diligence to get the assignment my > organization has, just like many other organizations like me. The path > ARIN policy has you follow may not seem optimal for you, but it does have > merit. It is my impression that you feel there is a hidden agenda to > prevent your company from getting the IP addressing it is rightfully owed. > While I commend the effort to change policy you don?t believe in, > threating legal action and questioning someone?s character are not the > ways to make change. Like you said, constructive comments and active > discussion are great, but you lose credibility in my mind when you go > beyond that. > > Christopher Zolla > Assistant Director, Network Manager > NEOnet > (330)926-3900 ext. 601110 > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:27 PM > To: McTim > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN tries > to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve. However > they do this voluntarily and the community does not have any real legal > vote. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to the > community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal > requirement to do so. They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as > such are actually bound by the corporate laws of the United States. The > CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any corporation. > It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should not hold > office. If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they > have a fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or > they need to change the mission they were chartered under. I?m glad they > exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what they are > chartered to do. > > It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission > in this instance. It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are > chartered to do. They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with > the community and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as > they are following their charter then it is their right and responsibility > to do so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to > their mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and > responsibility as well. I don?t know why you would think ?He rightly can? > if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things > contrary to his mission? Make no sense. > > Upstream does not meet our competitive needs. If this community does not > decide to change this policy then the courts eventually will. Maybe my > case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just that. > Hopefully it won?t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails here! > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:48 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: John Curran; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > Hi Steven, > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Steven Ryerse networks.com> wrote: > John, you seem to miss my point so let me be very clear. > > I think you may be missing the point. ARIN is a body that supports a rule > making community. > > In addition to being the Secretariat for the community, they are the org > that does the allocation and assigning according to community set > policies. > > There are policies in place. You are asking for the Secretariat to ignore > them. > > > > I HAVE ALREADY MADE A REASONABLE VALID REQUEST FOR INTERNET RESOURCES > AND YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS TURNED ME DOWN! > > > not valid according to current policy, so you can get policy changed OR > follow Jimmy's advice. > > > I am formally requesting here and now that you review my request and > approve it. That is the only way I am going to drop my request. It is > not reasonable to tell me to wait for months since others who get > allocations don?t have to wait for months. What is reasonable is for you > to go to your staff and have them reopen my request #20120801-X7252 and > have them allocate us the /22 IP v4 block requested. Simple. You > definitely do have the power as President & CEO to do that if you decide > to. > > > While that may be true, it would destroy a great deal of trust in the > entire global Internet resource administration regime. In other words, > you are demanding that the CEO override the policies that he has a duty to > uphold in order for you to get your data center going. > > > > Then in the future when ARIN gets similar requests from others your staff > should approve them as well. That fulfills your mission! > > > It doesn't actually, since the mission includes following policies set by > us (we are ARIN). > > > > You cannot use this community as your reason why you won?t fully fulfill > your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO. > > He rightly can IMHO. > > > Policies that originate from this community still have to be voted on > and approved by you and your board of directors as this community has no > legal standing in your organization. That vote is what puts those > policies in force and since you and your board of directors have the power > to both approve, change, and remove policies without input from this > community - you can do so here if you want to. In fact you have a > fiduciary duty to do just that if any policy currently in force is > determined to be contrary to your mission, regardless of what this > community thinks. > > This is a clear case where the policy is contrary to your mission, > therefore you should take the appropriate steps to rectify that ASAP. > > I?m not going away. As I said in my first post we have to have these > resources one way or the other TO STAY IN BUSINESS. I prefer ARIN > allocate them to us per my request through normal channels. If that > request ultimately fails I will be forced to go off-channel and fulfill my > request with a Legacy block that ARIN does not have an agreement on. > Unfortunately those are my only two choices. > > See the advice from others on a third way (getting an assignment from an > upstream, at least for the short-term). > > > If I?m forced to go that route then I will of course come back to your > web site and make a request for ARIN to update your database to show our > new assignment of additional Legacy addresses. Requesting that from ARIN > is the right and proper thing to do since I don?t want to hide anything or > lie to ARIN in any way. If that request were to be denied then I would > come back to this community and ask for their help. > > John, the choice is yours, you can fulfill your mission and allocate > resources or you can force us to go elsewhere. I would appreciate it if > you would approve our allocation request. > > > Actually the choice is yours, you can get a PA block from an upstream, > work on changing policy, find a block on the transfer market, etc. > > > I would also ask everyone in this community to share your thoughts on this > issue as it is very important. > > > See above. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dmiller at tiggee.com Thu Aug 9 17:53:09 2012 From: dmiller at tiggee.com (David Miller) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:53:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> On 8/9/2012 4:44 PM, McTim wrote: > > Hello Steven, > > If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the > first to use the word cabal in this thread. In truth, I believe that I was the first to use the word cabal. Steven Ryerse wrote: "...it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don't want me to have the resources." David Miller wrote: "There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources." > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse > > > wrote: > > It's funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject > but it sure generated some aimed at me! > > > your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar. Read them > again, you want a pony and > threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way > it reads to me). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kkargel at polartel.com Thu Aug 9 18:11:00 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:11:00 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD280122CB1134@MAIL1.polartel.local> Opposed as written. I may change that position if words were added to indicate that this is permissible *IF* the ISP avers they are managing the customers network *AND* the ISP agrees in writing to accept legal communications for the customer. I might also accept it if the Customer legal name were retained in care of the ISP, the ISP address and telephone was used in the ADMIN PoC (with agreement by the ISP to handle legal contacts), and the email and telephone number for the organization responsible for network administration were used in the ABUSE and TECH PoC's. All in all though, it sounds like a can of worms best avoided. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of ARIN > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:33 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as > private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois > database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP > utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes > responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the > reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the > whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment > private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the > customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. > They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream > ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the > whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the > reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 18:10:42 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:10:42 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Thank you very much for clearing up the record. I do stand by my original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely because of organization size. The BGP policy discriminates against smaller organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over it. As I mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change to ARIN policies that I submitted in my first post on this subject. This is the very simple policy that I am going to propose: ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? I hope you and others will decide to support it. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: David Miller [mailto:dmiller at tiggee.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:53 PM To: McTim Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/9/2012 4:44 PM, McTim wrote: Hello Steven, If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the first to use the word cabal in this thread. In truth, I believe that I was the first to use the word cabal. Steven Ryerse wrote: "...it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t want me to have the resources." David Miller wrote: "There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have resources." On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: It?s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but it sure generated some aimed at me! your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar. Read them again, you want a pony and threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way it reads to me). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 18:17:32 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:17:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > Thank you very much for clearing up the record. I do stand by my original > point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely because of > organization size. The BGP policy discriminates against smaller > organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over it. As I > mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change to ARIN policies > that I submitted in my first post on this subject. This is the very simple > policy that I am going to propose: > > > > ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block > matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity > that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)? Cheers, Christoph > I hope you and others will decide to support it. > > > > Steven L Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099 - Office > > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > > From: David Miller [mailto:dmiller at tiggee.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:53 PM > To: McTim > Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > > > On 8/9/2012 4:44 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > Hello Steven, > > > > If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the first > to use the word cabal in this thread. > > > In truth, I believe that I was the first to use the word cabal. > > Steven Ryerse wrote: > "...it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request just > because > others in the community don?t want me to have the resources." > > David Miller wrote: > "There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group of > people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to have > resources." > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: > > It?s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but it > sure generated some aimed at me! > > > > your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar. Read them again, > you want a pony and > > threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way it > reads to me). > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 18:28:32 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:28:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <50243990.2000307@rollernet.us> On 8/9/12 3:17 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: >> >> Thank you very much for clearing up the record. I do stand by my original >> point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely because of >> organization size. The BGP policy discriminates against smaller >> organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over it. As I >> mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change to ARIN policies >> that I submitted in my first post on this subject. This is the very simple >> policy that I am going to propose: >> >> >> >> ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block >> matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity >> that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? > > How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect > against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a > request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With > IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if > they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)? > We may as well just scrap the whole NRPM if ARIN is granted such an unrestricted override. While I'm sure the OP thinks the request was reasonable I'm dubious that it was or ARIN would have granted it. I've never seen a case where anyone at ARIN factored in a vendetta as part of a request. Most of us have been through the request process several times, including being turned down. And besides, we already have immediate need covered in section 4.2.1. ~Seth From sethm at rollernet.us Thu Aug 9 18:29:19 2012 From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:29:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <502439BF.3070307@rollernet.us> On 8/8/12 6:05 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > John that sounds good in the theoretical world of this community but in > the real world that I must live in, it is not reasonable for a monopoly > to deny a resource request just because others in the community don?t > want me to have the resources. I again point out that you are a > monopoly and your mission is to allocate resources and NOT to deny > resources. Because they are a monopoly, the phone company cannot deny > me another phone line just because the folks who already have phones in > my community don?t want me to have one or another one. > I missed this the first time around, but I find it somewhat offensive that you're accusing me (as a member of the community) of denying you resources. ~Seth From springer at inlandnet.com Thu Aug 9 18:53:49 2012 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <20120809145104.D27419@mail.inlandnet.com> Hi Steven Welcome and thanks for a stimulating thread. I very much look forward to your policy proposal. I hope we can discuss it in Dallas. The following comment caught my eye On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote: > It???s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but it sure generated some aimed at me! So I went back and grabbed the first post, which I am appending below, to which I have a few comments inline. > Well, I?m in a quandary and I have decided to come to this Community for > help. I am addressing this submission to both the Community and to > John Curran as the chief representative for ARIN. We are in the process > of building a data center complete with redundant power with Diesel > Generator, redundant fiber Internet lines, and the usual data center > redundancy stuff. As a member of the community, so far so good. > So, last week I went back to ARIN and requested the minimum available > block size that ARIN will allocate for the purposes of using it with > BGP. I believe that the minimum for this is a /22 block and > coincidentally that is what we need for the next year or so to run our > data center. So far so good. From reading the constant posts to this > community I was kind of expecting to be asked to justify if our current > block was used up but was surprised when my request was Denied. The > blurb they used to deny my request said: I'm not an expert but could you be doing it wrong? Others in thread have more concrete suggestions but that would be my first guess. > When I pointed out to ARIN that I did not want to have to renumber in > the future their response was: > Thank you for the reply. We understand what you're saying, for sure, but > unfortunately, ARIN policy does not allow us to provide an ISP for the > purposes of running BGP. Based on the information provided in your > request, you do not qualify to receive an initial allocation from ARIN > under any current policy. This is starting to get a hair acidic. You did not want? > So because of ARIN?s policies and their unwillingness to assign me > additional IPv4 resources, I am left with only one other viable > solution. That is to go out on the open market (thru Bankruptcy Court or > not) and buy a Legacy /22 from somebody who has one to sell and pay > them for it and use that block. Really? Only one other viable solution? Seems unlikely. Talk to ARIN staff. They will help you even if you start to get all defensive. > I would prefer not to go around ARIN and prefer to get the IP Block we > need directly from ARIN ? I would prefer that too. > but - I have now tried to do that without success. Well, not very hard just yet. > I think our request was reasonable based on actual need. Evidently not. You did not follow policy. > didn?t request something crazy like a /20 or whatever. Well, no. Not crazy like a /20, crazy like you didn't read, understand and follow policy in your request. > Therefore I am looking for help from this community. But you don't understand, we made the policy. > Based on what ARIN has told me I won?t qualify for a /22 unless I first > get a block from one of my upstream providers which I won?t do because > it locks me into a vendor. Your network, your rules. > So either the Policy has to change or I have to purchase a Legacy block > independent of ARIN. Again with the either ors. Be calm. Talk to ARIN staff. They will help you figure out the right way do do what you want. They are not meanies. > I somewhat doubt based on all the submissions that I have observed in > this community that I can achieve a change in ARIN?s policy but I?ll > give that a try. Yeah, well, there's rules to that too. Flesh out a template and submit please. Scott and Marty have offered to help. > So fellow community members and ARIN staff, is there a consensus to > enact my proposed policy addition, or am I to be forced to go outside of > the normal ARIN allocation process to meet my organization?s needs? > This submission is intended to be constructive and I hope it is received > that way. I look forward to constructive input from this community. Constructively, this is not how it works. I look forward to seeing and discussing a policy proposal. None of this is one. And so as to the vinegary bit, at least pretty defensive and seemingly resistant to understanding and following policy and procedures. All of the ARIN staff that I have met (lots) are super nice and go way out of the way to help folks get what they need. Within policy. I'm pretty sure they will help you if you let them. You may not even need to change policy. But if that is what you are really after, go for it. John Springer From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 19:28:41 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:28:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285960BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Good questions! Actually, it seems to me that a lot of the reason why some of the policies I see are slanted towards resource denial may be that there has been a concerted effort to use policies to try to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem and extend the date that exhaustion happens. Unfortunately no policy can solve the Ipv4 problem no matter how well intentioned. If solving the IPv4 problem means that some don't get the IP resources they need (especially when they are still available) - then the mission appears to have changed from advancing the Internet as the highest priority, to saving or extending IPv4 as the highest priority. The mission statement has not been changed to that. Even if this community thinks saving or extending is a laudable goal, that isn't the mission! I think the time has come to reasonably allocate whatever IPv4 resources are left and get on with moving to IPv6 problems and all. The reality is when they are gone they are gone and we all better get ready for IPv6 soon. I already have my IPv6 address block. In the meantime I am strongly against using discrimination of smaller organizations (or any for that matter) to somehow try to make IPv4 last longer for larger and existing ones. I am in favor of doing what reasonably can be done to extend IPv4 as long as no organization is discriminated against in the process. If this lets some fraud happen then so be it. ARINs mission should be advancing the Internet first and trying to stop fraud second or maybe fourth. In the scheme of things does it really matter that much if there is some fraud involved with folks getting some /22 blocks or whatever the current minimum would be set at? You can make a hundred arguments why a smaller organization (or any) shouldn't get IP resources but all of them - end up NOT advancing the internet - which is ARINs reason to exist. The right way to extend IPv4 if that is the goal this community & ARIN wants to pursue, is to have ARIN approach the large /8 or whatever legacy holders and ask for their help in that endeavor. (Maybe this is already happening.) To be successful to make that happen, Arin & this community needs to demonstrate to these legacy holders satisfaction that they would act in their best interests ongoing since these legacy block holders are in a position of strength - since they already have been assigned these resources and control them today. If they look back at this community and see that for whatever reasons some member(s) of this community are denied needed resources (like us) for whatever reason then I suspect they would be wary of participating since this community might in the future decide to deny them resources they think they need at that time. It is much safer and easier for them to stand pat and not join ARIN in the endeavor to extend IPv4 life and hoard those addresses for themselves - and until they are forced to go to IPv6 they already have all the IP resources they need - and there is no risk they could be in a position to be denied whatever IPv4 resources they might need. The actions of this community and the policies they put in place ongoing have consequences beyond what can be seen here. Could you blame them for deciding they should stand pat with what they have and better be safe than sorry. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:18 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > Thank you very much for clearing up the record. I do stand by my > original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely > because of organization size. The BGP policy discriminates against > smaller organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over it. > As I mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change to > ARIN policies that I submitted in my first post on this subject. This > is the very simple policy that I am going to propose: > > > > ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block > matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or > entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)? Cheers, Christoph > I hope you and others will decide to support it. > > > > Steven L Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099 - Office > > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > > From: David Miller [mailto:dmiller at tiggee.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:53 PM > To: McTim > Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > > > On 8/9/2012 4:44 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > Hello Steven, > > > > If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the > first to use the word cabal in this thread. > > > In truth, I believe that I was the first to use the word cabal. > > Steven Ryerse wrote: > "...it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request > just because others in the community don?t want me to have the > resources." > > David Miller wrote: > "There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group > of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to > have resources." > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: > > It?s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but > it sure generated some aimed at me! > > > > your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar. Read them > again, you want a pony and > > threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way > it reads to me). > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Aug 9 19:37:03 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:37:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <50243990.2000307@rollernet.us> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243990.2000307@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859612B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I do not think there is a vendetta here! I see no malice coming from ARIN - they have always been professional to us. I do think there are policies that are slanted against smaller organizations which hopefully I've made clear by now. As for your comment about scrapping policies, if they discriminate then they should be fixed or scrapped - whatever makes sense. I'm sure that the expertise available in this community and at ARIN can fix that forthwith if they want to. Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:29 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/9/12 3:17 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: >> >> Thank you very much for clearing up the record. I do stand by my >> original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely >> because of organization size. The BGP policy discriminates against >> smaller organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over >> it. As I mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change >> to ARIN policies that I submitted in my first post on this subject. >> This is the very simple policy that I am going to propose: >> >> >> >> ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block >> matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or >> entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? > > How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect > against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a > request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With > IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if > they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)? > We may as well just scrap the whole NRPM if ARIN is granted such an unrestricted override. While I'm sure the OP thinks the request was reasonable I'm dubious that it was or ARIN would have granted it. I've never seen a case where anyone at ARIN factored in a vendetta as part of a request. Most of us have been through the request process several times, including being turned down. And besides, we already have immediate need covered in section 4.2.1. ~Seth _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From ndavis at arin.net Thu Aug 9 20:58:56 2012 From: ndavis at arin.net (Nate Davis) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:58:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] PPML Discussion Message-ID: As a reminder to subscribers, ARIN maintains a Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) which can be found at https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/aup.html. We ask that list participants comply with the AUP in order to maintain constructive and respectful policy development discussions. Thanks, Nate Davis Chief Operating Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers From jcurran at arin.net Thu Aug 9 21:13:49 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:13:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... I do stand by my original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely because of organization size. Steve - May I ask a question about the above point? If ARIN assigns address space in this region to end-users, and an end-user comes to ARIN and requests a /30 of IPv4 space (based on their actual need), on what basis does ARIN have to deny the end-user request if we have the space available and they have a bona fide need? Is it valid to deny the request because we have community developed and Board adopted policy that requires sufficient need to warrant a /24 assignment due to a minimum block size in the policy? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Aug 9 21:25:42 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:25:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <92B0F6F7-CC07-4999-824D-0E976BEB7758@delong.com> On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:18 , Steven Ryerse wrote: > With all due respect bad policies need to be changed. Policy isn't policy as you say when it is bad policy. Consensus isn't good when it is wrong. ARIN does actually have an obligation to me and to you and to Microsoft and to every other member of the Internet community in North America. Their charter is to serve ALL of us and not just SOME of us. All of us should be on the same level playing field. The BGP policy is specifically designed to deny Internet resources based on the size of the requesting organization. This is absolutely wrong and it is bad policy! > First, there is no ARIN BGP policy, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Second, the policy of requiring a certain minimum size for ARIN allocations is precisely to support needs of this community as expressed by this community to conserve routing table slots. It _MAY_ at this point be somewhat anachronistic, though I tend to think not. While I would support changing the policy, I cannot claim in good faith that it is not a legitimate policy. It is a legitimate policy which was properly developed with the consent and consensus of this community. I understand that you and others don't like this policy. There are several policies that I don't like and many that I have gotten changed as a result of my efforts in the policy development process. > Arin's mission statement says: "Applying the principles of stewardship, ARIN, a nonprofit corporation, allocates Internet Protocol resources; develops consensus-based policies; and facilitates the advancement of the Internet through information and educational outreach." > The principles of stewardship require ARIN to administer (allocate IP resources) according to the consensus-based policies developed by the ARIN community. You may think that because your organization is not getting exactly what it wants, those policies aren't serving your opinion of the advancement of the internet, but I'd be willing to bet that some of the operators on this list feel that filling the routing table with requests like yours would be contrary to the advancement of the internet. Not everyone has the same perspective. It's not about exclusion or an unlevel playing field. Indeed, I suspect most reading this will be surprised to see me defending the current policy. I do believe it needs to change and I would support changing it through the PDP with a proper policy proposal. However, until that proposal reaches consensus, as much as I do not like the policy, indeed for many of the reasons you have mentioned, I cannot call it illegitimate merely because I don't like it. It is a legitimate policy. It was developed through a community driven bottom-up consensus process. It is in place for legitimate technical reasons that were at least sound at the time it was adopted. It is a matter of opinion whether or not those requirements are still valid. IMHO they are not as valid as some claim them to be, but, I cannot argue that they are any less right than I am because I cannot prove one way or the other. > This specifically says that one of ARIN's main missions is to Allocate resources. It absolutely does not say that ARIN is supposed to find reasons and ways to deny resources. It should be finding reasons and ways to approve allocation of resources to everyone who needs them. To do anything other than allocating resources to organizations who can demonstrate the need for those resources is the exact opposite of ARINs mission. Each policy should first have to pass the test of: Does this policy completely align with ARINs mission - and does it advance Internet usage? Any policies that fail this test need to be redone or be removed or not approved - regardless of how well written it might be. > ARIN must allocate those resources using the principles of stewardship which includes following the policies developed by this community. It absolutely does require ARIN to deny a request which does not conform to policy until something changes (the request or the policy) to allow them to approve it. Continuing to throw a temper tantrum and saying the same thing over and over again will not change the fact that you are fundamentally misinterpreting the select pieces of ARIN's mission statement and ignoring it's charter, bylaws, and finally the NRPM which is the document, developed by this community which contains the body of ARIN Number Resource Policy. While I understand that you do not believe that the policy as it exists passes that test, many on this list, myself included disagree with your interpretation and believe that it does, in fact, pass that test. However, the actual test that a policy must pass is as follows: 1. Is it sound, technically feasible, and beneficial to the community? 2. Does the proposed policy have the consensus of the community as expressed through the PPML, the PPM(s), and possibly other forms of input? IMHO, the test you mention above is part of what is required to consider a policy sound. I believe that each and every piece of policy in the NRPM does, in fact, pass your test when viewed from at least some of the many perspectives that exist within the ARIN community. Any BGP policy is not ARIN's, it is imposed by the people running routers and you should take that up with them. > I'm sorry that I appear to be ruffling the feathers of some members of the this community but I will keep on saying that in this forum over and over again until some reason prevails that this is wrong and it needs to be fixed. I am part of this community too. > You are part of this community. Multiple people have pointed you at the tools you need to use to get things changed. Reason has prevailed and you don't agree with what everyone else considers reason. Continuing to repeat yourself hoping that we will agree is known as railing and is unlikely to achieve your desired result. In fact, it will more likely alienate the people willing to support your cause. > I would also categorically state that ruling by consensus can be dangerous and frequently does NOT result in good policies. If all of the polices that have been approved to date by consensus are so perfect then why do existing policies have to frequently be modified and fixed? I Times change. Times change relatively rapidly on the internet. Nobody said that the existing policies are perfect. But the consensus process is better than any other process I've seen for developing compromises that the largest proportion possible of the community can accept and support. > will give you a very graphic illustration of how consensus can be used for very bad policies. In the United States there used to be a very strong consensus in the southern states that black men and women should be enslaved. The vast majority of southerners had come to a strong consensus that the "policy" of slavery was good for the south and that the "policy" of slavery was good for the economy and that black men and women were only capable of being good slaves. This consensus was so strong that southerners were willing to die to keep the "policy" of slavery in place. There was a small minority in the south who stood up and said slavery was wrong. They were not part of the consensus and of course we all realize today that the "policy" created by the consensus of the majority that slavery was good was very WRONG - and this small minority was RIGHT. Consensuses have led to big trouble in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and many other examples. Thank That policy was developed not by consensus, but by majority rule, actually. Further, the blacks were not given a voice in the process, so, again, this was an exclusive process. Claiming that the things you refer to in Russia and Germany were done by consensus is absurd. They were absolutely not done with the consent or consensus of the people they were being done to. In the case of ARIN policy, it is the consensus of the people who might request resources that is used in evaluating the policies for administering those resources. > goodness we are not discussing issues of this magnitude in this community and of course I use these extreme examples to illustrate that governing solely by consensus is not always smart. The beauty and the power of this Internet Community forum is NOT consensus - but IS the ability of the Internet Community to have input into what ARIN does. That is very positive and the obvious reason why the mission statement seeks to give the Internet Community input to its actions. If the consensus of this community is contrary to ARINs mission then it should always be denied by ARINs board - every time. That is their fiduciary responsibility! You also use flawed examples of exclusive majorities and not inclusive consensus based policies where all stakeholders are free to participate in the consensus process. I have no reason to believe that the ARIN board would deny any policy proposal we put forward that did not fall within ARIN's mission statement. I do not agree with your interpretation that the existing policy violates ARIN's mission statement merely because it does not support you doing things in exactly the way you wish to do them. There are (arguably) sound technical reasons not to allow what you are requesting that have nothing to do with "picking on the little guy". If you look at my history on this list, I think you will have a hard time denying that I am a pretty staunch defender of the "little guy" and have been for many years. I myself _AM_ actually a little guy, though I also work for a fairly large ISP at this point as well. > Many of the responses I have received so far want to debate a particular point of policy or a fine point of my augments but they don't really address my overlying point. While that kind of dialog is positive, it misses the overlying point I am trying to make that ALL policies need to be FULLY aligned with ARINs mission. Until we come to agreement that ARIN needs to fully pursue its chartered mission to serve EVERONE who can demonstrate need - at a mission statement level, arguing the various points of a policy at a low level won't help solve the overlying problem. I am asking for the help of ARIN & this Community to correct the overlying problem first. I hope you will join me! ARIN's mission is NOT to serve EVERYONE who can demonstrate need. It doesn't say that anywhere in the mission statement, the charter, or the bylaws. ARIN's mission is to administer the address space according to the principles of stewardship according to the policies developed by the community. The policies developed by the community are the reference by which ARIN can define what will or will not "advance" the internet because there is no other objective criteria available. I'm sorry you don't like the way that works out for you at this moment, but it does not make what is happening invalid. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Thu Aug 9 21:37:02 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:37:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285959AD@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012859562D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285959AD@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <08793CD6-56B3-4FAD-BFF1-BE5DCB30346F@corp.arin.net> On Aug 9, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > Of course ARIN could decide to allow any Legacy holder to update their information in the ARIN database without having to sign any agreement with ARIN. ARIN does allow legacy address holders to update their points of contact on their registrations; this does not requiring entering into an agreement for registration services. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cblecker at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 22:14:39 2012 From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:14:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285960BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201285960BE@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > Good questions! Actually, it seems to me that a lot of the reason why some of the policies I see are slanted towards resource denial may be that there has been a concerted effort to use policies to try to solve the IPv4 exhaustion problem and extend the date that exhaustion happens. Unfortunately no policy can solve the Ipv4 problem no matter how well intentioned. If solving the IPv4 problem means that some don't get the IP resources they need (especially when they are still available) - then the mission appears to have changed from advancing the Internet as the highest priority, to saving or extending IPv4 as the highest priority. The mission statement has not been changed to that. Even if this community thinks saving or extending is a laudable goal, that isn't the mission! I think the time has come to reasonably allocate whatever IPv4 resources are left and get on with moving to IPv6 problems and all. The reality is when they are gone they are gone and we all better get ready for IPv6 soon. I already have my IPv6 address block. So to summarize your standpoint, you feel that a certain level of fraud is okay, as long as an organization such as yours can get the IP space that the request? Thanks for the directed and respectful responses to my questions. I think this has helped to get further to the root of what you're trying to propose. Cheers, Christoph > > In the meantime I am strongly against using discrimination of smaller organizations (or any for that matter) to somehow try to make IPv4 last longer for larger and existing ones. I am in favor of doing what reasonably can be done to extend IPv4 as long as no organization is discriminated against in the process. If this lets some fraud happen then so be it. ARINs mission should be advancing the Internet first and trying to stop fraud second or maybe fourth. In the scheme of things does it really matter that much if there is some fraud involved with folks getting some /22 blocks or whatever the current minimum would be set at? You can make a hundred arguments why a smaller organization (or any) shouldn't get IP resources but all of them - end up NOT advancing the internet - which is ARINs reason to exist. > > The right way to extend IPv4 if that is the goal this community & ARIN wants to pursue, is to have ARIN approach the large /8 or whatever legacy holders and ask for their help in that endeavor. (Maybe this is already happening.) To be successful to make that happen, Arin & this community needs to demonstrate to these legacy holders satisfaction that they would act in their best interests ongoing since these legacy block holders are in a position of strength - since they already have been assigned these resources and control them today. If they look back at this community and see that for whatever reasons some member(s) of this community are denied needed resources (like us) for whatever reason then I suspect they would be wary of participating since this community might in the future decide to deny them resources they think they need at that time. It is much safer and easier for them to stand pat and not join ARIN in the endeavor to extend IPv4 life and hoard those addresses for themselves - and until they are forced to go to IPv6 they already have all the IP resources they need - and there is no risk they could be in a position to be denied whatever IPv4 resources they might need. The actions of this community and the policies they put in place ongoing have consequences beyond what can be seen here. Could you blame them for deciding they should stand pat with what they have and better be safe than sorry. > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:18 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> >> Thank you very much for clearing up the record. I do stand by my >> original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely >> because of organization size. The BGP policy discriminates against >> smaller organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over it. >> As I mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change to >> ARIN policies that I submitted in my first post on this subject. This >> is the very simple policy that I am going to propose: >> >> >> >> ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block >> matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or >> entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? > > How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)? > > Cheers, > Christoph > >> I hope you and others will decide to support it. >> >> >> >> Steven L Ryerse >> >> President >> >> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 >> >> 770.656.1460 - Cell >> >> 770.399.9099 - Office >> >> 770.392-0076 - Fax >> >> >> >> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. >> >> Conquering Complex Networks? >> >> >> >> From: David Miller [mailto:dmiller at tiggee.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:53 PM >> To: McTim >> Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net >> >> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy >> >> >> >> On 8/9/2012 4:44 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello Steven, >> >> >> >> If you go through the thread, you will find that you are indeed the >> first to use the word cabal in this thread. >> >> >> In truth, I believe that I was the first to use the word cabal. >> >> Steven Ryerse wrote: >> "...it is not reasonable for a monopoly to deny a resource request >> just because others in the community don?t want me to have the >> resources." >> >> David Miller wrote: >> "There is no cabal controlling address allocations. There is no group >> of people in the community that voted against or "don't want" you to >> have resources." >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steven Ryerse >> wrote: >> >> It?s funny, there is no vinegar in my first post on this subject but >> it sure generated some aimed at me! >> >> >> >> your first few posts in this thread were all vinegar. Read them >> again, you want a pony and >> >> threaten to pitch a tantrum until ya get one (at least that's the way >> it reads to me). >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 pvinci at vinci-consulting-corp.com Thu Aug 9 22:44:41 2012 From: pvinci at vinci-consulting-corp.com (Paul Vinciguerra) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:44:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <6E5736BD68F770449C74FBAD975F807C8C16E80A@NYDC-EXCH01.vinci-consulting-corp.local> Hi John, We met at NANOG in Vancouver. We were talking about how LISP is being deployed and how it impacts service providers. We too are a small organization and had challenges this year getting our own addressing. I will say that the ARIN analysts went out of their way to guide us through the process. It was apparent that their goal was to find out how they could apply policy to issue the resources as opposed to keeping them. The difficulty for us is what you refer to as a bona fide need. The policy's inconsistent application towards technology as a smaller provider is difficult to meet. The analysts were clear that how you were going to use the addresses was not important as far as policy is concerned. What we found out was that Anycast networks are the bastard child in terms of policy, and BGP multihoming is king. We have a need for an anycast block for our services and have used one of our /24's for that purpose. Because of that sparsely filled network, we will not be able to qualify for future addresses due never being able to meet the 80% utilization requirement. The BGP Multihoming policy is what needs to change. As long as someone can purchase two circuits, they can get a /24. Technology has evolved where multihoming no longer needs to be constrained by the limitations of how BGP is deployed across the Internet. I can think of way too many organizations with /24's allocated due to multihoming via BGP where only 5 or so addresses are in use. With LISP, we multihome all the way down to single /32's. Is there a bona fide need for organizations to multihome via BGP when there are other multihoming solutions available? We can provide 30 or more multihomed sites in a single /24. The policy doesn't address value of address preservation. I learned that. The need is multihoming. Is the deployment choice of achieving multihoming by BGP over LISP any more valid? Is a sparsely populated multihomed network more valid than our need for a sparsely populated anycast network? Policy makes a technological exception for multihoming via BGP. Anyone who is willing to pay the entry fee of a pair of circuits can get a /24. As a small provider, catering to enterprises that expect no single points of failure, it's nearly impossible to build a distributed, highly available solution with a /22, but necessity IS the mother of invention.... I am glad to have the opportunity to participate of the discussion. Regards, Paul Paul Vinciguerra PRESIDENT [Description: Description: cid:A37A812F-9283-4165-9459-FA9025300523] 120 W Park Avenue, Suite 308 Long Beach, NY 11561 P: 516-977-2095 * F: 516-977-2482 * TF: 866-998-4624 vinciconsulting.com/vxnet From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:14 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... I do stand by my original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely because of organization size. Steve - May I ask a question about the above point? If ARIN assigns address space in this region to end-users, and an end-user comes to ARIN and requests a /30 of IPv4 space (based on their actual need), on what basis does ARIN have to deny the end-user request if we have the space available and they have a bona fide need? Is it valid to deny the request because we have community developed and Board adopted policy that requires sufficient need to warrant a /24 assignment due to a minimum block size in the policy? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 14315 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 9 23:11:25 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:11:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <69E38F43-1DA0-41DD-9A1A-E6425E3A7CA4@StealthyHosting.com> <50240766.7050503@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Chris Engel wrote: > While I'm generaly pretty sympathetic to privacy >concerns, they do have to be counter-balanced with >a need for accountability and that requires some >degree of transparency. As long as ARIN is willing to >accept a DBA/ Legal Trust in WHOIS for the name >of the entity reassigned the block and a mailing >address (e.g. .P.O box) for the address, then I >don't see much issue there. Hi Chris, You've pinpointed the part of this discussion where the proponents' arguments don't yet make any sense. If the purpose of this proposal is to facilitate a godaddy domains by proxy like system for IP addresses then the proponents must identify the current consumers of SWIP information and both thoroughly and thoughtfully address what might replace those functions when identities are no longer readily available. If the purpose is to hide the rare customer who genuinely needs it then the proponents must explain why the current lawful mechanisms for doing business anonymously are not adequate to the task. Neither of these has happened. 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 Thu Aug 9 23:30:04 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 23:30:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: >> ?Regardless of any other ARIN Policy, ARIN will allocate an IP block >> matching ARIN?s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or entity >> that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.? > > How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect > against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a > request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With > IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if > they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)? Well, hold on a minute. We've long held that BGP multihoming is sufficient justification for an ISP to assign a /24 to a customer regardless of the customer's host count. Right? A year, or maybe it was two years ago now, we looked at the question of whether it made sense to require multihomed end users to get a /24 from their ISP if they could actually justify a /24 based on host count at ARIN. At the time the end-user minimum was /22. We concluded that as long as the recipient was willing to renumber out of the /24 to get a /23 or /22 that would be OK, it would be a net neutral or maybe even net positive impact to both address consumption and the size of the BGP table and it would meaningfully reduce the incidence of painful renumbering. That's worked out OK, right? If anything, the data suggests we might be able to lighten up on requiring end users to renumber out of the /24. Maybe go to a policy of: an end user can hold a single block smaller than /22 but is not required to renumber out of it to get a /22 once their need justifies it. But so far we've only considered end-users. What about ISP startups? Doesn't some form of the same reasoning apply to a *multihomed* ISP startup? Regards, Bill Herrin -- 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 Thu Aug 9 23:48:31 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:48:31 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <0DD6E87D-530C-4A5D-9486-A8CC84693CB2@delong.com> On Aug 9, 2012, at 10:27 , "Chu, Yi [NTK]" wrote: > Seth: > I can't go further into any details of my customer, hence I did not answer your question. > > I do think your question is valid. However, as ISP, it is not at our discretion to get into our customers' business. They gave their justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is). In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their request. That was my response to them in this case. > > However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a customer to make such a request. There are many legitimate reasons not wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP addresses. For instance, if they only need to set up their IPSec VPN across the Internet. Also in some cases they do not have the admin staff and outsource the network management to the upstream ISP. They can set up their IPSec VPN with a small enough PA assignment that it would not have to be SWIP'd. If you can provide any examples of legitimate reasons, I would like to hear them. So far, none have been forthcoming and the one you offered is, frankly, not compelling and can easily be addressed within existing policy. > A substantial portion of ISP's business customers are managed by the ISP, statically routed, or both. In term of routing, the prefix is not relevant to anyone else except the ISP. Outside the ISP, only the ISP aggregate is (should be) visible. And since the ISP is the only one responsible for routing to that IP address block, it can be argued that it makes sense for ISP to be the POC listed in public. The prefixes are a public resource. There is a right of public visibility into their utilization. I understand the need for residential customer privacy, but I am not convinced that businesses have any such right. > I do not believe ISP would indiscriminately register all reassignments as private, as it is contrary to their interest. They would have to have a bigger NOC to answer all the inquiries on all customers' behalf. What I try to propose here is to give ISP and their customers an option. Responsible ISP, sure, but abusers could easily use this technique and it would be very much in their interest. Owen > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:53 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On 8/9/12 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Opposed. This goes too far. >> >> The current residential customer privacy provision is sufficient. >> > > Agreed and opposed as well. > > In the thread that preceded this it was said that the org in question > has a public facing department. I asked why not use that department's > already public contact info for whois as well, and I'd still like to > know why that isn't a possibility because it seems reasonable (and > policy complying) to me. > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Aug 9 23:53:05 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:53:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2012, at 10:38 , aaron at wholesaleinternet.net wrote: > Support > > --- but let me tell you how this is going to go down --- > > 1. The AC is going to abandon it. Assumes facts not in evidence. > 2. You'll petition and get it to the meeting. Definitely assumes facts not in evidence. > 3. In the months leading up to the meeting you'll receive e-mails from > people calling you every name you can think of. Saying you're a spammer > and that you're trying to hide criminals and that you rape babies. ?? > A few security "experts" will write in their blogs about how you must be > some criminal yourself. They'll try to get to your wife and kids and use > them to squeeze you. > > Keep in mind none of these people will have actually read your proposal. I believe that the AC reads EVERY proposal before acting on it. I know that at least this AC member does and I have no reason to believe otherwise of any of the others. > 4. You'll go to the meeting to present it. Law enforcement will be there > and try to appeal to your sense of good to drop the policy. When that > fails they meet with you late at night and try to make some back room deal > with you. ??? On what do you base this? > 5. Realizing that you're life could become very difficult very fast > you'll get up at the podium the next day and retract your support for your > own proposal. > If you have a basis for this claim, it is very disturbing. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Aug 10 00:13:32 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:13:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:24 , aaron at wholesaleinternet.net wrote: >> >> Where in 4.2.3.7 does it say whois registration has to be the address >> where service is delivered? >> >> ~Seth > > No where, however, that's how ARIN staff impliments it. > > explained here: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXV/PDF/Sunday/Huberman_Hosting_Provider_BOF.pdf > > Page 10. > 1. That's not policy. 2. I think you're reading too much into one slide from one ARIN staffer. I know that there are companies in datacenters using PA space SWIPd to their corporate address. I also know that ARIN recently clarified that they do accept PO Boxes and rejected a suggestion to disallow them. Since you cannot deliver internet service to a PO Box to the best of my knowledge, I think it is pretty clear that policy cannot possibly require the service delivery address to be on the SWIP. However, it must be some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. Owen > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 10 00:53:05 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:53:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201208100453.q7A4r65Y011687@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 167 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 10 00:53:05 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 14.37% | 24 | 26.98% | 623667 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com 7.19% | 12 | 9.49% | 219264 | kkargel at polartel.com 8.38% | 14 | 7.54% | 174185 | yi.chu at sprint.com 10.18% | 17 | 4.53% | 104674 | sethm at rollernet.us 4.79% | 8 | 6.07% | 140234 | owen at delong.com 5.39% | 9 | 4.44% | 102531 | jcurran at arin.net 5.39% | 9 | 2.83% | 65478 | bill at herrin.us 3.59% | 6 | 3.76% | 87017 | dogwallah at gmail.com 4.19% | 7 | 3.03% | 70147 | cblecker at gmail.com 1.20% | 2 | 5.89% | 136181 | zolla at neonet.org 3.59% | 6 | 1.77% | 40938 | hannigan at gmail.com 3.59% | 6 | 1.51% | 34870 | patrick at klos.com 1.80% | 3 | 2.87% | 66312 | heather.skanks at gmail.com 2.99% | 5 | 1.47% | 33964 | mysidia at gmail.com 2.99% | 5 | 1.40% | 32400 | cengel at conxeo.com 1.80% | 3 | 1.95% | 45170 | heather.schiller at verizon.com 2.40% | 4 | 1.33% | 30703 | aaron at wholesaleinternet.net 1.80% | 3 | 1.57% | 36301 | dmiller at tiggee.com 1.80% | 3 | 1.31% | 30197 | farmer at umn.edu 1.20% | 2 | 1.61% | 37310 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 1.20% | 2 | 1.53% | 35421 | adudek16 at gmail.com 0.60% | 1 | 1.99% | 46108 | pvinci at vinci-consulting-corp.com 1.80% | 3 | 0.79% | 18249 | matthew at matthew.at 1.20% | 2 | 0.59% | 13643 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com 0.60% | 1 | 0.53% | 12170 | mueller at syr.edu 0.60% | 1 | 0.48% | 10986 | springer at inlandnet.com 0.60% | 1 | 0.42% | 9693 | jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net 0.60% | 1 | 0.35% | 8150 | tvest at eyeconomics.com 0.60% | 1 | 0.34% | 7936 | brian at stealthyhosting.com 0.60% | 1 | 0.32% | 7305 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.60% | 1 | 0.30% | 6966 | jlewis at lewis.org 0.60% | 1 | 0.29% | 6695 | info at arin.net 0.60% | 1 | 0.28% | 6532 | paul at redbarn.org 0.60% | 1 | 0.22% | 5095 | jbates at brightok.net 0.60% | 1 | 0.21% | 4906 | ndavis at arin.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 167 |100.00% | 2311398 | Total From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 01:47:46 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:47:46 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On 8/9/12, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christoph Blecker [snip] > Well, hold on a minute. > We've long held that BGP multihoming is sufficient justification for > an ISP to assign a /24 to a customer regardless of the customer's host > count. Right? Right, as long as they show the evidence of building a multihomed network, and have the proper arrangements with the ISP, and get no /24 from anywhere else, the ISP should allocate them a /24 when requested. > But so far we've only considered end-users. What about ISP startups? > Doesn't some form of the same reasoning apply to a *multihomed* ISP > startup? It doesn't really help an ISP that already has a legacy /24 and who is taking issue with the Slow Start policy, disqualifying them from obtaining a /22 based on their 12 month projected / predicted customer base size, etc, etc. Although I would say that it would seem reasonable to revise Slow Start, so that: Demonstrating proof of multihoming, immediate need for 80% of a /23, and the normal 3 months justification for a /22, should be sufficient to obtain an allocation of the minimum ISP allocation unit size (/22). I would say that renumbering requirements associated with allocating /24s are too burdensome for ISPs, because where they are not the end user assigned the addresses -- that means they have to force customer networks to renumber. ISPs should not be granted such small allocations by ARIN in place of their upstream.. the /22 minimum is appropriate. I doubt that an ISP startup requiring only a /24 is common. They will very quickly need more than a /24, or they probably won't be in business for too long. Allocation churn or multiple prefixes for the same org issued at the RIR level in a short period of time is bad, and issuing overly small IPv4 allocations to startup ISPs could promote that. I> Regards, > Bill Herrin -- -JH From frnkblk at iname.com Fri Aug 10 21:40:21 2012 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:40:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583631@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012858399D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5E499DD1-EDDE-4D7B-9AFE-A5D0EB5E6719@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583C92@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50232180.80606@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128583F6D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5023DB02.7000101@rollernet.us> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595520@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595A15@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <50243145.5060100@tiggee.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128595F72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <012501cd7762$4596bf20$d0c43d60$@iname.com> I agree with much of Jimmy's points. I'd like to see ISPs that are already dual-homed and that can prove immediate need for a /24 AND with near-term plan for at least a /22 to be reserved a full /22 and immediately get the first /24 out of that /22. They then have a one year time period to document additional need, such that as their business grows they can obtain additional (consecutive) space out of that /22. But I have one concern about this idea: what about those who never plan to need more than a /24 or /23 but apply under this policy only so that they aren't stuck with one of their ISP's assigned space? Frank -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:48 AM To: William Herrin Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy On 8/9/12, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christoph Blecker [snip] > Well, hold on a minute. > We've long held that BGP multihoming is sufficient justification for > an ISP to assign a /24 to a customer regardless of the customer's host > count. Right? Right, as long as they show the evidence of building a multihomed network, and have the proper arrangements with the ISP, and get no /24 from anywhere else, the ISP should allocate them a /24 when requested. > But so far we've only considered end-users. What about ISP startups? > Doesn't some form of the same reasoning apply to a *multihomed* ISP > startup? It doesn't really help an ISP that already has a legacy /24 and who is taking issue with the Slow Start policy, disqualifying them from obtaining a /22 based on their 12 month projected / predicted customer base size, etc, etc. Although I would say that it would seem reasonable to revise Slow Start, so that: Demonstrating proof of multihoming, immediate need for 80% of a /23, and the normal 3 months justification for a /22, should be sufficient to obtain an allocation of the minimum ISP allocation unit size (/22). I would say that renumbering requirements associated with allocating /24s are too burdensome for ISPs, because where they are not the end user assigned the addresses -- that means they have to force customer networks to renumber. ISPs should not be granted such small allocations by ARIN in place of their upstream.. the /22 minimum is appropriate. I doubt that an ISP startup requiring only a /24 is common. They will very quickly need more than a /24, or they probably won't be in business for too long. Allocation churn or multiple prefixes for the same org issued at the RIR level in a short period of time is bad, and issuing overly small IPv4 allocations to startup ISPs could promote that. I> Regards, > Bill Herrin -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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 mysidia at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 22:20:27 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:20:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: [snip] > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of legal process at any address. The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. Example uses of a mailing address could include: (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison to other records. (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, and someone forgot to update WHOIS. (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > Owen -- -JH From owen at delong.com Sat Aug 11 05:21:21 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 02:21:21 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: <5FA62EC6-7081-4881-A222-931F685D15FD@delong.com> On Aug 10, 2012, at 19:20 , Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] >> some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally >> the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. > > I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of > legal process at any address. > ROFL... Well, sure. However, given a requirement of receiving legal process, the question is of the available addresses, which would they prefer. Not receiving legal process really isn't an available option. > The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an > authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. > Example uses of a mailing address could include: > > (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and > prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison > to other records. > > (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a > last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some > reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, > for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, > and someone forgot to update WHOIS. > > (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to > report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical > contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. > > (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail > server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when > e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > > All additional valid uses of the address. Owen From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Tue Aug 14 15:51:28 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:51:28 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: [snip] > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of legal process at any address. The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. Example uses of a mailing address could include: (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison to other records. (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, and someone forgot to update WHOIS. (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > Owen -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From adudek16 at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 15:56:45 2012 From: adudek16 at gmail.com (Aaron Dudek) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:56:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. Aaron On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that > put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC > changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for > not knowing? > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jimmy Hess > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] > > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. > > I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of > legal process at any address. > > The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an > authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. > Example uses of a mailing address could include: > > (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and > prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison > to other records. > > (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a > last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some > reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, > for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, > and someone forgot to update WHOIS. > > (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to > report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical > contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. > > (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail > server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when > e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > > > > Owen > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Yi.Chu at sprint.com Tue Aug 14 16:13:08 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:13:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment In-Reply-To: References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> <197653CF-3CF5-4950-A6BE-3971EFAE3261@delong.com> <5023DCDD.4060200@rollernet.us> <5023F9C4.5080908@rollernet.us> <13a7d1d674ffbb80e449c0201e4c5e4b.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <5023FCF7.6060304@rollernet.us> Message-ID: Aaron: Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their 'authoritative' contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. yi From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. Aaron On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong > wrote: [snip] > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of legal process at any address. The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. Example uses of a mailing address could include: (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison to other records. (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, and someone forgot to update WHOIS. (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > Owen -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 15 13:50:53 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:50:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability Message-ID: Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers' behalf? yi From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM To: Aaron Dudek Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Aaron: Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their 'authoritative' contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. yi From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. Aaron On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong > wrote: [snip] > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of legal process at any address. The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. Example uses of a mailing address could include: (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison to other records. (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, and someone forgot to update WHOIS. (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > Owen -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 15 14:38:13 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:38:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37BCE898-CF60-4D1B-A3A2-081DD1C888CC@arin.net> On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:50 PM, "Chu, Yi [NTK]" > wrote: Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? Yi - ARIN cannot provide advice to members regarding their potential legal liabilities; you should seek appropriate legal counsel if this is a concern. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 15:19:31 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:19:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability > Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you mean? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? > > > > yi > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On > Behalf Of *Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM > *To:* Aaron Dudek > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > > > Aaron: > > Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without > telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts > receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? > contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. > > > > Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company > to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am > referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not > recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot > of them did. > > > > So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am > legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my > acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. > > > > yi > > > > *From:* Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM > *To:* Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Cc:* Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > > > Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, > you can figure out how that works. > POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct > that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say > something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach > certain sites. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > > So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that > put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC > changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for > not knowing? > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jimmy Hess > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] > > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. > > I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of > legal process at any address. > > The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an > authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. > Example uses of a mailing address could include: > > (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and > prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison > to other records. > > (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a > last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some > reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, > for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, > and someone forgot to update WHOIS. > > (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to > report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical > contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. > > (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail > server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when > e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > > > > Owen > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 hannigan at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 15:54:34 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:54:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <31C39FEC-073C-40E3-BB21-EA9EABD93B6D@delong.com> References: <31C39FEC-073C-40E3-BB21-EA9EABD93B6D@delong.com> Message-ID: At this time, I'm going in favor of advancing this proposal. I support the concept, but the ARIN region contains multiple jurisdictions and has a requirement to attempt to balance policy for fairness across all of them. Achieving this balance by insuring that utilization requirements are applied broadly vs. narrowly is entirely feasible. I would instead suggest that we address utilization holistically by either lowering the threshold to 50% across the board or waiving them altogether for transfers. But we're re-arranging the deck chairs as the ship is rolling over at this point. This proposal also brings to mind the comments that Cameron Byrne made recently related to the definition of wireless access services e.g. residential or commercial and their implications on utilization and transfer. His comments should also be considered and addressed as part of a much more generalized edit of this proposal. If we are going to address utilization, let's do it holistically. Best, -M< On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Jimmy, > > This is essentially a case of providers that have to allocate addresses in much the same way as cable ISPs covered under 4.2.3.7.3, but which may not be able to meet the 50% across-the-board requirement. > > Essentially, this isn't about a blank check, it's about addressing a squeeze created between the regulators (CRTC) and the ability of the incumbent Cable carriers to control the underlying network topology, the competitive TPIA is required to deploy addresses which may not meet current utilization requirements depending on the percentage of market they capture. > > As I understand it, if you have 3 competing companies in a market, for example, you are virtually guaranteed that at least 2 of them cannot meet the 50% utilization requirement. > > Owen > > On Jul 28, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > >> On 7/27/12, Peter Rocca wrote: >> >> This situation should fall under 4.2.3.4.2; allocations for >> downstream ISPs, without additional special rules. I am not in favor >> of giving some ISPs a blank check on utilization, by automatically >> considering their usage justified, as soon as they designated IPs for >> their equipment. >> >> As an LIR / registration authority creating sub-delegations from ARIN >> allocated resources, the "TPIA" provider (or whatever it's called) >> should be required to maintain their sub-delegations contact records, >> and maintain the documentation of usage, and that the subdelegations >> are efficiently used, based on a utilization criterion in compliance >> with policy, as any other LIR has to do. >> >> >> >>> The high-level overview is that the allocation is routed to the TPIA >>> provider who then carves it up into smaller blocks and routes them to >>> different 'serving areas' which are geographical groupings of CMTS's. Those >>> serving areas then have smaller DHCP pools (generally /27's or /28's) >>> assigned at the node level. End-users are assigned IP's from the DHCP of the >>> node they are served by. Once the space is provided to the TPIA provider the >>> ISP no longer has control over the routing, renumbering or specific >>> assignments within the TPIA network. >> [snip] >> >> -- >> -JH >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Aug 15 16:01:15 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:01:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: <37BCE898-CF60-4D1B-A3A2-081DD1C888CC@arin.net> References: <37BCE898-CF60-4D1B-A3A2-081DD1C888CC@arin.net> Message-ID: <502C000B.3040700@umn.edu> On 8/15/12 13:38 CDT, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:50 PM, "Chu, Yi [NTK]" > wrote: >> >> Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability >> for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? > > Yi - > > ARIN cannot provide advice to members regarding their potential legal > liabilities; you should seek appropriate legal counsel if this is a > concern. Additionally, even if it were reasonable for ARIN to give legal advise and for you to take it even if they gave it. There are so many "it depends" on this one regrading issues like what country or jurisdiction, the exact details of the situation in question, etc... The question itself is almost meaningless. That said, if an ISP is acting in "Good Faith" making reassignments following reasonable business practices, and responding in "Good Faith" to any complaints from third parties, it is difficult to conceive how an ISP would become legally liable for the activities of their downstream customers. However, I believe part of that "Good Faith" and reasonable business practice is to provide and maintain public reassignment information allowing third parties to directly contact the downstream customer. Part of that "Good Faith" is to maintain and update that information, if you have reason to believe it is not correct. If that information is not publicly available, it is private, then I believe "Good Faith" would require you to act as an agent of the downstream customer and at the very least to accept and convey any legal paperwork to the downstream customer. Probably more than that minimum for a practical perspective, but from a legal perspective it would be absolutely necessary to convey any legal paperwork. -- =============================================== 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 hannigan at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 16:06:19 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:06:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <31C39FEC-073C-40E3-BB21-EA9EABD93B6D@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > At this time, I'm going in favor of advancing this proposal. That should read "not in favor". Sorry, spell check doesn't do it all. Best, -M< > > I support the concept, but the ARIN region contains multiple > jurisdictions and has a requirement to attempt to balance policy for > fairness across all of them. Achieving this balance by insuring that > utilization requirements are applied broadly vs. narrowly is entirely > feasible. > > I would instead suggest that we address utilization holistically by > either lowering the threshold to 50% across the board or waiving them > altogether for transfers. But we're re-arranging the deck chairs as > the ship is rolling over at this point. > > This proposal also brings to mind the comments that Cameron Byrne made > recently related to the definition of wireless access services e.g. > residential or commercial and their implications on utilization and > transfer. His comments should also be considered and addressed as part > of a much more generalized edit of this proposal. If we are going to > address utilization, let's do it holistically. > > > Best, > > -M< > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Jimmy, >> >> This is essentially a case of providers that have to allocate addresses in much the same way as cable ISPs covered under 4.2.3.7.3, but which may not be able to meet the 50% across-the-board requirement. >> >> Essentially, this isn't about a blank check, it's about addressing a squeeze created between the regulators (CRTC) and the ability of the incumbent Cable carriers to control the underlying network topology, the competitive TPIA is required to deploy addresses which may not meet current utilization requirements depending on the percentage of market they capture. >> >> As I understand it, if you have 3 competing companies in a market, for example, you are virtually guaranteed that at least 2 of them cannot meet the 50% utilization requirement. >> >> Owen >> >> On Jul 28, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> >>> On 7/27/12, Peter Rocca wrote: >>> >>> This situation should fall under 4.2.3.4.2; allocations for >>> downstream ISPs, without additional special rules. I am not in favor >>> of giving some ISPs a blank check on utilization, by automatically >>> considering their usage justified, as soon as they designated IPs for >>> their equipment. >>> >>> As an LIR / registration authority creating sub-delegations from ARIN >>> allocated resources, the "TPIA" provider (or whatever it's called) >>> should be required to maintain their sub-delegations contact records, >>> and maintain the documentation of usage, and that the subdelegations >>> are efficiently used, based on a utilization criterion in compliance >>> with policy, as any other LIR has to do. >>> >>> >>> >>>> The high-level overview is that the allocation is routed to the TPIA >>>> provider who then carves it up into smaller blocks and routes them to >>>> different 'serving areas' which are geographical groupings of CMTS's. Those >>>> serving areas then have smaller DHCP pools (generally /27's or /28's) >>>> assigned at the node level. End-users are assigned IP's from the DHCP of the >>>> node they are served by. Once the space is provided to the TPIA provider the >>>> ISP no longer has control over the routing, renumbering or specific >>>> assignments within the TPIA network. >>> [snip] >>> >>> -- >>> -JH >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 15 16:33:20 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:33:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? yi From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability Hi, On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you mean? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers' behalf? yi From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM To: Aaron Dudek Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Aaron: Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their 'authoritative' contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. yi From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. Aaron On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong > wrote: [snip] > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of legal process at any address. The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. Example uses of a mailing address could include: (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison to other records. (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, and someone forgot to update WHOIS. (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > Owen -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adudek16 at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 16:50:20 2012 From: adudek16 at gmail.com (Aaron Dudek) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:50:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The same thing will happen that currently does. You go to their upstreams On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its > customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were > correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its > business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP > A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from > the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B > outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? > > > > yi > > > > *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com 'dogwallah at gmail.com');>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM > *To:* Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net 'arin-ppml at arin.net');> > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP > liability > > > > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > > Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability > > > > > > Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you > mean? > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > > > for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? > > > > yi > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On > Behalf Of *Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM > *To:* Aaron Dudek > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > > > Aaron: > > Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without > telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts > receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? > contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. > > > > Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company > to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am > referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not > recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot > of them did. > > > > So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am > legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my > acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. > > > > yi > > > > *From:* Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, Augu > > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 16:51:48 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:51:48 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speaking practically (not legally) what usually happens in that situation is that C will contact A and ask them to address the DDoS. A will then be more responsible for blocking the traffic (or getting in touch with B) than if B's info were up to date. Scott On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:33 PM, "Chu, Yi [NTK]" wrote: > So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? > > yi > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability > > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability > > > Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you mean? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? > > yi > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM > To: Aaron Dudek > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > Aaron: > Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. > > Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. > > So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. > > yi > > From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. > POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] > > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. > > I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of > legal process at any address. > > The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an > authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. > Example uses of a mailing address could include: > > (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and > prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison > to other records. > > (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a > last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some > reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, > for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, > and someone forgot to update WHOIS. > > (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to > report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical > contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. > > (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail > server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when > e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > > > > Owen > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > _______________________________________________ > 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 adudek16 at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 16:52:15 2012 From: adudek16 at gmail.com (Aaron Dudek) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:52:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Besides that is a conversation to have with a lawyer, not a discussion list. On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Aaron Dudek wrote: > The same thing will happen that currently does. You go to their upstreams > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > >> So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its >> customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were >> correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its >> business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP >> A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from >> the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B >> outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? >> >> >> >> yi >> >> >> >> *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM >> *To:* Chu, Yi [NTK] >> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP >> liability >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: >> >> Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you >> mean? >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? >> >> >> >> yi >> >> >> >> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On >> Behalf Of *Chu, Yi [NTK] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM >> *To:* Aaron Dudek >> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> >> >> Aaron: >> >> Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without >> telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts >> receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? >> contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. >> >> >> >> Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company >> to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am >> referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not >> recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot >> of them did. >> >> >> >> So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am >> legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my >> acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended >> for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If >> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete >> all copies of the message. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 15 16:55:13 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:55:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is fine. ISP A will do whatever it takes. But can C make a legal case against A just because the whois record is outdated, so C lost sometime during the course? yi From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:52 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: McTim; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability Speaking practically (not legally) what usually happens in that situation is that C will contact A and ask them to address the DDoS. A will then be more responsible for blocking the traffic (or getting in touch with B) than if B's info were up to date. Scott On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:33 PM, "Chu, Yi [NTK]" > wrote: So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? yi From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability Hi, On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you mean? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? yi From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM To: Aaron Dudek Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Aaron: Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. yi From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. Aaron On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? yi -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong > wrote: [snip] > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of legal process at any address. The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. Example uses of a mailing address could include: (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison to other records. (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, and someone forgot to update WHOIS. (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > Owen -- -JH _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 15 16:59:14 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:59:14 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The legal grey line was actually one of the reasons APNIC presented in the adoption of private registration. So it is relevant. I am getting opinion from my legal counsel. I do want to get a sense from the community and from ARIN in the meantime. yi From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:52 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: McTim; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability Besides that is a conversation to have with a lawyer, not a discussion list. On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Aaron Dudek wrote: The same thing will happen that currently does. You go to their upstreams On Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? yi From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability Hi, On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you mean? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers' behalf? yi From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM To: Aaron Dudek Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Aaron: Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their 'authoritative' contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 17:01:18 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:01:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As others have mentioned, that is a question for a lawyer. Of particular interest may be legal theories on common carrier status, and more specifically (in the US) the safe harbor requirements in the DMCA and similar laws. -Scott On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > That is fine. ISP A will do whatever it takes. But can C make a legal > case against A just because the whois record is outdated, so C lost > sometime during the course? > > > > yi > > > > *From:* Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:52 PM > *To:* Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Cc:* McTim; arin-ppml at arin.net > > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP > liability > > > > Speaking practically (not legally) what usually happens in that situation > is that C will contact A and ask them to address the DDoS. A will then be > more responsible for blocking the traffic (or getting in touch with B) than > if B's info were up to date. > > Scott > > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:33 PM, "Chu, Yi [NTK]" wrote: > > So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its > customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were > correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its > business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP > A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from > the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B > outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? > > > > yi > > > > *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM > *To:* Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP > liability > > > > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > > Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability > > > > > > Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you > mean? > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > > > for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? > > > > yi > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On > Behalf Of *Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM > *To:* Aaron Dudek > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > > > Aaron: > > Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without > telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts > receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? > contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. > > > > Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company > to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am > referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not > recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot > of them did. > > > > So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am > legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my > acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. > > > > yi > > > > *From:* Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM > *To:* Chu, Yi [NTK] > *Cc:* Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > > > Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, > you can figure out how that works. > POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct > that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say > something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach > certain sites. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > > So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that > put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC > changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for > not knowing? > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Jimmy Hess > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] > > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. > > I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of > legal process at any address. > > The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an > authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. > Example uses of a mailing address could include: > > (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and > prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison > to other records. > > (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a > last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some > reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, > for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, > and someone forgot to update WHOIS. > > (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to > report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical > contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. > > (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail > server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when > e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > > > > Owen > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > > ------------------------------ > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for > the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all > copies of the message. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Aug 15 17:37:30 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:37:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96076D29-1EE3-4884-9E67-99D465A8FA21@delong.com> In most cases, probably not a successful case. However, IANAL, and I am speaking only for myself. This is not an official position of ARIN, the AC, or anyone besides me, myself, and I. However, this has wandered far afield from policy relevance and as such, I'd like to focus on the merits or lack thereof for a private reassignment policy. Owen On Aug 15, 2012, at 13:33 , "Chu, Yi [NTK]" wrote: > So ISP A made a reassignment, and created the org ID on behalf of its customer (company B). At that time, the business location and POC were correct in the swipped records. A year later, company B changed its business location, or its POC switched job. However, B did not notify ISP A of the change. Now some third party C has some DDOS traffic coming from the company B. C is checking on WHOIS and found the contact info for B outdated. Is this ground for C to make a legal case against ISP A? > > yi > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:20 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability > > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Can ARIN staff answer the question whether ISP have legal liability > > > Perhaps if you could be more specific about what type of liability you mean? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > for the reassignment they made on their downstream customers? behalf? > > yi > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chu, Yi [NTK] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:13 PM > To: Aaron Dudek > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > Aaron: > Not necessarily true. Customer can move their mailing address without telling their upstream ISP. They can just forget it. Their accounts receiving department may or may not be the same as their ?authoritative? contact info that ISP put in the whois for them. > > Let alone the POC records. It actually took quite a while for my company to update some folks after they switched jobs. (you know whom I am referring to). I know that for a fact. And as for my customers, I do not recall last time anyone told me that their POC changed, but I suspect a lot of them did. > > So I am a bit uneasy as the discussion seemed to implicate that I am legally liable in some ways. I need to find out, and if so, need to get my acts together. It is a bit off topic, so I apologize. > > yi > > From: Aaron Dudek [mailto:adudek16 at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: Jimmy Hess; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > Well, you bill the customer, so if the customer moves without telling you, you can figure out how that works. > POCs change all the time. I'm sure that you know how to update and correct that when it is found out. Either someone will contact your company and say something or they will contact you when they are no longer able to reach certain sites. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > So ISP creates swip and POC records on behalf of its customers. Does that put ISP in a legal binding that in case customer moves, or customer's POC changes job without telling the ISP, that ISP has any legal implication for not knowing? > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jimmy Hess > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:20 PM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > On 8/9/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] > > some legitimate contact address for the customer in question. Ideally > > the one where they would prefer to receive service of legal process. > > I think many organizations would prefer to not receive service of > legal process at any address. > > The org address listed in WHOIS should be a mailing address that is an > authoritative contact for both the organization and the network. > Example uses of a mailing address could include: > > (*) Verification of of identity on the part of upstreams and > prospective peers, by proof of ability to receive mail, or comparison > to other records. > > (*) Contact by letter sent via postal mail or private courier as a > last resort, for reporting technical or abuse issues, that for some > reason the e-mail based or telephone contact was not responsive for, > for example, the telephone may be malfunctioning, or disconnected, > and someone forgot to update WHOIS. > > (*) Reporting of network abuse issues, by going there in person to > report face-to-face or via courier/postal mail, where the technical > contact was believed to be complicit in the abuse for some reason. > > (*) Reporting of possible hacker compromises impacting the mail > server that the technical contact's mail is hosting on, or when > e-mail is otherwise returned as undeliverable or not acknowledged. > > > > Owen > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Aug 15 19:36:46 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:36:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Bill Sandiford wrote: > TEMPLATE: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access > (TPIA) over Cable > 2. Proposal Originator > a. name: Bill Sandiford > b. email: bill at sandiford.com > c. telephone: 905-409-5228 > d. organization: Telnet Communications > > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: July 27, 2012 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > Insert new section to NRPM to read as follows: > > 4.2.3.8 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable > > When IP address resources are reassigned by an ISP to an underlying cable > carrier for use with TPIA, those addresses shall be deemed as utilized > once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable carrier. "Third Party Internet Access" could be interpreted to mean just about anything. If this intended to interact with a specific regulatory framework it should incorporate it by explicit reference. "to an underlying cable carrier for use with the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) framework, those addresses shall" For discussion purposes it would also be helpful to have a link to something that explicitly describes the CRTC's action here. Did they wade in to regulating address management without consulting ARIN? If so, perhaps John could explore the matter further directly with the CRTC in parallel with our discussions here. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 15 20:19:05 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:19:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > For discussion purposes it would also be helpful to have a link to > something that explicitly describes the CRTC's action here. Did they > wade in to regulating address management without consulting ARIN? If > so, perhaps John could explore the matter further directly with the > CRTC in parallel with our discussions here. Bill - Request by CRTC to CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) to "develop a solution for static IP address allocation for TPIA services" - CRTC approval of the recommendations made by the CISC?s Network Working Group regarding static address allocation for third-party Internet access services. - The CRTC does not appear to be making IP number resource policy but rather determining appropriate responsibilities for address management when a service is jointly provisioned via wholesale infrastructure. As it has been described to me, the typical manner by which wholesale third-party Internet services are deployed can result in IPv4 addresses from the ISP being fairly sparsely allocated to the infrastructure without the ability to readily reallocate to match the POPs of high demand. ARIN's IPv4 additional allocation policies (except for MDN) are predicated upon the ability to reallocate deployed IP resources until an overall utilization level of 80% is achieved. Hence, there is a real potential for conflict between the assumptions from the third-party Internet access services and existing ARIN policy. I hope this helps in your consideration of the proposed policy change. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jlewis at lewis.org Wed Aug 15 20:36:32 2012 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - ISP liability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > The legal grey line was actually one of the reasons APNIC presented in > the adoption of private registration. So it is relevant. So your argument in favor of a policy that allows totally obfuscated reassignment is that it's preferable to stale reassignment? IMO, that's incredibly weak. If you keep asking for legal advice here, I'm going to be tempted to start asking for medical advice here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Wed Aug 15 21:06:23 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:06:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise Message-ID: All: After reviewing the feedback and discussions, I intend to modify prop-180 as follows. Please let me know if I have made improvements in gaining your support or made things worse. 1. ARIN approval: ISP to submit private reassignment request to ARIN for approval. The info in the request is exactly the same as it would be for public records. -- This addresses concern of abuse. As ARIN has to approve, and the info provided is the same as public, so no more prune to abuse. 2. Alignment with residential policy: Upon ARIN's approval, the ISP may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private'. Each private downstream reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that block. --- This aligns with residential requirement. As ARIN and ISP have the real info, so when a law enforcement need to request info with a subpoena, the ISP and ARIN would be able to produce the info. 3. 'Slow zone': Each ISP may only have one outstanding private reassignment request with ARIN. (alternatively, it can also be stated that 'ARIN is putting the ISP's private request in its own queue, and ARIN is not required to process more than one request per ISP per day, something to this effect) --- This addresses people's concern of abuse, ie, ISP swip everything private. As I envision ISP's private request is rare, that limiting the throughput is OK. Rationale for the proposal: I would add that it is for businesses to prevent the prying eyes of hacking. Right now, a hacking teenage can find IP info on arin whois for any company with just a few clicks by just looking up the company name, which I find a bit un-nerving. We made it unnecessarily easy for the hackers. Please let me know your comments. yi -----Original Message----- From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:55 PM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: Brian Kearney; ppml at arin.net; David Farmer Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like to see more flexibility provided on this issue. So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, I'm not fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your proposing. As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as private. You seem to be saying the that everyone can make all their data private without any consequences to the current system. To be honest I think your wrong, others seem to think so as well. However, I also don't believe that all data needs to be public for the system to work as intended either, just a majority of it. My suggestion is to go one of two directions, propose a complete rethink of the current system that doesn't need public data, or provide some limits to how much data can be private or provide other compensating policy controls that make up for the lack of public data. Some examples of possible options, only allow a certain threshold of private data, say 10% or 20% by volume of addresses, or after a threshold of private data require escrow of all records with an independent custodian and who that custodian is must be published, or require an annual audit of records by ARIN, etc... Without a complete rethink of the system there needs to be some consequence for having to much data marked as private or a limit on the amount of data that can be marked as private. Thanks On 8/9/12 12:40 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. > > ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM > To: ARIN > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > This could easily be abused for utilization justification. > > > Thank You, > Brian Kearney > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > >> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >> >> 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, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >> >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >> >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >> 2. Proposal Originator >> 1. name: Yi Chu >> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >> 4. organization: Sprint >> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >> 5. Proposal type: new >> 6. Policy term: permanent >> 7. Policy statement: >> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. >> >> 8. Rationale: >> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. >> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From bill at herrin.us Wed Aug 15 23:23:44 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:23:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, John Curran wrote: > Request by CRTC to CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) > to "develop a solution for static IP address allocation for TPIA > services" - > > CRTC approval of the recommendations made by the CISC?s Network > Working Group regarding static address allocation for third-party > Internet access services. > - Thanks John. For clarity's sake, I'd like to restate the situation in my own words and ask someone more familiar with it (Bill Sandiford?) to confirm or correct my statements. Canada's CRTC has determined that ISPs should have access to cable companies' infrastructure sort of like how unbundling and CLECs impact the telephone companies in the US. The cable TV company won't be the exclusive Internet provider via the cable TV infrastructure. CRTC has specified that the cable companies provide this two different ways. Way #1: Layer 2 tunnelling, e.g. PPOE through the cable infrastructure back to the ISP. Works the same as we've been doing for a decade plus. No special support from ARIN requested or required. Way #2: Layer 3 "managed routers." Essentially, the cable TV company builds a logical overlay on their TCP/IP infrastructure for each ISP that wants access. The hitch is: the ISP (not the cable company) must provide the IP addresses that get plugged in to the cable company's infrastructure. Everywhere in the cable company's infrastructure where there's an address pool to be filled, the ISP has to fill it in a manner which makes for efficient routing and aggregation. Not gonna be doing that /32 thing all the way across the system, even for the folks with static IPs. Problem! The ISP has to pre-reserve address blocks for the various areas within the cable company's infrastructure. The ISP then grows chaotically like all ISPs, more customers here than there. When it's time to expand his largest area, most of his addresses are stuck "reserved" for areas where he has few or no customers. Thus he doesn't meet the utilization target set by ARIN for more addresses. And he can't just withdraw and redeploy the underutilized pools because that ain't the way CRTC's TPIA is rigged. How close did I get? Thanks, Bill -- 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 Wed Aug 15 23:51:59 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:51:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yi, Thank you for doing this work. It's valuable to the community. Best, Martin Hannigan Elected Advisory Council Member On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > All: > After reviewing the feedback and discussions, I intend to modify prop-180 as follows. Please let me know if I have made improvements in gaining your support or made things worse. > > 1. ARIN approval: ISP to submit private reassignment request to ARIN for approval. The info in the request is exactly the same as it would be for public records. -- This addresses concern of abuse. As ARIN has to approve, and the info provided is the same as public, so no more prune to abuse. > > 2. Alignment with residential policy: Upon ARIN's approval, the ISP may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private'. Each private downstream reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that block. --- This aligns with residential requirement. As ARIN and ISP have the real info, so when a law enforcement need to request info with a subpoena, the ISP and ARIN would be able to produce the info. > > 3. 'Slow zone': Each ISP may only have one outstanding private reassignment request with ARIN. (alternatively, it can also be stated that 'ARIN is putting the ISP's private request in its own queue, and ARIN is not required to process more than one request per ISP per day, something to this effect) --- This addresses people's concern of abuse, ie, ISP swip everything private. As I envision ISP's private request is rare, that limiting the throughput is OK. > > Rationale for the proposal: I would add that it is for businesses to prevent the prying eyes of hacking. Right now, a hacking teenage can find IP info on arin whois for any company with just a few clicks by just looking up the company name, which I find a bit un-nerving. We made it unnecessarily easy for the hackers. > > Please let me know your comments. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:55 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: Brian Kearney; ppml at arin.net; David Farmer > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like > to see more flexibility provided on this issue. > > So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private > isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is > private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start > marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. > Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, > I'm not fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your > proposing. > > As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as > private. You seem to be saying the that everyone can make all their > data private without any consequences to the current system. To be > honest I think your wrong, others seem to think so as well. However, I > also don't believe that all data needs to be public for the system to > work as intended either, just a majority of it. > > My suggestion is to go one of two directions, propose a complete rethink > of the current system that doesn't need public data, or provide some > limits to how much data can be private or provide other compensating > policy controls that make up for the lack of public data. > > Some examples of possible options, only allow a certain threshold of > private data, say 10% or 20% by volume of addresses, or after a > threshold of private data require escrow of all records with an > independent custodian and who that custodian is must be published, or > require an annual audit of records by ARIN, etc... > > Without a complete rethink of the system there needs to be some > consequence for having to much data marked as private or a limit on the > amount of data that can be marked as private. > > Thanks > > On 8/9/12 12:40 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: >> The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. >> >> ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. >> >> yi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM >> To: ARIN >> Cc: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> This could easily be abused for utilization justification. >> >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Kearney >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: >> >>> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >>> >>> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >>> >>> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >>> >>> 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, >>> >>> Communications and Member Services >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>> >>> ## * ## >>> >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >>> >>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >>> >>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >>> 2. Proposal Originator >>> 1. name: Yi Chu >>> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >>> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >>> 4. organization: Sprint >>> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >>> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >>> 5. Proposal type: new >>> 6. Policy term: permanent >>> 7. Policy statement: >>> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >>> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. >>> >>> 8. Rationale: >>> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. >>> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 16 01:15:38 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:15:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> On 8/15/12 20:06 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > All: > After reviewing the feedback and discussions, I intend to modify prop-180 as follows. Please let me know if I have made improvements in gaining your support or made things worse. > > 1. ARIN approval: ISP to submit private reassignment request to ARIN for approval. The info in the request is exactly the same as it would be for public records. -- This addresses concern of abuse. As ARIN has to approve, and the info provided is the same as public, so no more prune to abuse. If you leave it to ARIN to approve or not, what criteria should they apply to approving or not? Otherwise this is meaningless. > 2. Alignment with residential policy: Upon ARIN's approval, the ISP may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private'. Each private downstream reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that block. --- This aligns with residential requirement. As ARIN and ISP have the real info, so when a law enforcement need to request info with a subpoena, the ISP and ARIN would be able to produce the info. This seems reasonable. > 3. 'Slow zone': Each ISP may only have one outstanding private reassignment request with ARIN. (alternatively, it can also be stated that 'ARIN is putting the ISP's private request in its own queue, and ARIN is not required to process more than one request per ISP per day, something to this effect) --- This addresses people's concern of abuse, ie, ISP swip everything private. As I envision ISP's private request is rare, that limiting the throughput is OK. I'm not sure how effective this is or if it matters how quickly they happen. If an ISP private SWIPs 100 in one day, or 1 a day for 100 days and does a 1000 SWIPs the rest of the year what's the diff, its still 10%. Most of the data needs to be public that what matters not how many in one day. > Rationale for the proposal: I would add that it is for businesses to prevent the prying eyes of hacking. Right now, a hacking teenage can find IP info on arin whois for any company with just a few clicks by just looking up the company name, which I find a bit un-nerving. We made it unnecessarily easy for the hackers. This is bull, that's like saying if banks only took down their signs no one would rob them. BULL!!! I want to see more flexibility here. But let's not make up silly excuses, its about privacy not security. > Please let me know your comments. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:55 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: Brian Kearney; ppml at arin.net; David Farmer > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like > to see more flexibility provided on this issue. > > So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private > isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is > private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start > marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. > Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, > I'm not fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your > proposing. > > As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as > private. You seem to be saying the that everyone can make all their > data private without any consequences to the current system. To be > honest I think your wrong, others seem to think so as well. However, I > also don't believe that all data needs to be public for the system to > work as intended either, just a majority of it. > > My suggestion is to go one of two directions, propose a complete rethink > of the current system that doesn't need public data, or provide some > limits to how much data can be private or provide other compensating > policy controls that make up for the lack of public data. > > Some examples of possible options, only allow a certain threshold of > private data, say 10% or 20% by volume of addresses, or after a > threshold of private data require escrow of all records with an > independent custodian and who that custodian is must be published, or > require an annual audit of records by ARIN, etc... > > Without a complete rethink of the system there needs to be some > consequence for having to much data marked as private or a limit on the > amount of data that can be marked as private. > > Thanks > > On 8/9/12 12:40 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: >> The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. >> >> ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. >> >> yi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM >> To: ARIN >> Cc: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> This could easily be abused for utilization justification. >> >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Kearney >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: >> >>> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >>> >>> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >>> >>> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >>> >>> 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, >>> >>> Communications and Member Services >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>> >>> ## * ## >>> >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >>> >>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >>> >>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >>> 2. Proposal Originator >>> 1. name: Yi Chu >>> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >>> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >>> 4. organization: Sprint >>> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >>> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >>> 5. Proposal type: new >>> 6. Policy term: permanent >>> 7. Policy statement: >>> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >>> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. >>> >>> 8. Rationale: >>> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. >>> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 paul at egate.net Thu Aug 16 08:52:48 2012 From: paul at egate.net (Paul Andersen) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:52:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 2012-08-15, at 11:23 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > For clarity's sake, I'd like to restate the situation in my own words > and ask someone more familiar with it (Bill Sandiford?) to confirm or > correct my statements. > I'll give it best. I'm not a regulatory lawyer; however, I'm familiar with many of the proceedings. > Canada's CRTC has determined that ISPs should have access to cable > companies' infrastructure sort of like how unbundling and CLECs impact > the telephone companies in the US. The cable TV company won't be the > exclusive Internet provider via the cable TV infrastructure. Yes - In Canada Incumbent Cable and Telephone companies are mandated to provide third party wholesale access to their infrastructure. > > CRTC has specified that the cable companies provide this two different ways. The two ways you listed were related specifically to the provision of Static IP addresses. Traditionally ISP's utilizing TPIA have only had access to dynmaic addresses. This is because the incumbent runs the DHCP server the the cable modem utilizes. The third party ISP needs to provide blocks of IP addresses to the incumbent who in turn provision that in their DHCP servers and their network. The third party ISP cannot control which address gets assigned to which customer. I believe John was trying to highlight Paragraphs 14-19 of http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-96.htm that talk a bit about how the CRTC sees its role in Internet number resources. > > Way #1... > > Way #2: ... I believe that related to the Static IP address issue. The policy here is trying to deal with overall IP addressing for TPIA customers > > Problem! The ISP has to pre-reserve address blocks for the various > areas within the cable company's infrastructure. The ISP then grows > chaotically like all ISPs, more customers here than there. When it's > time to expand his largest area, most of his addresses are stuck > "reserved" for areas where he has few or no customers. Thus he doesn't > meet the utilization target set by ARIN for more addresses. And he > can't just withdraw and redeploy the underutilized pools because that > ain't the way CRTC's TPIA is rigged. If by "rigged" you mean "designed" then that is a rough view of one problem faced by TPIA providers. There is also the problem with the incumbent growing. Many cable providers utilize node splitting and other techniques to get higher and higher speeds. As they break up their network the third party ISP is affected too as the number of places that addresses need to be placed increases. Cheers, Paul From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 10:05:22 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:05:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: Bill, Close but confused because the info that John Curran sent, although related to the TPIA framework, is actually from another parallel proceeding. I'm writing another email to explain it better. Bill -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: August-15-12 11:24 PM To: John Curran Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, John Curran wrote: > Request by CRTC to CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) to > "develop a solution for static IP address allocation for TPIA > services" - > > CRTC approval of the recommendations made by the CISC's Network > Working Group regarding static address allocation for third-party > Internet access services. > - Thanks John. For clarity's sake, I'd like to restate the situation in my own words and ask someone more familiar with it (Bill Sandiford?) to confirm or correct my statements. Canada's CRTC has determined that ISPs should have access to cable companies' infrastructure sort of like how unbundling and CLECs impact the telephone companies in the US. The cable TV company won't be the exclusive Internet provider via the cable TV infrastructure. CRTC has specified that the cable companies provide this two different ways. Way #1: Layer 2 tunnelling, e.g. PPOE through the cable infrastructure back to the ISP. Works the same as we've been doing for a decade plus. No special support from ARIN requested or required. Way #2: Layer 3 "managed routers." Essentially, the cable TV company builds a logical overlay on their TCP/IP infrastructure for each ISP that wants access. The hitch is: the ISP (not the cable company) must provide the IP addresses that get plugged in to the cable company's infrastructure. Everywhere in the cable company's infrastructure where there's an address pool to be filled, the ISP has to fill it in a manner which makes for efficient routing and aggregation. Not gonna be doing that /32 thing all the way across the system, even for the folks with static IPs. Problem! The ISP has to pre-reserve address blocks for the various areas within the cable company's infrastructure. The ISP then grows chaotically like all ISPs, more customers here than there. When it's time to expand his largest area, most of his addresses are stuck "reserved" for areas where he has few or no customers. Thus he doesn't meet the utilization target set by ARIN for more addresses. And he can't just withdraw and redeploy the underutilized pools because that ain't the way CRTC's TPIA is rigged. How close did I get? Thanks, Bill -- 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. From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 10:36:01 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:36:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Paul Andersen wrote: ... > If by "rigged" you mean "designed" then that is a rough view of one problem faced by TPIA providers. So, from a policy perspective, Canadian ISPs are between a rock (ARIN utilization requirements) and hard place (CRTC TPIA requirements) for growth if they enter the cable market. I suppose the paranoid could say this was all part of a scheme by the incumbents to force the 3rd party ISPs to stay out of the cable market if they want to grow elsewhere. I am not entirely comfortable with seeing other jurisdictions define IP address allocation policies, nor do I like the idea for special carve-outs for such rules (the precedent it provides can lead to other poor results), but neither do I expect to see the CRTC rules change. Based on my current understanding, I find myself reluctantly supporting moving this policy forward for acceptance for further discussion because it enables further competition in the Canadian marketplace. Gary From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 10:45:54 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> References: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:15 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 8/15/12 20:06 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: >> >> All: >> After reviewing the feedback and discussions, I intend to modify prop-180 >> as follows. Please let me know if I have made improvements in gaining your >> support or made things worse. >> >> 1. ARIN approval: ISP to submit private reassignment request to ARIN for >> approval. The info in the request is exactly the same as it would be for >> public records. -- This addresses concern of abuse. As ARIN has to >> approve, and the info provided is the same as public, so no more prune to >> abuse. > > > If you leave it to ARIN to approve or not, what criteria should they apply > to approving or not? Otherwise this is meaningless. > > >> 2. Alignment with residential policy: Upon ARIN's approval, the ISP may >> substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private >> Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read >> 'Private'. Each private downstream reassignment must have accurate upstream >> Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that >> block. --- This aligns with residential requirement. As ARIN and ISP have >> the real info, so when a law enforcement need to request info with a >> subpoena, the ISP and ARIN would be able to produce the info. > > > This seems reasonable. > > >> 3. 'Slow zone': Each ISP may only have one outstanding private >> reassignment request with ARIN. (alternatively, it can also be stated that >> 'ARIN is putting the ISP's private request in its own queue, and ARIN is not >> required to process more than one request per ISP per day, something to this >> effect) --- This addresses people's concern of abuse, ie, ISP swip >> everything private. As I envision ISP's private request is rare, that >> limiting the throughput is OK. > > > I'm not sure how effective this is or if it matters how quickly they happen. > If an ISP private SWIPs 100 in one day, or 1 a day for 100 days and does a > 1000 SWIPs the rest of the year what's the diff, its still 10%. Most of the > data needs to be public that what matters not how many in one day. > > >> Rationale for the proposal: I would add that it is for businesses to >> prevent the prying eyes of hacking. Right now, a hacking teenage can find >> IP info on arin whois for any company with just a few clicks by just looking >> up the company name, which I find a bit un-nerving. We made it >> unnecessarily easy for the hackers. > > > This is bull, that's like saying if banks only took down their signs no one > would rob them. BULL!!! I want to see more flexibility here. But let's not > make up silly excuses, its about privacy not security. > :-) I think the rationale needs work. I'm also concerned about increasing the cost of ARIN operations significantly. Someone is going to have to fund this. Best, -M< From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 10:59:16 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:59:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: John: The CRTC CISC process that you have mentioned is actually a totally separate process. That process, which I was part of, was a process to come up with a solution for Third Party ISPs to be able to assign static IP addresses over the cable companies infrastructure. To date, the only available assignment method is, and remains, dynamic allocation via DHCP. Bill: The problem that this policy attempts to address is a result of the framework that the CRTC has mandated for the Cable Companies to open up (or unbundle) their internet access services in a similar fashion to what the ILECs are also required to do here with DSL. The CRTC passed a framework that mandated the cable companies to provide third party internet access (TPIA) to any competitive ISP that chose to do so. The problem is that the CRTC did not define specifically as to how it would work technically and left those decisions to the cable company (ie the CRTC didn't want to tell the cable companies how to run their network, they just mandated that it be open). When a TPIA ISP subscribes to the cable companies wholesales services the cable company REQUIRES that the third party ISP provide an assignment of addresses large enough so that they can adequately provision all of the CMTS's in their network for the service for assignment via DHCP. This is usually done by reserving a /29 or /28 for each node on a CMTS. To be clear, the TPIA ISP has no control over this process. If they want the service they must provide the required amount of IPs to the cable co. No IPs, no service. This has typically required a /18 or /17 of space to accomplish. Most ISPs have been able to acquire this *initial* space by making use of the immediate needs policy. The problem occurs however when the ISP needs additional space. For example, when one node (or two or three) fill up and exhaust the /29 or /28 that was assigned to them they require an additional block for that node. In some cases additional blocks are required when the cable company augments their network and does a "node split" which requires another /28 or /29 to get used. The ISP then makes a request to ARIN for additional space however they are unable to receive additional space because, although the address space is assigned to equipment, it doesn't meet the current definition of "utilized" under policy. The problem is also exacerbated by the fact that there is more than one cable carrier in Canada (there are 4 major cable companies here, each with their own exclusive geographic territory). An ISP makes an initial request because they plan to subscribe to the TPIA services of Cable Co 1 and receives a /17. They assign that space to Cable Co 1 to use for numbering their network for my customers. They then decide to subscribe to the services of Cable Co 2, which requires another /17 and they are unable receive an address allocation to do so because their first allocation for Cable Co 1 isn't fully utilized according to the definition in policy. Or, they exhaust their IPs with Cable Co 1, but are unable to receive more because their utilization with Cable Co 2 is too low. For further clarity, there is no geographical overlap with the cable companies, so if you want to offer a ubiquitous service, you must subscribe to the services of all the cable companies. This policy proposal attempts to solve the problems described above. I wish to emphasize that the current policy text in the NRPM is causing a real world problem that is creating MARKET FAILURE in Canada. To illustrate this point, in the Ontario market (Canada's largest province) there are several hundreds of ISPs that subscribe to the ILEC's (Bell Canada) wholesale DSL service. In the case of cable, there are only 3 ISPs currently live and offering service. Also keep in mind that the entire population of Canada is about equivalent to that of the State of California so the actual resource impact of this policy is minimal. I hope this helps to clarify the issues for you such that you can support this proposal. if you have any further questions please ask. My company is not actually a cable TPIA customer, but there are a few others on here that can give further commentary if I've missed something. Regards, Bill -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: August-15-12 8:19 PM To: William Herrin Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > For discussion purposes it would also be helpful to have a link to > something that explicitly describes the CRTC's action here. Did they > wade in to regulating address management without consulting ARIN? If > so, perhaps John could explore the matter further directly with the > CRTC in parallel with our discussions here. Bill - Request by CRTC to CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) to "develop a solution for static IP address allocation for TPIA services" - CRTC approval of the recommendations made by the CISC's Network Working Group regarding static address allocation for third-party Internet access services. - The CRTC does not appear to be making IP number resource policy but rather determining appropriate responsibilities for address management when a service is jointly provisioned via wholesale infrastructure. As it has been described to me, the typical manner by which wholesale third-party Internet services are deployed can result in IPv4 addresses from the ISP being fairly sparsely allocated to the infrastructure without the ability to readily reallocate to match the POPs of high demand. ARIN's IPv4 additional allocation policies (except for MDN) are predicated upon the ability to reallocate deployed IP resources until an overall utilization level of 80% is achieved. Hence, there is a real potential for conflict between the assumptions from the third-party Internet access services and existing ARIN policy. I hope this helps in your consideration of the proposed policy change. 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. From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 11:03:56 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Gary, > So, from a policy perspective, Canadian ISPs are between a rock (ARIN utilization requirements) and hard place (CRTC TPIA > requirements) for growth if they enter the cable market. You've hit the nail on the head here. The hard place is actually Cable Company requirements under the CRTC framework. (CRTC set the framework, Cable Company set the addressing requirements). > I suppose the paranoid could say this was all part of a scheme by the incumbents to force the 3rd party ISPs to stay out of the cable market if they want to grow elsewhere. There are many who think that, I won't say whether or not I'm one of them ;) > I am not entirely comfortable with seeing other jurisdictions define IP address allocation policies, nor do I like the idea for special carve-outs for such rules (the precedent it provides can lead to other > poor results), but neither do I expect to see the CRTC rules change. Based on my current understanding, I find myself reluctantly supporting moving this policy forward for acceptance for further > > > discussion because it enables further competition in the Canadian marketplace. Thank you! Bill From jcurran at arin.net Thu Aug 16 11:17:20 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:17:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Bill Sandiford wrote: > John: > > The CRTC CISC process that you have mentioned is actually a totally separate process. That process, which I was part of, was a process to come up with a solution for Third Party ISPs to be able to assign static IP addresses over the cable companies infrastructure. To date, the only available assignment method is, and remains, dynamic allocation via DHCP. That doesn't match how the problem was explained to me, but I defer to your experience in this area. It does, however, raise an question which inline below. > Bill: > > The problem that this policy attempts to address is a result of the framework that the CRTC has mandated for the Cable Companies to open up (or unbundle) their internet access services in a similar fashion to what the ILECs are also required to do here with DSL. > > The CRTC passed a framework that mandated the cable companies to provide third party internet access (TPIA) to any competitive ISP that chose to do so. The problem is that the CRTC did not define specifically as to how it would work technically and left those decisions to the cable company (ie the CRTC didn't want to tell the cable companies how to run their network, they just mandated that it be open). > > When a TPIA ISP subscribes to the cable companies wholesales services the cable company REQUIRES that the third party ISP provide an assignment of addresses large enough so that they can adequately provision all of the CMTS's in their network for the service for assignment via DHCP. This is usually done by reserving a /29 or /28 for each node on a CMTS. To be clear, the TPIA ISP has no control over this process. If they want the service they must provide the required amount of IPs to the cable co. No IPs, no service. This has typically required a /18 or /17 of space to accomplish. > > Most ISPs have been able to acquire this *initial* space by making use of the immediate needs policy. The problem occurs however when the ISP needs additional space. For example, when one node (or two or three) fill up and exhaust the /29 or /28 that was assigned to them they require an additional block for that node. In some cases additional blocks are required when the cable company augments their network and does a "node split" which requires another /28 or /29 to get used. The ISP then makes a request to ARIN for additional space however they are unable to receive additional space because, although the address space is assigned to equipment, it doesn't meet the current definition of "utilized" under policy. The ISP's entire block does not meet the minimum utilization criteria, since it is only the allocation for one node (or two or three) that have filled up. Given that addresses from these per-node pools are dynamically allocated to subscribers, is it possible for the cable company to reprovision the address space from the ISP's other underutilized nodes as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in similar situations under the present policy.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 11:18:20 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:18:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: John: > Given that addresses from these per-node pools are dynamically allocated to subscribers, is it possible for the cable company to reprovision > the address space from the ISP's other underutilized nodes as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in similar situations under the present policy.) Good question. Unfortunately the answer is no. In most cases the allocations on the other underutilized nodes is already a /29, so reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30 isn't practical. To my knowledge the cable companies require all nodes to be numbered. Bill From jcurran at arin.net Thu Aug 16 11:30:14 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:30:14 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Bill Sandiford wrote: >> Given that addresses from these per-node pools are dynamically allocated to subscribers, is it possible for the cable company to reprovision >> the address space from the ISP's other underutilized nodes as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in similar situations under the present policy.) > > Good question. Unfortunately the answer is no. In most cases the allocations on the other underutilized nodes is already a /29, so reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30 isn't practical. To my knowledge the cable companies require all nodes to be numbered. Understood, and thanks for the explanation! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Yi.Chu at sprint.com Thu Aug 16 11:34:06 2012 From: Yi.Chu at sprint.com (Chu, Yi [NTK]) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:34:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> References: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> Message-ID: See inline. yi -----Original Message----- From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 AM To: Chu, Yi [NTK] Cc: ppml at arin.net; David Farmer Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise On 8/15/12 20:06 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > All: > After reviewing the feedback and discussions, I intend to modify prop-180 as follows. Please let me know if I have made improvements in gaining your support or made things worse. > > 1. ARIN approval: ISP to submit private reassignment request to ARIN for approval. The info in the request is exactly the same as it would be for public records. -- This addresses concern of abuse. As ARIN has to approve, and the info provided is the same as public, so no more prune to abuse. If you leave it to ARIN to approve or not, what criteria should they apply to approving or not? Otherwise this is meaningless. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] ARIN approval based on the same criteria for public registration. Private or not is a decision between ISP and its customer. I do not intend to introduce extra criteria for ARIN to decide if the request warrants privacy or not. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] > 2. Alignment with residential policy: Upon ARIN's approval, the ISP may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private'. Each private downstream reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that block. --- This aligns with residential requirement. As ARIN and ISP have the real info, so when a law enforcement need to request info with a subpoena, the ISP and ARIN would be able to produce the info. This seems reasonable. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] Glad you agree. > 3. 'Slow zone': Each ISP may only have one outstanding private reassignment request with ARIN. (alternatively, it can also be stated that 'ARIN is putting the ISP's private request in its own queue, and ARIN is not required to process more than one request per ISP per day, something to this effect) --- This addresses people's concern of abuse, ie, ISP swip everything private. As I envision ISP's private request is rare, that limiting the throughput is OK. I'm not sure how effective this is or if it matters how quickly they happen. If an ISP private SWIPs 100 in one day, or 1 a day for 100 days and does a 1000 SWIPs the rest of the year what's the diff, its still 10%. Most of the data needs to be public that what matters not how many in one day. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] I am struggling here too. I just do not want to set a hard limit (10%), as each ISP may have different customer profile. I welcome suggestions, as always. > Rationale for the proposal: I would add that it is for businesses to prevent the prying eyes of hacking. Right now, a hacking teenage can find IP info on arin whois for any company with just a few clicks by just looking up the company name, which I find a bit un-nerving. We made it unnecessarily easy for the hackers. This is bull, that's like saying if banks only took down their signs no one would rob them. BULL!!! I want to see more flexibility here. But let's not make up silly excuses, its about privacy not security. [Chu, Yi [NTK]] As you can tell, I need help here as well. My customer used security as a reason for asking privacy. I do have a bit problem articulating the delineation between security and privacy. As for the BULL, one can argue that banks do not have to put a sign telling where the vault is or the keys to the vault are on the front door either. But I guess all analogy is just analogy. > Please let me know your comments. > > yi > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:55 PM > To: Chu, Yi [NTK] > Cc: Brian Kearney; ppml at arin.net; David Farmer > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > First, I cannot support this proposal as written, however I would like > to see more flexibility provided on this issue. > > So here is the problem, your one customer that wants their data private > isn't that big of deal, the system won't fall apart if their data is > private. However, if everyone wants their data private or ISPs start > marking all their data private by default then the system may fall part. > Or, at the very least we probably need a radically different system, > I'm not fundamentally opposed to that either, but that's not what your > proposing. > > As written, your proposal allows an ISP to mark all their data as > private. You seem to be saying the that everyone can make all their > data private without any consequences to the current system. To be > honest I think your wrong, others seem to think so as well. However, I > also don't believe that all data needs to be public for the system to > work as intended either, just a majority of it. > > My suggestion is to go one of two directions, propose a complete rethink > of the current system that doesn't need public data, or provide some > limits to how much data can be private or provide other compensating > policy controls that make up for the lack of public data. > > Some examples of possible options, only allow a certain threshold of > private data, say 10% or 20% by volume of addresses, or after a > threshold of private data require escrow of all records with an > independent custodian and who that custodian is must be published, or > require an annual audit of records by ARIN, etc... > > Without a complete rethink of the system there needs to be some > consequence for having to much data marked as private or a limit on the > amount of data that can be marked as private. > > Thanks > > On 8/9/12 12:40 CDT, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: >> The private registration would need to go through exact the same scrutiny as is done for the public ones. The ISP's are still required to register with ARIN. Private just means the record is not shown/visible on the public whois. 'Private registration' does not relieve the ISP from registration responsibility of their reassignments. >> >> ISP's are still bound by their RSA contract with ARIN, as I stated in another email. >> >> yi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kearney >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:50 AM >> To: ARIN >> Cc: ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >> >> This could easily be abused for utilization justification. >> >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Kearney >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 AM, ARIN wrote: >> >>> ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment >>> >>> ARIN received the following policy proposal. >>> >>> The ARIN Advisory Council (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. >>> >>> 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, >>> >>> Communications and Member Services >>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>> >>> >>> ## * ## >>> >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote >>> >>> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >>> >>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment >>> 2. Proposal Originator >>> 1. name: Yi Chu >>> 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com >>> 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 >>> 4. organization: Sprint >>> 3. Proposal Version: 1 >>> 4. Date: 2012-08-09 >>> 5. Proposal type: new >>> 6. Policy term: permanent >>> 7. Policy statement: >>> NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment >>> ISP has the option to register a reassignment as private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in the whois database. >>> >>> 8. Rationale: >>> Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. >>> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu 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 =============================================== ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 16 12:12:22 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:12:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Bill Sandiford wrote: >> Given that addresses from these per-node pools are >> dynamically allocated to subscribers, is it possible for >> the cable company to reprovision >> the address space from the ISP's other underutilized nodes >> as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in >> similar situations under the present policy.) > > Good question. Unfortunately the answer is no. In most > cases the allocations on the other underutilized nodes is > already a /29, so reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30 > isn't practical. To my knowledge the cable companies > require all nodes to be numbered. Hi Bill, So the nutshell of this problem is: 1. The cable company has 1000 or so nodes to which Internet access customers connect. 2. The competitive ISP is required by the _cable company_ to initially provision all 1000 nodes with IP address pools regardless of whether they then have or later acquire customers connected to each node. 3. Although node pools could, technically, be provisioned upon acquisition of the ISP's first customer at that node, the cable company declines to permit it. 4. Most nodes are still empty of customers when the ISP runs out of its initial allocation, leaving it very underutilized per ARIN standards. So, reading between the lines, here's what I see: The cable companies like competition the way the ILECs like CLECs. So, they tricked the CRTC into allowing a poison pill that they knew would run the competitive ISP afoul of ARIN IP addressing policy. ARIN is now asked to provide relief by altering its policies to moot the CRTC-level poison pill. Is that about the size of it? What about the layer 2 tunnelling described in John's links? Is the cable company required to provide both methods, the layer 2 tunnelling too? That doesn't require them to assign addresses to the cable company, right? What's the down side when an ISP elects to use the L2tunnelling method instead of the managed router method? Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From info at arin.net Thu Aug 16 12:26:01 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:26:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - version 2 In-Reply-To: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> References: <5023D829.6030002@arin.net> Message-ID: <502D1F19.2020305@arin.net> The proposal originator revised the proposal. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Proposal Originator: Yi Chu Proposal Version: 2 Date: 2012-08-15 Proposal type: new Policy term: permanent Policy statement: NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment 1. ARIN approval: ISP to submit private reassignment request to ARIN for approval. The info in the request is exactly the same as it would be for public records 2. Alignment with residential policy: Upon ARIN's approval, the ISP may substitute that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read 'Private'. Each private downstream reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS directory record for that block. 3. 'Slow zone': Each ISP may only have one outstanding private reassignment request with ARIN. Rationale: Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment private. This can be for security reasons, to reduce their exposure to online hacking and targeted DDOS attack. It can also be that the customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream ISP. Timetable for implementation: immediate On 8/9/12 11:32 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (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. > > 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, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > On Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:52 AM, Yi Chu wrote > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: ISP private reassignment > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Yi Chu > 2. e-mail: yi.chu at sprint.com > 3. telephone: +1-703-592-4850 > 4. organization: Sprint > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > 4. Date: 2012-08-09 > 5. Proposal type: new > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > NRPM 4.2.3.7.1.1 and 6.5.5.1.1 ISP private reassignment > ISP has the option to register a reassignment as > private. A private reassignment is not visible on the public whois > database. Private reassignment is used in calculation of ISP > utilization. By register a reassignment as private, the ISP takes > responsibility as POC by means of the direct allocation (parent of the > reassigned address block) from ARIN that is publically registered in > the whois database. > > 8. Rationale: > Some ISP's customers wish to keep their reassignment > private. This can be for security reasons. It can also be that the > customer does not have the staff or know-how to manage their network. > They in term outsource the management of their network to the upstream > ISP. By not having their reassignemnt record showing in public, the > whois record of the parent ISP block is a truer representation of the > reality. It make shte whois database more accurate and cleaner. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 16 12:27:55 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:27:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: > Rationale for the proposal: I would add that it is for > businesses to prevent the prying eyes of hacking. Hi Yi, I'm still looking for an explanation why current lawful practices for anonimizing relationships between businesses are inadequate to the task of hiding the identities of organizations which don't want their online presence traced to them. Lacking one, I must respectfully oppose the proposal both conceptually and in the specifics. > Right now, a hacking teenage can find IP info on > arin whois for any company with just a few clicks > by just looking up the company name, which I > find a bit un-nerving. We made it unnecessarily > easy for the hackers. Hackers have no shortage of databases they can troll to identify a company's probable IP address space. Trailing DNS to web and mail servers. Googling for web server logs. Send a polite email to the company and read the headers in the response. Like DRM on DVDs, damaging ARIN's database will only obstruct the legitimate uses. 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 telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 12:50:07 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:50:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Bill, Your analysis on 1 thru 4 is very close. The only thing that I would say is that the nodes aren't empty in all cases. They may have 1 or 2 customers on them, but still very underutilized. In some cases they could be empty though. I'm not sure I would say the Cable Companies tricked the CRTC into anything. The CRTC established a framework for third party access, and the cable companies were given the latitude to decide how to implement it. Naturally they chose an implementation that was similar to their own implementation for retail customers, namely assigning pools to nodes and handing out addresses by DHCP. The other process that John mentioned was a totally separate process. Because of the limitations of the DHCP methods (namely that all assignments to end users are dynamic), the competitors went to the CRTC to ask that the cable companies be forced to provide a method by which competitors could provide static IPs to their end users. The CRTC agreed and mandated that static IP allocation should be made available to competitors for a variety of reasons with the main reason being that cable companies were providing static IPs to their own customers and shouldn't be able to confer upon themselves a competitive advantage. As usual, the CRTC stayed out of the technical "how to do it" issues and deferred it to the CISC NTWG group (of which I am a member) to come up with a solution. Ultimately that group recommended 2 technical solutions to the commission for static IPs, namely Managed Routers and L2TP tunneling and the CRTC approved these methods. Although these methods are approved by the CRTC they have not been implemented by the Cable Carriers yet. It is also very important to note that these solutions were very specific to the assignment of STATIC IPs only. These methods do not apply to the overwhelming majority of end users. So just to be clear, we can only select the L2TP and/or Managed Router solution for customers that request static IP addresses, if and when the cable carriers implement those solutions and they come available. I'll also note, as you can read in the CRTC decision, that we tried in this process to ensure that the cable carriers committed to a IPv6 compatible solution but they resisted and the CRTC declared that request as out of scope and denied it. Regards, Bill -----Original Message----- From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: August-16-12 12:12 PM To: Bill Sandiford Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Bill Sandiford wrote: >> Given that addresses from these per-node pools are dynamically >> allocated to subscribers, is it possible for the cable company to >> reprovision the address space from the ISP's other underutilized >> nodes as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in >> similar situations under the present policy.) > > Good question. Unfortunately the answer is no. In most cases the > allocations on the other underutilized nodes is already a /29, so > reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30 isn't practical. To my > knowledge the cable companies require all nodes to be numbered. Hi Bill, So the nutshell of this problem is: 1. The cable company has 1000 or so nodes to which Internet access customers connect. 2. The competitive ISP is required by the _cable company_ to initially provision all 1000 nodes with IP address pools regardless of whether they then have or later acquire customers connected to each node. 3. Although node pools could, technically, be provisioned upon acquisition of the ISP's first customer at that node, the cable company declines to permit it. 4. Most nodes are still empty of customers when the ISP runs out of its initial allocation, leaving it very underutilized per ARIN standards. So, reading between the lines, here's what I see: The cable companies like competition the way the ILECs like CLECs. So, they tricked the CRTC into allowing a poison pill that they knew would run the competitive ISP afoul of ARIN IP addressing policy. ARIN is now asked to provide relief by altering its policies to moot the CRTC-level poison pill. Is that about the size of it? What about the layer 2 tunnelling described in John's links? Is the cable company required to provide both methods, the layer 2 tunnelling too? That doesn't require them to assign addresses to the cable company, right? What's the down side when an ISP elects to use the L2tunnelling method instead of the managed router method? Thanks, 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 telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 13:01:57 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:01:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: Bill, I'll also note that ISPs in Canada have been dealing with this issue for quite some time. If you recall, representatives from a large Canadian ISP (Teksavvy Solutions) first appeared at the ARIN meeting in Atlanta in 2010 and discussed this issue at the open microphone session. Canadian ISPs have been working hard since that time to try and come up with some solution for this that wouldn't require us to come to the community requesting a policy change. 2 years have elapsed and we have been unable to resolve this matter in any other fashion and the market failure condition remains. Bill -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Sandiford Sent: August-16-12 12:50 PM To: 'William Herrin' Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal Hi Bill, Your analysis on 1 thru 4 is very close. The only thing that I would say is that the nodes aren't empty in all cases. They may have 1 or 2 customers on them, but still very underutilized. In some cases they could be empty though. I'm not sure I would say the Cable Companies tricked the CRTC into anything. The CRTC established a framework for third party access, and the cable companies were given the latitude to decide how to implement it. Naturally they chose an implementation that was similar to their own implementation for retail customers, namely assigning pools to nodes and handing out addresses by DHCP. The other process that John mentioned was a totally separate process. Because of the limitations of the DHCP methods (namely that all assignments to end users are dynamic), the competitors went to the CRTC to ask that the cable companies be forced to provide a method by which competitors could provide static IPs to their end users. The CRTC agreed and mandated that static IP allocation should be made available to competitors for a variety of reasons with the main reason being that cable companies were providing static IPs to their own customers and shouldn't be able to confer upon themselves a competitive advantage. As usual, the CRTC stayed out of the technical "how to do it" issues and deferred it to the CISC NTWG group (of which I am a member) to come up with a solution. Ultimately that group recommended 2 technical solutions to the commission for static IPs, namely Managed Routers and L2TP tunneling and the CRTC approved these methods. Although these methods are appr oved by the CRTC they have not been implemented by the Cable Carriers yet. It is also very important to note that these solutions were very specific to the assignment of STATIC IPs only. These methods do not apply to the overwhelming majority of end users. So just to be clear, we can only select the L2TP and/or Managed Router solution for customers that request static IP addresses, if and when the cable carriers implement those solutions and they come available. I'll also note, as you can read in the CRTC decision, that we tried in this process to ensure that the cable carriers committed to a IPv6 compatible solution but they resisted and the CRTC declared that request as out of scope and denied it. Regards, Bill -----Original Message----- From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: August-16-12 12:12 PM To: Bill Sandiford Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Bill Sandiford wrote: >> Given that addresses from these per-node pools are dynamically >> allocated to subscribers, is it possible for the cable company to >> reprovision the address space from the ISP's other underutilized >> nodes as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in >> similar situations under the present policy.) > > Good question. Unfortunately the answer is no. In most cases the > allocations on the other underutilized nodes is already a /29, so > reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30 isn't practical. To my > knowledge the cable companies require all nodes to be numbered. Hi Bill, So the nutshell of this problem is: 1. The cable company has 1000 or so nodes to which Internet access customers connect. 2. The competitive ISP is required by the _cable company_ to initially provision all 1000 nodes with IP address pools regardless of whether they then have or later acquire customers connected to each node. 3. Although node pools could, technically, be provisioned upon acquisition of the ISP's first customer at that node, the cable company declines to permit it. 4. Most nodes are still empty of customers when the ISP runs out of its initial allocation, leaving it very underutilized per ARIN standards. So, reading between the lines, here's what I see: The cable companies like competition the way the ILECs like CLECs. So, they tricked the CRTC into allowing a poison pill that they knew would run the competitive ISP afoul of ARIN IP addressing policy. ARIN is now asked to provide relief by altering its policies to moot the CRTC-level poison pill. Is that about the size of it? What about the layer 2 tunnelling described in John's links? Is the cable company required to provide both methods, the layer 2 tunnelling too? That doesn't require them to assign addresses to the cable company, right? What's the down side when an ISP elects to use the L2tunnelling method instead of the managed router method? Thanks, 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. From owen at delong.com Thu Aug 16 14:06:31 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:06:31 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: As I come to understand the problem better, I don't think that it is really specific to Canada or that there is actually a technically feasible way to do otherwise given the way that cable systems function. As such, I think that the policy as written is actually generic and would suffice for any other jurisdiction that were to develop an "unbundled elements" equivalent for their cable providers. Indeed, having this policy on the books at ARIN may well serve as a way to encourage other jurisdictions to create similar third party access requirements which, IMHO, would be a very good thing. Owen On Aug 16, 2012, at 07:36 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Paul Andersen wrote: > ... >> If by "rigged" you mean "designed" then that is a rough view of one problem faced by TPIA providers. > > So, from a policy perspective, Canadian ISPs are between a rock > (ARIN utilization requirements) and hard place (CRTC TPIA > requirements) for growth if they enter the cable market. > > I suppose the paranoid could say this was all part of a scheme > by the incumbents to force the 3rd party ISPs to stay out of the > cable market if they want to grow elsewhere. > > I am not entirely comfortable with seeing other jurisdictions > define IP address allocation policies, nor do I like the idea > for special carve-outs for such rules (the precedent it provides > can lead to other poor results), but neither do I expect to see > the CRTC rules change. Based on my current understanding, > I find myself reluctantly supporting moving this policy forward > for acceptance for further discussion because it enables > further competition in the Canadian marketplace. > > Gary > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Aug 16 14:11:05 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:11:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> Would it be feasible for the policy to mandate that: ISP must show that all blocks larger than /29 are at least 50% utilized or must reprovision under-utilized blocks to accommodate growth first? I think if we were to add this protection to the policy, it would be more than adequate to address the concerns expressed about "land grabs". Would it be feasible for the TPIA operators, or, does it present a problem that I am not understanding? Owen On Aug 16, 2012, at 08:18 , Bill Sandiford wrote: > John: > > > >> Given that addresses from these per-node pools are dynamically allocated to subscribers, is it possible for the cable company to reprovision >> the address space from the ISP's other underutilized nodes as needed? (This is what is expected from all other ISPs in similar situations under the present policy.) > > Good question. Unfortunately the answer is no. In most cases the allocations on the other underutilized nodes is already a /29, so reprovisioning those other nodes to a /30 isn't practical. To my knowledge the cable companies require all nodes to be numbered. > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > 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 telnetcommunications.com Thu Aug 16 14:13:15 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:13:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: Owen, Your points are well noted and agreed. In relation to the Canadian angle, you are correct. I tried not to make specific reference to Canada in the text, however I have described the problems that are currently being faced in Canada to which this policy change will solve. Bill -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: August-16-12 2:07 PM To: Gary Buhrmaster Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Paul Andersen Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal As I come to understand the problem better, I don't think that it is really specific to Canada or that there is actually a technically feasible way to do otherwise given the way that cable systems function. As such, I think that the policy as written is actually generic and would suffice for any other jurisdiction that were to develop an "unbundled elements" equivalent for their cable providers. Indeed, having this policy on the books at ARIN may well serve as a way to encourage other jurisdictions to create similar third party access requirements which, IMHO, would be a very good thing. Owen On Aug 16, 2012, at 07:36 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Paul Andersen wrote: > ... >> If by "rigged" you mean "designed" then that is a rough view of one problem faced by TPIA providers. > > So, from a policy perspective, Canadian ISPs are between a rock (ARIN > utilization requirements) and hard place (CRTC TPIA > requirements) for growth if they enter the cable market. > > I suppose the paranoid could say this was all part of a scheme by the > incumbents to force the 3rd party ISPs to stay out of the cable market > if they want to grow elsewhere. > > I am not entirely comfortable with seeing other jurisdictions define > IP address allocation policies, nor do I like the idea for special > carve-outs for such rules (the precedent it provides can lead to other > poor results), but neither do I expect to see the CRTC rules change. > Based on my current understanding, I find myself reluctantly > supporting moving this policy forward for acceptance for further > discussion because it enables further competition in the Canadian > marketplace. > > Gary > _______________________________________________ > 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 mcr at sandelman.ca Thu Aug 16 14:25:02 2012 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:25:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: <12701.1345141502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Guys, the TPIA's biggest problem is that it specifies a layer-3 solution, but does not mandate any support for IPv6. IPv4 deployment would be easy via 4rd or some other v4-over-v6 solution if the TPIA said something about IPv6. It doesn't. As a Canadian, I would ask ARIN to tell the parties involved: IPv4 is done. Go deploy IPv6. the CRTC was told about the TPIA problem with IPv6 several years ago, in an IPv6 task force they participated in. William> 2. The competitive ISP is required by the _cable company_ William> to initially Yes. Nice way to jam the market. I'm aware of ISPs that do not serve all nodes. William> What about the layer 2 tunnelling described in John's William> links? Is the William> cable company required to provide both methods, the layer 2 William> tunnelling I'm unaware of any cable system that supports this method. -- ] 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 joelja at bogus.com Thu Aug 16 14:15:19 2012 From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:15:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: <502D38B7.7060001@bogus.com> On 8/16/12 11:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > As I come to understand the problem better, I don't think that it > is really specific to Canada or that there is actually a technically > feasible way to do otherwise given the way that cable systems > function. If you can't obtain the addresses necessary to fulfill the requirements it doesn't seem that feasible... Policy doesn't appear to be the only impediment (e.g. actual scarcity is germain). > As such, I think that the policy as written is actually generic and > would suffice for any other jurisdiction that were to develop > an "unbundled elements" equivalent for their cable providers. > > Indeed, having this policy on the books at ARIN may well serve > as a way to encourage other jurisdictions to create similar > third party access requirements which, IMHO, would be a very > good thing. > > Owen > > On Aug 16, 2012, at 07:36 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Paul Andersen wrote: >> ... >>> If by "rigged" you mean "designed" then that is a rough view of one problem faced by TPIA providers. >> So, from a policy perspective, Canadian ISPs are between a rock >> (ARIN utilization requirements) and hard place (CRTC TPIA >> requirements) for growth if they enter the cable market. >> >> I suppose the paranoid could say this was all part of a scheme >> by the incumbents to force the 3rd party ISPs to stay out of the >> cable market if they want to grow elsewhere. >> >> I am not entirely comfortable with seeing other jurisdictions >> define IP address allocation policies, nor do I like the idea >> for special carve-outs for such rules (the precedent it provides >> can lead to other poor results), but neither do I expect to see >> the CRTC rules change. Based on my current understanding, >> I find myself reluctantly supporting moving this policy forward >> for acceptance for further discussion because it enables >> further competition in the Canadian marketplace. >> >> Gary >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Aug 16 14:38:44 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:38:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> Message-ID: <502D3E34.9050900@umn.edu> On 8/16/12 13:11 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote: > Would it be feasible for the policy to mandate that: > > ISP must show that all blocks larger than /29 are at least 50% utilized > or must reprovision under-utilized blocks to accommodate growth first? > > I think if we were to add this protection to the policy, it would be more than > adequate to address the concerns expressed about "land grabs". I like this idea, the only additional restriction I would include is that to qualify for this; The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the network infrastructure is subdivided, a third party infrastructure provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 exclusion. > Would it be feasible for the TPIA operators, or, does it present a problem that > I am not understanding? Good question. > Owen > -- =============================================== 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 Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Thu Aug 16 14:50:22 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:50:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill S, Is it a cable company requirement for an ISP to provide DHCP pools for all-or-no CMTS nodes, or is it part of the CRTC framework? Could an ISP provide provisioning pools for part of the footprint, growing into the full footprint as utilization increases? (Slow start) If it is a cable company requirement, are they all taking this approach? -Dan Speaking as a member of the AC On 8/16/12 10:59 AM, "Bill Sandiford" wrote: >John: > >The CRTC CISC process that you have mentioned is actually a totally >separate process. That process, which I was part of, was a process to >come up with a solution for Third Party ISPs to be able to assign static >IP addresses over the cable companies infrastructure. To date, the only >available assignment method is, and remains, dynamic allocation via DHCP. > > >Bill: > >The problem that this policy attempts to address is a result of the >framework that the CRTC has mandated for the Cable Companies to open up >(or unbundle) their internet access services in a similar fashion to what >the ILECs are also required to do here with DSL. > >The CRTC passed a framework that mandated the cable companies to provide >third party internet access (TPIA) to any competitive ISP that chose to >do so. The problem is that the CRTC did not define specifically as to >how it would work technically and left those decisions to the cable >company (ie the CRTC didn't want to tell the cable companies how to run >their network, they just mandated that it be open). > >When a TPIA ISP subscribes to the cable companies wholesales services the >cable company REQUIRES that the third party ISP provide an assignment of >addresses large enough so that they can adequately provision all of the >CMTS's in their network for the service for assignment via DHCP. This is >usually done by reserving a /29 or /28 for each node on a CMTS. To be >clear, the TPIA ISP has no control over this process. If they want the >service they must provide the required amount of IPs to the cable co. No >IPs, no service. This has typically required a /18 or /17 of space to >accomplish. > >Most ISPs have been able to acquire this *initial* space by making use of >the immediate needs policy. The problem occurs however when the ISP >needs additional space. For example, when one node (or two or three) >fill up and exhaust the /29 or /28 that was assigned to them they require >an additional block for that node. In some cases additional blocks are >required when the cable company augments their network and does a "node >split" which requires another /28 or /29 to get used. The ISP then makes >a request to ARIN for additional space however they are unable to receive >additional space because, although the address space is assigned to >equipment, it doesn't meet the current definition of "utilized" under >policy. > >The problem is also exacerbated by the fact that there is more than one >cable carrier in Canada (there are 4 major cable companies here, each >with their own exclusive geographic territory). An ISP makes an initial >request because they plan to subscribe to the TPIA services of Cable Co 1 >and receives a /17. They assign that space to Cable Co 1 to use for >numbering their network for my customers. They then decide to subscribe >to the services of Cable Co 2, which requires another /17 and they are >unable receive an address allocation to do so because their first >allocation for Cable Co 1 isn't fully utilized according to the >definition in policy. Or, they exhaust their IPs with Cable Co 1, but >are unable to receive more because their utilization with Cable Co 2 is >too low. > >For further clarity, there is no geographical overlap with the cable >companies, so if you want to offer a ubiquitous service, you must >subscribe to the services of all the cable companies. > >This policy proposal attempts to solve the problems described above. I >wish to emphasize that the current policy text in the NRPM is causing a >real world problem that is creating MARKET FAILURE in Canada. To >illustrate this point, in the Ontario market (Canada's largest province) >there are several hundreds of ISPs that subscribe to the ILEC's (Bell >Canada) wholesale DSL service. In the case of cable, there are only 3 >ISPs currently live and offering service. > >Also keep in mind that the entire population of Canada is about >equivalent to that of the State of California so the actual resource >impact of this policy is minimal. > >I hope this helps to clarify the issues for you such that you can support >this proposal. if you have any further questions please ask. My company >is not actually a cable TPIA customer, but there are a few others on here >that can give further commentary if I've missed something. > >Regards, >Bill > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >Behalf Of John Curran >Sent: August-15-12 8:19 PM >To: William Herrin >Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal > >On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> For discussion purposes it would also be helpful to have a link to >> something that explicitly describes the CRTC's action here. Did they >> wade in to regulating address management without consulting ARIN? If >> so, perhaps John could explore the matter further directly with the >> CRTC in parallel with our discussions here. > >Bill - > >Request by CRTC to CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) to >"develop a solution for static IP address allocation for TPIA services" - > > >CRTC approval of the recommendations made by the CISC's Network Working >Group regarding static address allocation for third-party Internet access >services. >- > >The CRTC does not appear to be making IP number resource policy but >rather determining appropriate responsibilities for address management >when a service is jointly provisioned via wholesale infrastructure. As >it has been described to me, the typical manner by which wholesale >third-party Internet services are deployed can result in IPv4 addresses >from the ISP being fairly sparsely allocated to the infrastructure >without the ability to readily reallocate to match the POPs of high >demand. ARIN's IPv4 additional allocation policies (except for MDN) are >predicated upon the ability to reallocate deployed IP resources until an >overall utilization level of 80% is achieved. Hence, there is a real >potential for conflict between the assumptions from the third-party >Internet access services and existing ARIN policy. > >I hope this helps in your consideration of the proposed policy change. > >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. >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 16 14:50:09 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:50:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <12701.1345141502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <12701.1345141502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <502D40E1.7050902@umn.edu> On 8/16/12 13:25 CDT, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Guys, the TPIA's biggest problem is that it specifies a layer-3 > solution, but does not mandate any support for IPv6. > > IPv4 deployment would be easy via 4rd or some other v4-over-v6 solution > if the TPIA said something about IPv6. > > It doesn't. > > As a Canadian, I would ask ARIN to tell the parties involved: > IPv4 is done. Go deploy IPv6. > the CRTC was told about the TPIA problem with IPv6 several > years ago, in an IPv6 task force they participated in. Are there commercially available 4rd solutions? Especially sufficiently available to mitigate the competitive disadvantage this would put the TPIA provider in as compared to the incumbent providers ability to provide native IPv4? I'm personally not aware of any 4rd solutions that are commercially available, and even if there are, I doubt they are to the degree that they wouldn't create a significant disadvantage for TPIA providers. Basically, customers couldn't use the CPE they have now, in all likelihood. So what you suggest is nice in theory, but severely lacking as a practical solution as far as I'm aware. I really wish it wasn't. -- =============================================== 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 bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 16 15:29:59 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:29:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Bill Sandiford wrote: > Your analysis on 1 thru 4 is very close. The only thing that I > would say is that the nodes aren't empty in all cases. They > may have 1 or 2 customers on them, but still very underutilized. > In some cases they could be empty though. Hi Bill, I'm pretty sure I could show a /29 DHCP block with only one or two customers as fully utilized under current ARIN policy. I'd have to keep records more carefully than I'd really like to but if I would be a "CLEC" then I have to be prepared to play the game. With 1 customer: SWIP the whole /29 block to them since they're the only user of any of those addresses. Last I heard ARIN doesn't get terribly skeptical about /29 assignments to a single customer. With 2 customers: Lose the network and broadcast addresses to the vagaries of the protocol and then lose one address to the default gateway. Voila, 5 addresses consumed in a /29 pool, the pool is configured at the minimum size the protocol allows, hence fully utilized. It seems to me, then, that the major problem is going to be all the /29's with no customers attached at all. Those aren't in use per ARIN policy under any truthful presentation of the data. Right? > I'm not sure I would say the Cable Companies > tricked the CRTC into anything. The CRTC > established a framework for third party access, > and the cable companies were given the latitude > to decide how to implement it. Naturally they > chose an implementation that was similar to their > own implementation for retail customers, namely > assigning pools to nodes and handing out > addresses by DHCP. So, the cable companies found a loophole in the CRTC's requirement that they could exploit to compel the competitive ISPs to act in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy. Rock and a hard place, as someone else said, but the rock is the cable company not the CRTC. And the CRTC has a large hammer which they use to pound on the rocks when they find it needful. What's your guess as to what would happen if one of the ISPs filed a complaint with the CRTC to the effect that a cable company had made an unreasonable addressing demand? What if the complaint was accompanied by written guidance from ARIN to the effect that assigning IPv4 address pools far in advance of actual users is inconsistent with current international standards for IPv4 address management. Would the CRTC rule that requiring preassignment of address pools to nodes without pending customers was no longer allowed? How long would it take? By the by, I hope someone from the FCC is present and paying attention. It sounds like the CRTC has a major jump on you with respect to regulating telecom infrastructure in the Internet age. 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 Thu Aug 16 18:28:56 2012 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:28:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <502D3E34.9050900@umn.edu> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> <502D3E34.9050900@umn.edu> Message-ID: <15548.1345156136@obiwan.sandelman.ca> >>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes: >> Would it be feasible for the policy to mandate that: >> >> ISP must show that all blocks larger than /29 are at least 50% >> utilized or must reprovision under-utilized blocks to accommodate >> growth first? >> >> I think if we were to add this protection to the policy, it would >> be more than adequate to address the concerns expressed about >> "land grabs". David> I like this idea, the only additional restriction I would David> include is that to qualify for this; David> The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the network David> infrastructure is subdivided, a third party infrastructure David> provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 David> exclusion. I would write: "The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the layer-3 network infrastructure is subdivided, a regulated infrastructure provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 exclusion." (lots of ISPs buy infrastructure from third parties that tell them how it will be provisioned) From mcr at sandelman.ca Thu Aug 16 18:31:00 2012 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:31:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <502D40E1.7050902@umn.edu> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <12701.1345141502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <502D40E1.7050902@umn.edu> Message-ID: <15928.1345156260@obiwan.sandelman.ca> >>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes: >> As a Canadian, I would ask ARIN to tell the parties involved: >> IPv4 is done. Go deploy IPv6. the CRTC was told about the TPIA >> problem with IPv6 several years ago, in an IPv6 task force they >> participated in. David> Are there commercially available 4rd solutions? Especially David> sufficiently available to mitigate the competitive David> disadvantage this would put the TPIA provider in as compared David> to the incumbent providers ability to provide native IPv4? The cable providers delayed TPIA for years because they said that there weren't commercially available source routed solutions when the CRTC first mandated this layer-3 TPIA solution. (They were lying: they just didn't buy the right equipment) Software is updatable. From mcr at sandelman.ca Thu Aug 16 18:32:06 2012 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:32:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16128.1345156326@obiwan.sandelman.ca> >>>>> "Alexander," == Alexander, Daniel writes: Alexander> Is it a cable company requirement for an ISP to provide Alexander> DHCP pools for all-or-no CMTS nodes, or is it part of Alexander> the CRTC framework? Could an ISP provide provisioning Alexander> pools for part of the footprint, growing into the full It was understanding that they could do this. I don't understand how static IPs fit into any of this. It all seems like a failure of the cable companies' DHCP solution. -- ] 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 Thu Aug 16 18:33:19 2012 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:33:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: <16350.1345156399@obiwan.sandelman.ca> >>>>> "William" == William Herrin writes: William> So, the cable companies found a loophole in the CRTC's William> requirement that they could exploit to compel the William> competitive ISPs to act in a manner inconsistent with ARIN William> policy. Rock and a hard place, as someone else said, but William> the rock is the cable company not the CRTC. And the CRTC William> has a large hammer which they use to pound on the rocks William> when they find it needful. William> What's your guess as to what would happen if one of the William> ISPs filed a complaint with the CRTC to the effect that a William> cable company had made an unreasonable addressing demand? William> What if the complaint was accompanied by written guidance William> from ARIN to the effect that assigning IPv4 address pools William> far in advance of actual users is inconsistent with current William> international standards for IPv4 address management. +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 farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 16 20:03:35 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:03:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <15928.1345156260@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <12701.1345141502@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <502D40E1.7050902@umn.edu> <15928.1345156260@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <502D8A57.90606@umn.edu> On 8/16/12 17:31 CDT, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes: > >> As a Canadian, I would ask ARIN to tell the parties involved: > >> IPv4 is done. Go deploy IPv6. the CRTC was told about the TPIA > >> problem with IPv6 several years ago, in an IPv6 task force they > >> participated in. > > David> Are there commercially available 4rd solutions? Especially > David> sufficiently available to mitigate the competitive > David> disadvantage this would put the TPIA provider in as compared > David> to the incumbent providers ability to provide native IPv4? > > The cable providers delayed TPIA for years because they said > that there weren't commercially available source routed solutions when > the CRTC first mandated this layer-3 TPIA solution. > (They were lying: they just didn't buy the right equipment) Yep, they lie. > Software is updatable. Yep, it is. However, you seem to be suggesting 4rd as an alternative to making a policy change to accommodated TPIA. This is only really a viable alternative in my opinion if 4rd is commercially available today. I'm not asking do the Canadian cable guys have it; I'm asking if anyone does? Completely outside of TPIA, I honestly would like to know if there are commercially available 4rd solutions, or heck even functional open source ones? I want to play with 4rd, I've been waiting patiently for it. I want to make IPv4 a legacy service of my IPv6 network. ;) -- =============================================== 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 mysidia at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 22:03:54 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:03:54 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: References: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 8/16/12, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote: [snip] > As for the BULL, one can argue that banks do not have to put a sign telling > where the vault is or the keys to the vault are on the front door either. > But I guess all analogy is just analogy. The difference, with WHOIS contact information, there is a safety consideration, with regards to the public's ability to identify you and reach technical contacts for your network, to correct problems or put a stop to abuse. Just because you want your bank to be secure, does not mean you may remove all EXIT signs and post your guards at the main entrance. If you are suggesting that WHOIS is a go-to resource for would-be network intruders, I would say that's just totally naive... when a simple DNS lookup finds the website, a simple DNS scan for interesting names finds other hosts, and then there are public copies of the internet routing table readily available to determine what prefix is announced. Your typical network intrusion starts with an insider visiting a malicious website, or being the target of a social engineering attack. The actual significant rsk I see WHOIS could in theory pose here, is it can sometimes provide the real name and e-mail address of a person, whom a black hat /might/ be able to impersonate, the hacker might be able to fool another person in the organization into divulging their password over the phone, by using caller id spoofing and pretending to be the person listed in WHOIS.... -- -JH From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 23:19:57 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:19:57 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> Message-ID: On 8/16/12, William Herrin wrote: I would say... requesting IP addressing from ARIN for 1000 nodes, if you have customers on 10 is indefensible as far as utilization, so no, ARIN policy should not be revised to make that OK. And "Justified need" does not include indefensible network policy decisions some other organization is requiring of an applicant. The CRTC / Cable companies should be encouraged to revise their policies, so that they are not demanding wanton waste of IPv4 addressing resources. [snip] > So the nutshell of this problem is: > 1. The cable company has 1000 or so nodes to which Internet access > customers connect. > 2. The competitive ISP is required by the _cable company_ to initially > provision all 1000 nodes with IP address pools regardless of whether > they then have or later acquire customers connected to each node. [snip] -- -JH From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 23:59:37 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:59:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment - intent to revise In-Reply-To: References: <502C81FA.4060005@umn.edu> Message-ID: Jimmy Whois data is largely in error. Anyone saying safety is a basis for the directory is in error. The black hat analogues are a bit off as well. A name is not enough. It's a start, but users don't safeguard their privacy anywhere generally. Best, Marty On Thursday, August 16, 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 8/16/12, Chu, Yi [NTK] > wrote: > [snip] > > As for the BULL, one can argue that banks do not have to put a sign > telling > > where the vault is or the keys to the vault are on the front door either. > > But I guess all analogy is just analogy. > > The difference, with WHOIS contact information, there is a safety > consideration, with regards to the public's ability to identify you > and reach technical contacts for your network, to correct problems or > put a stop to abuse. > > Just because you want your bank to be secure, does not mean you may > remove all EXIT signs and post your guards at the main entrance. > > If you are suggesting that WHOIS is a go-to resource for would-be > network intruders, I would say that's just totally naive... when a > simple DNS lookup finds the website, a simple DNS scan for > interesting names finds other hosts, and then there are public copies > of the internet routing table readily available to determine what > prefix is announced. > > Your typical network intrusion starts with an insider visiting a > malicious website, or being the target of a social engineering attack. > > The actual significant rsk I see WHOIS could in theory pose here, is > it can sometimes provide the real name and e-mail address of a > person, whom a black hat /might/ be able to impersonate, the > hacker might be able to fool another person in the organization into > divulging their password over the phone, by using caller id spoofing > and pretending to be the person listed in WHOIS.... > > > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Sent via a mobile device -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 17 00:53:04 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:53:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201208170453.q7H4r4nS014740@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 62 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 17 00:53:04 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.90% | 8 | 24.65% | 178097 | yi.chu at sprint.com 11.29% | 7 | 8.26% | 59722 | bill at telnetcommunications.com 8.06% | 5 | 8.98% | 64920 | owen at delong.com 8.06% | 5 | 7.18% | 51888 | hannigan at gmail.com 8.06% | 5 | 6.50% | 46951 | farmer at umn.edu 8.06% | 5 | 5.17% | 37394 | bill at herrin.us 8.06% | 5 | 4.28% | 30926 | mcr at sandelman.ca 3.23% | 2 | 8.80% | 63615 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 4.84% | 3 | 6.20% | 44810 | adudek16 at gmail.com 6.45% | 4 | 3.92% | 28360 | jcurran at arin.net 6.45% | 4 | 3.84% | 27743 | mysidia at gmail.com 1.61% | 1 | 3.23% | 23336 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.61% | 1 | 1.71% | 12330 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 1.61% | 1 | 1.27% | 9194 | frnkblk at iname.com 1.61% | 1 | 1.16% | 8360 | info at arin.net 1.61% | 1 | 1.10% | 7983 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.61% | 1 | 1.09% | 7855 | joelja at bogus.com 1.61% | 1 | 0.98% | 7109 | paul at egate.net 1.61% | 1 | 0.86% | 6221 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com 1.61% | 1 | 0.80% | 5800 | jlewis at lewis.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 62 |100.00% | 722614 | Total From owen at delong.com Fri Aug 17 01:52:49 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:52:49 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <15548.1345156136@obiwan.sandelman.ca> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> <502D3E34.9050900@umn.edu> <15548.1345156136@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Message-ID: On Aug 16, 2012, at 15:28 , Michael Richardson wrote: > >>>>>> "David" == David Farmer writes: >>> Would it be feasible for the policy to mandate that: >>> >>> ISP must show that all blocks larger than /29 are at least 50% >>> utilized or must reprovision under-utilized blocks to accommodate >>> growth first? >>> >>> I think if we were to add this protection to the policy, it would >>> be more than adequate to address the concerns expressed about >>> "land grabs". > > David> I like this idea, the only additional restriction I would > David> include is that to qualify for this; > > David> The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the network > David> infrastructure is subdivided, a third party infrastructure > David> provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 > David> exclusion. > > I would write: > > "The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the layer-3 network > infrastructure is subdivided, a regulated infrastructure > provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 > exclusion." > > (lots of ISPs buy infrastructure from third parties that tell > them how it will be provisioned) > I understand your concern, but, all providers are "regulated", so this would be a technical no-op. How about: "The ISP must not own or control the equipment and/or provisioning design of the layer-3 network infrastructure and must be obtaining that from a separate infrastructure provider in a manner similar to "unbundled elements"." Owen > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Aug 17 11:05:15 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:05:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> <502D3E34.9050900@umn.edu> <15548.1345156136@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012303285F@MAIL1.polartel.local> {SNIP} > > I would write: > > > > "The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the layer-3 network > > infrastructure is subdivided, a regulated infrastructure > > provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 > > exclusion." > > > > (lots of ISPs buy infrastructure from third parties that tell > > them how it will be provisioned) > > > > I understand your concern, but, all providers are "regulated", so this > would be a technical no-op. > > How about: > > "The ISP must not own or control the equipment and/or provisioning > design of the layer-3 network infrastructure and must be obtaining > that from a separate infrastructure provider in a manner similar to > "unbundled elements"." [kjk] [kjk] I pretty much agree with this but I have no idea how it would be policed or enforced. > > Owen > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farmer at umn.edu Mon Aug 20 12:29:11 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:29:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012303285F@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <46A5AC71-0085-46EE-96FE-39C668F42DE6@arin.net> <52570944-6660-4791-B9E6-19FDA5992E71@delong.com> <502D3E34.9050900@umn.edu> <15548.1345156136@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012303285F@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <503265D7.3070907@umn.edu> On 8/17/12 10:05 CDT, Kevin Kargel wrote: > {SNIP} >>> I would write: >>> >>> "The ISP _MUST NOT_ have control of how the layer-3 network >>> infrastructure is subdivided, a regulated infrastructure >>> provider must be in control of that to qualify for the /29 >>> exclusion." >>> >>> (lots of ISPs buy infrastructure from third parties that tell >>> them how it will be provisioned) >>> >> >> I understand your concern, but, all providers are "regulated", so this >> would be a technical no-op. >> >> How about: >> >> "The ISP must not own or control the equipment and/or provisioning >> design of the layer-3 network infrastructure and must be obtaining >> that from a separate infrastructure provider in a manner similar to >> "unbundled elements"." > [kjk] > [kjk] I pretty much agree with this but I have no idea how it would be > policed or enforced. I think I like Owen's language better than what I suggested originally. As to your enforcement question Kevin, I think that it is only enforceable at the time of allocation like most policies. Also, from what I hear, ARIN staff understands the situation fairly well, but doesn't have an applicable policy that works for the situation. -- =============================================== 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 Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Aug 20 18:02:27 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:02:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: After digesting some of the staff's comments I would like to ask if anyone thinks this would address some of the issue? Looking at Section 4.2.3.7.3.1 Residential Market Area "In most cases, ISPs that have residential subscribers assign address space to their access infrastructure to which their customers connect rather than to individual subscribers....." This section allows the 50% utilization rule to be applied to the most recent allocation instead of the 80% rule in section 4.2.4.1. If the first instance of the word "their" was struck from the section, "...ISPs that have residential subscribers assign address space to their access infrastructure to which their customers connect rather than to individual subscribers....", should include third party ISPs to be considered with the lower utilization requirement in section 4.2.3.7.3.1? Would this address enough of the problem? Dan Alexander AC Member On 8/16/12 10:59 AM, "Bill Sandiford" > wrote: John: The CRTC CISC process that you have mentioned is actually a totally separate process. That process, which I was part of, was a process to come up with a solution for Third Party ISPs to be able to assign static IP addresses over the cable companies infrastructure. To date, the only available assignment method is, and remains, dynamic allocation via DHCP. Bill: The problem that this policy attempts to address is a result of the framework that the CRTC has mandated for the Cable Companies to open up (or unbundle) their internet access services in a similar fashion to what the ILECs are also required to do here with DSL. The CRTC passed a framework that mandated the cable companies to provide third party internet access (TPIA) to any competitive ISP that chose to do so. The problem is that the CRTC did not define specifically as to how it would work technically and left those decisions to the cable company (ie the CRTC didn't want to tell the cable companies how to run their network, they just mandated that it be open). When a TPIA ISP subscribes to the cable companies wholesales services the cable company REQUIRES that the third party ISP provide an assignment of addresses large enough so that they can adequately provision all of the CMTS's in their network for the service for assignment via DHCP. This is usually done by reserving a /29 or /28 for each node on a CMTS. To be clear, the TPIA ISP has no control over this process. If they want the service they must provide the required amount of IPs to the cable co. No IPs, no service. This has typically required a /18 or /17 of space to accomplish. Most ISPs have been able to acquire this *initial* space by making use of the immediate needs policy. The problem occurs however when the ISP needs additional space. For example, when one node (or two or three) fill up and exhaust the /29 or /28 that was assigned to them they require an additional block for that node. In some cases additional blocks are required when the cable company augments their network and does a "node split" which requires another /28 or /29 to get used. The ISP then makes a request to ARIN for additional space however they are unable to receive additional space because, although the address space is assigned to equipment, it doesn't meet the current definition of "utilized" under policy. The problem is also exacerbated by the fact that there is more than one cable carrier in Canada (there are 4 major cable companies here, each with their own exclusive geographic territory). An ISP makes an initial request because they plan to subscribe to the TPIA services of Cable Co 1 and receives a /17. They assign that space to Cable Co 1 to use for numbering their network for my customers. They then decide to subscribe to the services of Cable Co 2, which requires another /17 and they are unable receive an address allocation to do so because their first allocation for Cable Co 1 isn't fully utilized according to the definition in policy. Or, they exhaust their IPs with Cable Co 1, but are unable to receive more because their utilization with Cable Co 2 is too low. For further clarity, there is no geographical overlap with the cable companies, so if you want to offer a ubiquitous service, you must subscribe to the services of all the cable companies. This policy proposal attempts to solve the problems described above. I wish to emphasize that the current policy text in the NRPM is causing a real world problem that is creating MARKET FAILURE in Canada. To illustrate this point, in the Ontario market (Canada's largest province) there are several hundreds of ISPs that subscribe to the ILEC's (Bell Canada) wholesale DSL service. In the case of cable, there are only 3 ISPs currently live and offering service. Also keep in mind that the entire population of Canada is about equivalent to that of the State of California so the actual resource impact of this policy is minimal. I hope this helps to clarify the issues for you such that you can support this proposal. if you have any further questions please ask. My company is not actually a cable TPIA customer, but there are a few others on here that can give further commentary if I've missed something. Regards, Bill -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: August-15-12 8:19 PM To: William Herrin Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:36 PM, William Herrin > wrote: For discussion purposes it would also be helpful to have a link to something that explicitly describes the CRTC's action here. Did they wade in to regulating address management without consulting ARIN? If so, perhaps John could explore the matter further directly with the CRTC in parallel with our discussions here. Bill - Request by CRTC to CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) to "develop a solution for static IP address allocation for TPIA services" - CRTC approval of the recommendations made by the CISC's Network Working Group regarding static address allocation for third-party Internet access services. - The CRTC does not appear to be making IP number resource policy but rather determining appropriate responsibilities for address management when a service is jointly provisioned via wholesale infrastructure. As it has been described to me, the typical manner by which wholesale third-party Internet services are deployed can result in IPv4 addresses from the ISP being fairly sparsely allocated to the infrastructure without the ability to readily reallocate to match the POPs of high demand. ARIN's IPv4 additional allocation policies (except for MDN) are predicated upon the ability to reallocate deployed IP resources until an overall utilization level of 80% is achieved. Hence, there is a real potential for conflict between the assumptions from the third-party Internet access services and existing ARIN policy. I hope this helps in your consideration of the proposed policy change. 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. _______________________________________________ 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 cja at daydream.com Tue Aug 21 14:17:26 2012 From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:17:26 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers In-Reply-To: <501048AA.2090103@arin.net> References: <501048AA.2090103@arin.net> Message-ID: This proposal is scheduled for adoption disucssion at the upcoming ARIN meeting in October. Please post any additional discussion/comments you may have about this proposal. Thanks! Hope to see you in Dallas! ----Cathy Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers On 19 July 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers" as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in Dallas in October. The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers." Per the Policy Development Process, the AC submitted text to ARIN for a staff and legal assessment prior to its selection as a draft policy. Below the draft policy is the ARIN staff and legal assessment with the text that was reviewed. The text did not change after the assessment. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_5.html You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-5 on the PPML prior to the October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN XXX will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community consensus for adopting this as policy. The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers Date: 25 July 2012 Policy statement: Remove the entire subsection 4.3.6.2 "Additional Assignments for Small Multihomers". Rationale: The policy has had the unintended effect of freezing small multi homed end users from being able to return to ARIN for additional assignments. The requirement to renumber out of space is unique and is applying an undue burden of renumbering what would be an organization's core infrastructure. Timetable for implementation: immediate ########## ARIN Staff and Legal Assessment ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers Date of Assessment: 16 July 2012 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) This proposal removes existing NRPM policy 4.3.6.3 "Additional Assignments for Small Multihomers". Eliminating this section removes the requirement for small multi-homers to renumber when they come back to ARIN for additional IPv4 address space. 2. Comments A. ARIN Staff Comments The original intent of NRPM 4.3.6.3 was to conserve routing table slots. However, statistics have shown that NRPM 4.3.6.3 has rarely been used and that most small multi-homers have not come back to ARIN for additional space. Therefore, it doesn't seem to be contributing anything significant toward its original goal. This policy will provide an obvious benefit to the small multi-homers who are currently being forced to suffer the pain and expense of renumbering. B. ARIN General Counsel Legal assessment: No significant legal issue is posed by this proposal. 3. Resource Impact This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation aspect. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement: Updated guidelines Staff training 4. Proposal Text ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers Date: 30 April 2012 Policy statement: Remove the entire subsection 4.3.6.2 "Additional Assignments for Small Multihomers". Rationale: The policy has had the unintended effect of freezing small multi homed end users from being able to return to ARIN for additional assignments. The requirement to renumber out of space is unique and is applying an undue burden of renumbering what would be an organization's core infrastructure. From info at arin.net Tue Aug 21 17:10:08 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:10:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2012 Message-ID: <5033F930.1050409@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 16 August 2012 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. The following proposals were added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: ARIN-prop-179 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment The AC selected the following proposals as draft policies for adoption discussion online and at the ARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting in Dallas in October. The draft policies will be posted shortly to the PPML. ARIN-Prop-175 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy (previously called "Delete Section 8.2") ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size ARIN-prop-179 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available 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 Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From Enrique.Garcia at sidera.net Wed Aug 22 09:58:42 2012 From: Enrique.Garcia at sidera.net (Enrique Garcia) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:58:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: IPv4 Update Message-ID: <3046E8652CF0BB4BAB2D81FB65D1C4650169E6E2FA@wbexch01.workgroup.neoninc.com> I received an e-mail this morning from a company claiming that IP Space can now be leased. Was just wondering if this was legal. Thank you, Enrique Garcia Systems Engineer 55 Broad street, 2nd floor New York, NY. 10004 O| 212.631-8983 M| 646.249.0335 E| enrique.garcia at sidera.net From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com [mailto:sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:45 AM To: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Subject: IPv4 Update Dear Technology Expert: I am writing to provide an update on the IPv4 market as seen by IPv4 Market Group over the past few months. We are seeing a very active IPv4 leasing market in North America, as companies use leases for financing and other purposes. Inter-RIR transfers are now possible as of July 31, with the implementation of ARIN?s 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfer Policy. Several Asian companies are actively transacting with us for IP?s. Prices for small blocks in the /15 to /18 size have remained stable at around $10.00 per IP. IPv4 Market Group has three interesting opportunities for your consideration: 1) We represent a bankruptcy /16 which is going to auction. The stalking horse price for this auction is $360,000. The overbid, or next bid, must be at least $420,000. This is a unique opportunity to possibly obtain a /16 at a low price, as the block could go for the overbid price, or for some increment beyond the overbid. Please email me if you are interested. 2) We have a European RIPE based /16 for lease at $6.82/IP per year. 3) We have many blocks for sale and lease in North America at market prices. Please contact me if you are interested in selling or leasing your own IP?s. If you would like to be removed from this email list, please reply with the subject ?Please Remove?. Otherwise I will provide updates and news from time to time. Thanks and Best Regards, Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cengel at conxeo.com Wed Aug 22 12:02:57 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:02:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment Message-ID: Yi, The company I work for is a vendor to alot of Fortune 500 Financial Institutions. I have alot of experience going through security audits with them. I haven't seen one yet that has had a security issue with a WHOIS listing. You can look at pretty much all the multi-national ones and they all have WHOIS. Generaly speaking, having valid contact info for thier networks actualy improves security as it gives a timely venue to report problems coming from thier network which they might have missed. As long as the POC's are trained to deal with social engineering style attacks there isn't really an issue. As Jimmy Hess has already pointed out, WHOIS really is the least of an institutions worry in terms of profiling for an attack. Nevertheless, if your client really has privacy concerns about WHOIS, there are ALREADY perfectly legal solutions for such institutions that don't involve any policy changes and still preserve the functionality provided by WHOIS. All they need do is setup a Doing-Business-As (DBA) or a Legal Trust to use as the listing...and they can hire a service to recieve mail for them (e.g. Mailboxes ETC) or direct it to thier attorney's office. That's how organizations with serious privacy concerns deal with such issues. Christopher Engel From jcurran at arin.net Wed Aug 22 21:18:33 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:18:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Leasing (was: Re: IPv4 Update) In-Reply-To: <3046E8652CF0BB4BAB2D81FB65D1C4650169E6E2FA@wbexch01.workgroup.neoninc.com> References: <3046E8652CF0BB4BAB2D81FB65D1C4650169E6E2FA@wbexch01.workgroup.neoninc.com> Message-ID: On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Enrique Garcia > wrote: I received an e-mail this morning from a company claiming that IP Space can now be leased. Was just wondering if this was legal. Enrique - If by "legal", you mean "in compliance with the community number resource management policy in this region", then perhaps I can provide some insight. Internet service providers routinely provide IP address assignments as part of their Internet services bundle, and those assignments are not permanent in nature but only for the duration of the service agreement. Many would consider such assignments to be "leased IP address space". Organizations receiving IP address space (as the recipient of a transfer or via allocations of IP address space from the free pool) as an ISP must meet the LIR definition (per NRPM 2.4) and that means "primarily assigning address space to the users of the network services that it provides." End-users receiving transfers or assignments of IP address space from the free pool must meet the End-user definition (per NRPM 2.6) during their request which requires they be receiving space to be used "exclusively for use in its operational networks." Ergo, the "leasing" of recently received space could reasonably raise concern about whether the request to ARIN for that space was made with full sincerity, and organizations would be advised not to request to receive IP address from the free pool or as the recipient of a transfer if their intent is to "lease" the space rather then use it for their network service customers (if an ISP) or use it for their own network (if they applied as an end-user.) There has been no policy development specifically regarding leasing as an appropriate/inappropriate use of held IP address space, so ARIN does not have a position either way (aside from the case above of insuring that requests to receive additional address space are made in good faith based on existing definitions of usage.) Obviously, individual Internet service providers may have their own views on handling of "leased" address space, depending on any number of factors including registrant and block size. I hope this helps somewhat in understanding the situation, recognizing that it is not likely to be as complete an answer as you would have liked. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Wed Aug 22 21:54:04 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:54:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Leasing (was: Re: IPv4 Update) In-Reply-To: References: <3046E8652CF0BB4BAB2D81FB65D1C4650169E6E2FA@wbexch01.workgroup.neoninc.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > Organizations receiving IP address space (as the recipient of a transfer > or > via allocations of IP address space from the free pool) as an ISP must > meet > the LIR definition (per NRPM 2.4) and that means "primarily assigning > address > space to the users of the network services that it provides." End-users > receiving transfers or assignments of IP address space from the free pool > must meet the End-user definition (per NRPM 2.6) during their request > which > requires they be receiving space to be used "exclusively for use in its > operational networks." > > Ergo, the "leasing" of recently received space could reasonably raise > concern about whether the request to ARIN for that space was made with > full sincerity, and organizations would be advised not to request to > receive > IP address from the free pool or as the recipient of a transfer if their > intent > is to "lease" the space rather then use it for their network service > customers > (if an ISP) or use it for their own network (if they applied as an > end-user.) That's easily evaded. I can "lease" minimal-documentation /24's all day for $100/month. My price includes a 64kbps VPN over which you're expected to maintain a BGP session. More if you want a full route feed, a VPN that's more than a placeholder or a non-private AS number. You also must provide me with a copy of the contract for your "main" ISP for my records. And you have to sign a paper agreeing I'm the only ISP that's assigned you a /24. Not my fault if you lie to me, and using a private AS number how would I ever know? Need to do about 256 of them at that price to break even after considering manpower costs. Everything beyond that is 90% gravy. And hey look, I'm efficiently utilized. /24's to documented multihomed customers and negligible networking overhead to mess me up when I ask for more. NRPM 4.2.3.6. "This policy allows a downstream customer's multihoming requirement to serve as justification for a /24 reassignment from their upstream ISP, regardless of host requirements." When I'm ready to cash out, $2500 per /24 to sell them outright when they only cost me about $15 from ARIN sounds grand. There's still a /16 or two left in the free pool, right? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Enrique.Garcia at sidera.net Thu Aug 23 09:09:41 2012 From: Enrique.Garcia at sidera.net (Enrique Garcia) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:09:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Leasing (was: Re: IPv4 Update) In-Reply-To: References: <3046E8652CF0BB4BAB2D81FB65D1C4650169E6E2FA@wbexch01.workgroup.neoninc.com> Message-ID: <3046E8652CF0BB4BAB2D81FB65D1C4650169E6E41A@wbexch01.workgroup.neoninc.com> John, Thank you for your response. Regards, Enrique From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:19 PM To: Enrique Garcia Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Leasing (was: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Update) On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Enrique Garcia > wrote: I received an e-mail this morning from a company claiming that IP Space can now be leased. Was just wondering if this was legal. Enrique - If by "legal", you mean "in compliance with the community number resource management policy in this region", then perhaps I can provide some insight. Internet service providers routinely provide IP address assignments as part of their Internet services bundle, and those assignments are not permanent in nature but only for the duration of the service agreement. Many would consider such assignments to be "leased IP address space". Organizations receiving IP address space (as the recipient of a transfer or via allocations of IP address space from the free pool) as an ISP must meet the LIR definition (per NRPM 2.4) and that means "primarily assigning address space to the users of the network services that it provides." End-users receiving transfers or assignments of IP address space from the free pool must meet the End-user definition (per NRPM 2.6) during their request which requires they be receiving space to be used "exclusively for use in its operational networks." Ergo, the "leasing" of recently received space could reasonably raise concern about whether the request to ARIN for that space was made with full sincerity, and organizations would be advised not to request to receive IP address from the free pool or as the recipient of a transfer if their intent is to "lease" the space rather then use it for their network service customers (if an ISP) or use it for their own network (if they applied as an end-user.) There has been no policy development specifically regarding leasing as an appropriate/inappropriate use of held IP address space, so ARIN does not have a position either way (aside from the case above of insuring that requests to receive additional address space are made in good faith based on existing definitions of usage.) Obviously, individual Internet service providers may have their own views on handling of "leased" address space, depending on any number of factors including registrant and block size. I hope this helps somewhat in understanding the situation, recognizing that it is not likely to be as complete an answer as you would have liked. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 24 00:53:03 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201208240453.q7O4r3QK032763@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 12 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 24 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 2 | 28.88% | 40834 | enrique.garcia at sidera.net 8.33% | 1 | 17.49% | 24734 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 8.33% | 1 | 9.35% | 13222 | kkargel at polartel.com 8.33% | 1 | 9.22% | 13042 | jcurran at arin.net 8.33% | 1 | 6.44% | 9105 | cja at daydream.com 8.33% | 1 | 5.57% | 7874 | farmer at umn.edu 8.33% | 1 | 5.43% | 7670 | bill at herrin.us 8.33% | 1 | 5.21% | 7366 | owen at delong.com 8.33% | 1 | 5.03% | 7114 | narten at us.ibm.com 8.33% | 1 | 3.70% | 5224 | info at arin.net 8.33% | 1 | 3.67% | 5194 | cengel at conxeo.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 12 |100.00% | 141379 | Total From info at arin.net Wed Aug 29 11:23:55 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:23:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Seeking Nominations: Board, AC, and NRO NC Message-ID: <503E340B.8040208@arin.net> ARIN is seeking nominations for the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council, you can learn more at: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2012/20120806.html Nominations remain open for the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council, you can learn more at: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2012/20120806_nronc.html Nominations close Tuesday, 4 September 2012 at 17:00 ET. Note that you must be with an ARIN Member organization to nominate for the Board or AC. Any individual, regardless of ARIN membership status, may self-nominate or nominate one or more candidates for the NRO Number Council Position. Direct any questions to info at arin.net. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Aug 31 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201208310453.q7V4r2Mx025221@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 31 00:53:02 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 57.53% | 6634 | narten at us.ibm.com 50.00% | 1 | 42.47% | 4897 | info at arin.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 11531 | Total From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 31 16:50:39 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 20:50:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This report is probably of interest to this list: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-emerging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org From owen at delong.com Fri Aug 31 17:08:47 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:08:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that we probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute part of the ARIN free pool to other registries. Owen On Aug 31, 2012, at 13:50 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > This report is probably of interest to this list: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-emerging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ > > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 31 17:17:33 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:17:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market In-Reply-To: <8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> It's kind of a catch-22. If you lengthen the time horizon for ARIN numbers, they will go out the door faster. > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:09 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market > > Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that we > probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute part > of the ARIN free pool to other registries. > > Owen > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 13:50 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > This report is probably of interest to this list: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-em > > erging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ > > > > Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet > > Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov Fri Aug 31 17:16:47 2012 From: Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov (Morizot Timothy S) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:16:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market In-Reply-To: <8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> Message-ID: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C0411BBA6A@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> +1 -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:09 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that we probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute part of the ARIN free pool to other registries. Owen On Aug 31, 2012, at 13:50 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > This report is probably of interest to this list: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-em > erging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ > > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet > Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org From owen at delong.com Fri Aug 31 18:01:20 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:01:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible. This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy. Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy. If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful. Owen On Aug 31, 2012, at 14:17 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's kind of a catch-22. If you lengthen the time horizon for ARIN numbers, they will go out the door faster. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:09 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market >> >> Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that we >> probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute part >> of the ARIN free pool to other registries. >> >> Owen >> >> On Aug 31, 2012, at 13:50 , Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> This report is probably of interest to this list: >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-em >>> erging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ >>> >>> Milton L. Mueller >>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet >>> Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Fri Aug 31 18:18:05 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:18:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <42F318E0-0A4E-41FC-A32F-7CA2E951B56A@arin.net> On Aug 31, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This report is probably of interest to this list: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-emerging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ Milton's blog is having a bit of problems with comments (apparently only my comments, for reasons unknown...!) Hence, here's a copy of my reply to the study blog entry for the PPML readers. /John === Milton - Thank you for conducting this study into the emergent IPv4 transfer market... Such academic efforts are important in helping everyone better understand this important topic. The principle conclusion of the paper (that being "there is a thriving and growing market for IPv4 number blocks") is definitely true and needs repeating for those who might not have heard by now. I will note that popularity of buyers in the ARIN region is actually very simply explained by the fact that service providers, like all businesses, want certainty in their operations, and continuing to predicate growth on receiving 3-month-at-a-time allocations from the IPv4 free pool in the face of imminent depletion doesn't provide that business certainty. While there has been enormous progress getting content to IPv6 (and now the migration of the mobile providers based on that content being available), each service provider must develop their own transition plans, and the ability to receive 2 years worth of IPv4 space via transfer provides reassurance to providers while they work on this transition. It is interesting that after all of your study of the transfers that have occurred, you provide conclusory statements that providers are performing transfers to "avoid the needs assessment process" and/or "strengthen recipients? property rights'. As is very clear from the court documents of the transfers subsequent to MSFT/Nortel, the recipients are all bound by Internet number resource policy in the ARIN region, and the transfers were predicated upon having the need verified by ARIN before the transfer could be completed. For example, from the Borders/Cerner bankruptcy document referenced in your paper, we find the following language: "14. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, including, without limitation, paragraphs J, 3-8, 11 and 16, hereof, (i) the IA Sale, as stated in the Agreements, is conditioned upon ARIN?s consent including any terms and/or conditions established by ARIN?s transfer policies or any other policies, guidelines, or regulations developed by ARIN and published on its website, as may be amended and supplemented from time to time (collectively, ?ARIN?s Policies?), (ii) the transfer of the Debtors? interests in the Internet Addresses to the Purchaser is subject to ARIN?s Policies, (iii) the Debtors and the Purchaser are required to comply with ARIN?s Policies before any transfer of the Debtors? rights in the Internet Addresses may be effectuated.; (iv) ARIN is not required to take any action in violation of ARIN?s Policies in connection with or as a consequence of this Order, the IA Sale, or the Agreements, nor shall ARIN be required to apply a different standard to the transfer of the Internet Addresses than it does to the transfer of non-legacy Internet Protocol numbers. Nothing in this Order is intended, nor shall be construed, as exempting the Debtors and Purchaser from complying with the ARIN Policies. Subject to the conditions set forth in this paragraph, ARIN has approved of the transfer as contemplated herein and shall take reasonable steps to provide assistance for the transfer as contemplated in this Order." It is a shame that you did not actually assess the bankruptcy transfers that occurred post-Nortel, as you would have found very similar language to this effect in each of them. I imagine that would have made for a less stirring set of conclusions, but such is the burden of an academic study. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Fri Aug 31 19:45:50 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:45:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market In-Reply-To: <42F318E0-0A4E-41FC-A32F-7CA2E951B56A@arin.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <42F318E0-0A4E-41FC-A32F-7CA2E951B56A@arin.net> Message-ID: <501993D3-D492-451E-B321-A72F57BBE0CD@delong.com> On Aug 31, 2012, at 15:18 , John Curran wrote: > On Aug 31, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> This report is probably of interest to this list: >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-emerging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/ > > Milton's blog is having a bit of problems with comments > (apparently only my comments, for reasons unknown...!) > > Hence, here's a copy of my reply to the study blog entry > for the PPML readers. > > /John > > === > > Milton - > > Thank you for conducting this study into the emergent IPv4 transfer market... Such academic efforts are important in helping everyone better understand this important topic. The principle conclusion of the paper (that being "there is a thriving and growing market for IPv4 number blocks") is definitely true and needs repeating for those who might not have heard by now. > > I will note that popularity of buyers in the ARIN region is actually very simply explained by the fact that service providers, like all businesses, want certainty in their operations, and continuing to predicate growth on receiving 3-month-at-a-time allocations from the IPv4 free pool in the face of imminent depletion doesn't provide that business certainty. While there has been enormous progress getting content to IPv6 (and now the migration of the mobile providers based on that content being available), each service provider must develop their own transition plans, and the ability to receive 2 years worth of IPv4 space via transfer provides reassurance to providers while they work on this transition. > Only so long as supplies last. When the supply of readily reallocated IP addresses begins to dwindle, we will again repeat the same exercise in uncertainty, but with much higher costs and much more uncertainty for those still attempting to cling to IPv4. Owen