From lsawyer at gci.com Tue Jan 3 14:50:18 2012 From: lsawyer at gci.com (Leif Sawyer) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:50:18 -0900 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: RFQ - Precision-management.net Message-ID: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D425B4CD@fnb1mbx01.gci.com> And so it begins.... Ugh. ________________________________ From: Edward Wootan [mailto:cto at precision-management.net] Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 9:54 PM To: GCI Net IP Admin Subject: RFQ - Precision-management.net Greetings, NOC or IP Admin at ipadmin at gci.net We would like to Lease some of your unused IP Ranges. Precision Management of Texas (USA) offers on-demand solutions for brand marketers and website promotion chiefly through email marketing. Currently PM is seeking to expand Our network capability both overseas and here in the US with the addition of several points of presence (PoP) in geographically diverse locations. Precision Management makes no attempt to conceal identity or intentions as a show of good faith on our part that we will be good customers with an eye on building a relationship beyond this installation. It should go without saying that our use of your network will be totally AUP Compliant and any complaints will be handled in 12 hours or less. We only mail to Top Level Domain?s and do no General Internet mailing. Also i want you to be aware that we are an American Company with verifiable references who can attest to how we conduct our emailing business. As is the nature of this business PM seeks to obtain as much diversity in the allocated IP space as possible, however PM can take up to eight /24s in a single contiguous /21. The Subnets need to have no abuse history. We can take the IPs via GRE or; One Virtual (or Dedicated) Server ? Dual Cores 1 GB RAM 100 GB HDD IPv4 Subnets of 2, 4, or 8 /24s Term period of 6-12 months Thanks, Edward Wootan Chief Technical Officer Precision Management LLC 3030 LBJ Freeway Dallas, TX 75234 If you are interested in working with a Legitimate Marketer please reply to this email or call me Direct at (704) 286-6098 any time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jlewis at lewis.org Tue Jan 3 15:38:06 2012 From: jlewis at lewis.org (Jon Lewis) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:38:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: RFQ - Precision-management.net In-Reply-To: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D425B4CD@fnb1mbx01.gci.com> References: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D425B4CD@fnb1mbx01.gci.com> Message-ID: No...this is just a spammer looking for more IPs from which to spam...and they've been spamming ISP role accounts with the same RFQ for a couple months at least. On Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Leif Sawyer wrote: > And so it begins.... > > > Ugh. > > ________________________________ > From: Edward Wootan [mailto:cto at precision-management.net] > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 9:54 PM > To: GCI Net IP Admin > Subject: RFQ - Precision-management.net > > > Greetings, NOC or IP Admin at ipadmin at gci.net > We would like to Lease some of your unused IP Ranges. > Precision Management of Texas (USA) offers on-demand solutions for brand marketers and website promotion chiefly through email marketing. Currently PM is seeking to expand Our network capability both overseas and here in the US with the addition of several points of presence (PoP) in geographically diverse locations. Precision Management makes no attempt to conceal identity or intentions as a show of good faith on our part that we will be good customers with an eye on building a relationship beyond this installation. It should go without saying that our use of your network will be totally AUP Compliant and any complaints will be handled in 12 hours or less. We only mail to Top Level Domains and do no General Internet mailing. Also i want you to be aware that we are an American Company with verifiable references who can attest to how we conduct our emailing business. > As is the nature of this business PM seeks to obtain as much diversity in the allocated IP space as possible, however PM can take up to eight /24s in a single contiguous /21. The Subnets need to have no abuse history. We can take the IPs via GRE or; > One Virtual (or Dedicated) Server  > Dual Cores > 1 GB RAM > 100 GB HDD > IPv4 Subnets of 2, 4, or 8 /24s > Term period of 6-12 months > > > Thanks, > Edward Wootan > Chief Technical Officer > Precision Management LLC > 3030 LBJ Freeway > Dallas, TX 75234 > If you are interested in working with a Legitimate Marketer > please reply to this email or call me Direct at (704) 286-6098 any time. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ From ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Tue Jan 3 16:26:59 2012 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:26:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: RFQ - Precision-management.net In-Reply-To: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D425B4CD@fnb1mbx01.gci.com> References: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D425B4CD@fnb1mbx01.gci.com> Message-ID: <4F0372A3.5020302@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 1/3/12 2:50 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote: > We only mail to Top Level Domain?s ... Proactive. Anticipating ICANN's lurch into the IANA root as a universe of gTLDs large enough to support its own parasitic economy. From paul at redbarn.org Tue Jan 3 16:29:23 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:29:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: RFQ - Precision-management.net In-Reply-To: <4F0372A3.5020302@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5101D425B4CD@fnb1mbx01.gci.com> <4F0372A3.5020302@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: <4F037333.5010009@redbarn.org> >> We only mail to Top Level Domain?s ... > Proactive. Anticipating ICANN's lurch into the IANA root as a universe > of gTLDs large enough to support its own parasitic economy. given i wasn't sure how to interpret that spam but i think they meant "only .COM domains". From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jan 3 17:26:52 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:26:52 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2011 In-Reply-To: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> Message-ID: <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> I want to remind the PPML Community that there are currently two Draft Policies in Last Call, the Last Call period will expire on 13 January 2012. While I personally support these policies, I voted against sending them to last call as I do not feel the AC sufficiently addressed the concerns raised at the PPM in Philly, especially regarding the elimination of slow-start for transfers. There has been almost no comment on these two Draft Policies in last call and now that we have made it past the Holidays I would appreciate any feedback the community has regarding these two Draft Policies. Thanks. On 12/20/11 08:54 CST, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory > Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about > several draft policies and a proposal. > > The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be > posted separately to last call): > > ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers > ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months -- =============================================== 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 6 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201201060553.q065r2jS007140@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 6 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 1 | 39.23% | 19031 | lsawyer at gci.com 16.67% | 1 | 14.95% | 7255 | jlewis at lewis.org 16.67% | 1 | 13.20% | 6404 | farmer at umn.edu 16.67% | 1 | 12.20% | 5919 | narten at us.ibm.com 16.67% | 1 | 10.46% | 5075 | paul at redbarn.org 16.67% | 1 | 9.95% | 4829 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 48513 | Total From info at arin.net Tue Jan 10 13:42:36 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:42:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Board Adopts Draft Policies Message-ID: <4F0C869C.10501@arin.net> On 16 December 2011 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following policies: ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer 2011-8 and 2011-10 will be implemented no later than 29 February 2012. 2011-9 is a global proposal and as such awaits the conclusion of the Global Policy Development Process. Not adopted: At this time the Board has not adopted 2011-1: Inter-RIR transfers. As stated in the minutes, "The ARIN Board of Trustees takes the recommendation of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: Inter-RIR Transfers formally under advisement pending a final community discussion at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees directs the President immediately start implementation of this policy in parallel, with final policy availability held until otherwise directed by the Board." See the minutes for more information on this item. Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html Draft Policy and Policy 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 bill at herrin.us Tue Jan 10 16:08:42 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:08:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <4F0C869C.10501@arin.net> References: <4F0C869C.10501@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM, ARIN wrote: > Not adopted: > At this time the Board has not adopted 2011-1: Inter-RIR transfers. As > stated in the minutes, "The ARIN Board of Trustees takes the recommendation > of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: Inter-RIR Transfers formally under advisement > pending a final community discussion at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting Sudden outbreak of common sense. > in Vancouver, British Columbia. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees directs > the President immediately start implementation of this policy in parallel, > with final policy availability held until otherwise directed by the Board." > See the minutes for more information on this item. https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/bot2011_1216.html section 4 While I concur with the board's assessment that ARIN should prepare to implement a policy substantially similar to 2011-1, I submit that 2011-1 as written violates fundamental expectations of any fair and equitable industry self-regulation. 1. Draft policy 2011-1 intentionally provides addresses from ARIN to registrants outside the ARIN region according to NUMBER POLICY NOT DEVELOPED BY THE ARIN community. As discussed during the last-call debate, there is substantial reason to believe such policies can and in some cases will favor out-region and multinational registrants in a manner which reduces the local ARIN community's access to ARIN-managed addresses. 2. Draft policy 2011-1 neither contemplates nor requires reciprocal transfer policies in other regions which receive addresses from ARIN. This disadvantages members of the ARIN community who must compete with registrants in the other four regions for ARIN addresses even as the same ARIN REGISTRANTS ARE BARRED FROM COMPETING for addresses from those regions. Respectfully yours, 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 Tue Jan 10 16:29:19 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:29:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Not adopted: >> At this time the Board has not adopted 2011-1: Inter-RIR transfers. As >> stated in the minutes, "The ARIN Board of Trustees takes the recommendation >> of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: Inter-RIR Transfers formally under advisement >> pending a final community discussion at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting > > Sudden outbreak of common sense. > >> in Vancouver, British Columbia. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees directs >> the President immediately start implementation of this policy in parallel, >> with final policy availability held until otherwise directed by the Board." >> See the minutes for more information on this item. > > https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/bot2011_1216.html section 4 > > While I concur with the board's assessment that ARIN should prepare to > implement a policy substantially similar to 2011-1, I submit that > 2011-1 as written violates fundamental expectations of any fair and > equitable industry self-regulation. > > 1. Draft policy 2011-1 intentionally provides addresses from ARIN to > registrants outside the ARIN region according to NUMBER POLICY NOT > DEVELOPED BY THE ARIN community. As discussed during the last-call > debate, there is substantial reason to believe such policies can and > in some cases will favor out-region and multinational registrants in a > manner which reduces the local ARIN community's access to ARIN-managed > addresses. > > 2. Draft policy 2011-1 neither contemplates nor requires reciprocal > transfer policies in other regions which receive addresses from ARIN. > This disadvantages members of the ARIN community who must compete with > registrants in the other four regions for ARIN addresses even as the > same ARIN REGISTRANTS ARE BARRED FROM COMPETING for addresses from > those regions. > There's no reason why policy modifications can't be submitted between now and Vancouver. Best, -M< From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jan 11 18:16:49 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:16:49 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> There are still two days left in the formal last call period for ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. If you have any feedback for the AC regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. Thanks On 1/3/12 16:26 CST, David Farmer wrote: > I want to remind the PPML Community that there are currently two Draft > Policies in Last Call, the Last Call period will expire on 13 January 2012. .... > There has been almost no comment on these two Draft Policies in last > call and now that we have made it past the Holidays I would appreciate > any feedback the community has regarding these two Draft Policies. > > Thanks. > > On 12/20/11 08:54 CST, ARIN wrote: >> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory >> Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about >> several draft policies and a proposal. >> >> The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be >> posted separately to last call): >> >> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months > -- =============================================== 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 Wed Jan 11 19:17:00 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:17:00 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> I submit that >> 2011-1 as written violates fundamental expectations of any fair and >> equitable industry self-regulation. > > There's no reason why policy modifications can't be submitted between > now and Vancouver. Hi Marty, During the last call debate, the majority of you Advisory Council colleagues were not interested in considering further changes to the draft regardless of the severity of the defects. You were 1 voice in 15. If 7 more are ready to address the defects, let's hear them speak. 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 Jan 11 22:28:17 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:28:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: While I support 2011-12 I do not support the 24 mos window. It would be much more effective at 36 mos or even 70. Best, -M< On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote: > There are still two days left in the formal last call period for > ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. ?If you have any feedback for the AC > regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. > > Thanks > > On 1/3/12 16:26 CST, David Farmer wrote: >> >> I want to remind the PPML Community that there are currently two Draft >> Policies in Last Call, the Last Call period will expire on 13 January >> 2012. > > .... >> >> There has been almost no comment on these two Draft Policies in last >> call and now that we have made it past the Holidays I would appreciate >> any feedback the community has regarding these two Draft Policies. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On 12/20/11 08:54 CST, ARIN wrote: >>> >>> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory >>> Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about >>> several draft policies and a proposal. >>> >>> The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be >>> posted separately to last call): >>> >>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months >> >> > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE ? ? ?Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 11 22:52:01 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:52:01 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: I believe both policies are ill-advised at this time and that the current windows should be preserved until we have more experience with the transfer policies. Owen On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > While I support 2011-12 I do not support the 24 mos window. It would > be much more effective at 36 mos or even 70. > > Best, > > -M< > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> There are still two days left in the formal last call period for >> ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. If you have any feedback for the AC >> regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. >> >> Thanks >> >> On 1/3/12 16:26 CST, David Farmer wrote: >>> >>> I want to remind the PPML Community that there are currently two Draft >>> Policies in Last Call, the Last Call period will expire on 13 January >>> 2012. >> >> .... >>> >>> There has been almost no comment on these two Draft Policies in last >>> call and now that we have made it past the Holidays I would appreciate >>> any feedback the community has regarding these two Draft Policies. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On 12/20/11 08:54 CST, ARIN wrote: >>>> >>>> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory >>>> Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about >>>> several draft policies and a proposal. >>>> >>>> The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be >>>> posted separately to last call): >>>> >>>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months >>> >>> >> >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> =============================================== >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 cgrundemann at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 13:24:26 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:24:26 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 20:52, Owen DeLong wrote: > I believe both policies are ill-advised at this time and that the current windows > should be preserved until we have more experience with the transfer policies. +1 Mucking with transfer policy now, before we fully understand the dynamics involved, is an obvious mistake. Let's take a minute to compile and analyze data regarding transfers, look for problems, and then solve them. Firing policy into the dark like a shotgun from the porch swing is not likely to result in the best possible outcome... Cheers, ~Chris > Owen > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> While I support 2011-12 I do not support the 24 mos window. It would >> be much more effective at 36 mos or even 70. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote: >>> There are still two days left in the formal last call period for >>> ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. ?If you have any feedback for the AC >>> regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On 1/3/12 16:26 CST, David Farmer wrote: >>>> >>>> I want to remind the PPML Community that there are currently two Draft >>>> Policies in Last Call, the Last Call period will expire on 13 January >>>> 2012. >>> >>> .... >>>> >>>> There has been almost no comment on these two Draft Policies in last >>>> call and now that we have made it past the Holidays I would appreciate >>>> any feedback the community has regarding these two Draft Policies. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> On 12/20/11 08:54 CST, ARIN wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory >>>>> Council (AC) held a meeting on 15 December 2011 and made decisions about >>>>> several draft policies and a proposal. >>>>> >>>>> The AC moved the following draft policies to last call (they will be >>>>> posted separately to last call): >>>>> >>>>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>>>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> =============================================== >>> David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer at umn.edu >>> Networking & Telecommunication Services >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota >>> 2218 University Ave SE ? ? ?Phone: 612-626-0815 >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? Cell: 612-812-9952 >>> =============================================== >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 16:30:59 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> I submit that >>> 2011-1 as written violates fundamental expectations of any fair and >>> equitable industry self-regulation. >> >> There's no reason why policy modifications can't be submitted between >> now and Vancouver. > > Hi Marty, > > During the last call debate, the majority of you Advisory Council > colleagues were not interested in considering further changes to the > draft regardless of the severity of the defects. You were 1 voice in > 15. If 7 more are ready to address the defects, let's hear them speak. > There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has brought us to where we are today with this. I don't have a suggestion for you other than to perhaps assemble a group of like-minded individuals who are willing to work together openly and honestly and put forward something that might be supportable by the community. Best, -M< From cgrundemann at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 16:49:18 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:49:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 14:30, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with > regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards > to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has > brought us to where we are today with this. I disagree with this characterization of the AC's current status regarding this draft policy. The majority of the AC believes that we have a workable policy with substantial community support. This is why it was recommended to the BoT for adoption. Many of us also believe that our work is not done with regard to transfer policy (both intra and inter regional). > I don't have a suggestion for you other than to perhaps assemble a > group of like-minded individuals who are willing to work together > openly and honestly and put forward something that might be > supportable by the community. The best thing to do at this point, IMHO, is to craft a new (follow-up) policy addressing any perceived risks. The reason this is best done in a distinct policy proposal is that many of the protections suggested in the discussion of 2011-1 should be applied to ALL transfers, not just inter-regional ones. If there are specific tweaks needed explicitly for inter-regional transfers, we may need two new proposals. I am happy to work on either or both with all interested parties (as is the rest of the AC from what I can tell). Cheers, ~Chris > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 12 17:07:15 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:07:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>>> I submit that >>>> 2011-1 as written violates fundamental expectations of any fair and >>>> equitable industry self-regulation. >>> >>> There's no reason why policy modifications can't be submitted between >>> now and Vancouver. >> >> During the last call debate, the majority of your Advisory Council >> colleagues were not interested in considering further changes to the >> draft regardless of the severity of the defects. You were 1 voice in >> 15. If 7 more are ready to address the defects, let's hear them speak. > > There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with > regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards > to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has > brought us to where we are today with this. Hi Marty, If the AC was prepared to facilitate it, I'd be perfectly willing to spearhead an alternate proposal that could be considered in parallel with 2011-1 in Vancouver. The concerns for a 2011-1-like proposal have been pretty thoroughly aired so it shouldn't be impossible to incorporate the ones which wouldn't block all possibility of an inter-region transfer process. And let the draft with the strongest consensus win. Still, I want to hear from others on the AC first. The Lucy with the football act during 2011-1 last call did not leave me disposed to invest the time. > I don't have a suggestion for you other than to perhaps assemble a > group of like-minded individuals who are willing to work together > openly and honestly and put forward something that might be > supportable by the community. Find me 7 more AC members or 9 more PPML subscribers willing to petition an alternate proposal on to Vancouver's agenda and I'll spend the effort it takes to produce a clear and concise proposal that broadly incorporates the 2011-1 dissenters' views. 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 Jan 12 17:09:46 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:09:46 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 14:30, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >> brought us to where we are today with this. > > I disagree with this characterization of the AC's current status > regarding this draft policy. The majority of the AC believes that we > have a workable policy with substantial community support. This is why > it was recommended to the BoT for adoption. Chris, Following the end of the bulk of the debate over draft 2011-1 on or about November 7, 9 people offered statements of opposition while only 8 offered statements of support. I know of no definition of consensus in which the simple majority of respondents can be opposed. 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 Jan 12 17:11:19 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:11:19 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 14:30, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >> brought us to where we are today with this. > > I disagree with this characterization of the AC's current status > regarding this draft policy. The majority of the AC believes that we > have a workable policy with substantial community support. This is why > it was recommended to the BoT for adoption. > > Many of us also believe that our work is not done with regard to > transfer policy (both intra and inter regional). > +1 >> I don't have a suggestion for you other than to perhaps assemble a >> group of like-minded individuals who are willing to work together >> openly and honestly and put forward something that might be >> supportable by the community. > > The best thing to do at this point, IMHO, is to craft a new > (follow-up) policy addressing any perceived risks. The reason this is > best done in a distinct policy proposal is that many of the > protections suggested in the discussion of 2011-1 should be applied to > ALL transfers, not just inter-regional ones. If there are specific > tweaks needed explicitly for inter-regional transfers, we may need two > new proposals. I am happy to work on either or both with all > interested parties (as is the rest of the AC from what I can tell). > Couldn't have said it better myself. +1 Owen From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 12 17:35:44 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:35:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote: > There are still two days left in the formal last call period for > ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. ?If you have any feedback for the AC > regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. >> >>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months The 3-month "need" period is based on folks dipping in to a nearly empty "free" pool. Transfers are not "free." I'd hate to see a nascent transfer market choked by a rule that wasn't meant for it. Please consider this a statement of SUPPORT for both proposals. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bensons at queuefull.net Thu Jan 12 17:53:47 2012 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:53:47 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: I support these proposals. Bill's comment below captures my essential feeling on the topic. Similar to Marty's sentiment, I also think that a longer window would be better. But these are a step in the right direction for ARIN. Cheers, -Benson On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:35 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> There are still two days left in the formal last call period for >> ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. If you have any feedback for the AC >> regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. >>> >>>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months > > The 3-month "need" period is based on folks dipping in to a nearly > empty "free" pool. Transfers are not "free." I'd hate to see a nascent > transfer market choked by a rule that wasn't meant for it. > > Please consider this a statement of SUPPORT for both proposals. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin --- I, Benson Schliesser, am an employee of Cisco Systems; however, opinions expressed in this email are my own views and not those of Cisco Systems or anybody else. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 19:48:21 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:48:21 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: > If the AC was prepared to facilitate it, I'd be perfectly willing to > spearhead an alternate proposal that could be considered in parallel > with 2011-1 in Vancouver. The concerns for a 2011-1-like proposal have > been pretty thoroughly aired so it shouldn't be impossible to > incorporate the ones which wouldn't block all possibility of an > inter-region transfer process. And let the draft with the strongest > consensus win. > > Still, I want to hear from others on the AC first. I've consistently supported taking policy proposals and adopting them as draft policies for adoption discussion at face to face meetings, regardless whether or not I support the text as proposed. I support the idea of inter-regional transfer policy, and support 2011-1, and would be happy to work with you to facilitate getting a proposal to Vancouver, whether it's an alternative to 2011-1 or a set of suggested amendments to it. If anyone else is interested on working on an alternative inter-regional transfer policy, I'd encourage you to speak up and/or contact Bill to let him know. > Find me 7 more AC members or 9 more PPML subscribers willing to > petition an alternate proposal on to Vancouver's agenda and I'll spend > the effort it takes to produce a clear and concise proposal that > broadly incorporates the 2011-1 dissenters' views. I think most people will want to see the proposal text before agreeing to support bringing it forward, but if we can come up with a proposal that matches your description, I don't think we'll have too much trouble bringing it forward for discussion. -Scott From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Thu Jan 12 20:11:22 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:11:22 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> On 01/12/12 14:35, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> There are still two days left in the formal last call period for >> ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12. If you have any feedback for the AC >> regarding these two Draft Policies please get it in soon. >>> >>>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months > > The 3-month "need" period is based on folks dipping in to a nearly > empty "free" pool. Transfers are not "free." I'd hate to see a nascent > transfer market choked by a rule that wasn't meant for it. > > Please consider this a statement of SUPPORT for both proposals. The 3-month need only applies to the ARIN free pool, not to 8.3 transfers, as NRPM Section 4.2.4.4 notes. 8.3 transfers already get a 12-month need window. The difference in the two need windows further distorts the market for IP addresses, unnecessarily inflating transfer market prices. It also prolongs the pathological situation where ARIN has a large free pool relative to other regions, presents the impression (wrongly, I agree) that ARIN is hoarding IP resources, and it places unnecessary burdens on ISPs attempting to legitimately get IP address space. Any concern that the ARIN pool would be raided by out-of-region entities is both a product of the current situation that shouldn't be prolonged and something which can be mitigated by placing time limits on transfers of recently-acquired address space. The free pool should match the transfer pool, and the free pool need should be liberalized, rather than the transfer pool being made more strict. As long as there are free addresses, ARIN should not attempt to protect them by giving incentives to use the transfer market and disincentives to come to ARIN for IPv4 resources. Until there is an effort to normalize the free pool and transfer policies, I can't support 2011-12, which would only increase the current distortions. michael From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 12 21:28:38 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:28:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> If the AC was prepared to facilitate it, I'd be perfectly willing to >> spearhead an alternate proposal that could be considered in parallel >> with 2011-1 in Vancouver. [..] I want to hear from others on the AC first. > > I've consistently supported taking policy proposals and adopting them > as draft policies for adoption discussion at face to face meetings, > regardless whether or not I support the text as proposed. Hi Scott, Yes, you have indeed, and from you I accept this statement. From 6 more reluctant members of the AC I'm looking for stronger words before I ask anyone to once again invest an effort in improving 2011-1. Regards, Bill > ? I support > the idea of inter-regional transfer policy, and support 2011-1, and > would be happy to work with you to facilitate getting a proposal to > Vancouver, whether it's an alternative to 2011-1 or a set of suggested > amendments to it. > > If anyone else is interested on working on an alternative > inter-regional transfer policy, I'd encourage you to speak up and/or > contact Bill to let him know. > >> Find me 7 more AC members or 9 more PPML subscribers willing to >> petition an alternate proposal on to Vancouver's agenda and I'll spend >> the effort it takes to produce a clear and concise proposal that >> broadly incorporates the 2011-1 dissenters' views. > > I think most people will want to see the proposal text before agreeing > to support bringing it forward, but if we can come up with a proposal > that matches your description, I don't think we'll have too much > trouble bringing it forward for discussion. > > -Scott -- 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 Thu Jan 12 22:02:47 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:02:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Following the end of the bulk of the debate over draft 2011-1 on or > about November 7, 9 people offered statements of opposition while only > 8 offered statements of support. I know of no definition of consensus > in which the simple majority of respondents can be opposed. Bill - Yourself excluded, the comments of opposition predominantly noted concern about the extent of edits that occurred after the Public Policy Meeting as compared to raising about the actual revised draft policy. It would be good to hear from everyone now regarding concerns that they have if draft policy ARIN-2011-1 is adopted, and I do appreciate you taking the time earlier today to summarize your concerns on the list. Similarly, it would be helpful for those who feel the draft policy has merit to express on the ppml list why ARIN-2011-1 adoption is important. Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: Inter-RIR Transfers remains under advisement with the ARIN Board of Trustees pending a final community discussion at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Board may adopt, reject, seek clarification from, or remand ARIN-2011-1 back to the Advisory Council subsequent to the community discussion, and therefore receiving feedback on merits or concerns with the revised draft policy is particularly important at this time. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cgrundemann at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 22:21:20 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:21:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 15:09, William Herrin wrote: > > Chris, > > Following the end of the bulk of the debate over draft 2011-1 on or > about November 7, 9 people offered statements of opposition while only > 8 offered statements of support. I know of no definition of consensus > in which the simple majority of respondents can be opposed. Hi Bill, When I make the claim of community agreement (rough consensus), I am weighing not just the last call comments but the entire history of discussion regarding this proposal, which stretches back somewhere around a year or so (through two public policy meetings and multiple PPML threads). Additionally, I don't typically expect many (if any) statements of support during last call (here or elsewhere). I see last call as a final chance for the opposed minority to make their case against a proposal. In this case I did not read any arguments compelling enough to change my support for 2011-1, which is why I voted to recommend it for adoption. Cheers, ~Chris > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From cgrundemann at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 22:51:57 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:51:57 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 18:11, Michael Sinatra wrote: > On 01/12/12 14:35, William Herrin wrote: >> >> The 3-month "need" period is based on folks dipping in to a nearly >> empty "free" pool. Transfers are not "free." I'd hate to see a nascent >> transfer market choked by a rule that wasn't meant for it. > The 3-month need only applies to the ARIN free pool, not to 8.3 transfers, > as NRPM Section 4.2.4.4 notes. ?8.3 transfers already get a 12-month need > window. +1, 2011-11 has nothing at all to do with the 3-month limit on the free pool. It removes slow start for transfers. ~Chris > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 12 22:51:50 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:51:50 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 15:09, William Herrin wrote: >> Following the end of the bulk of the debate over draft 2011-1 on or >> about November 7, 9 people offered statements of opposition while only >> 8 offered statements of support. I know of no definition of consensus >> in which the simple majority of respondents can be opposed. > > When I make the claim of community agreement (rough consensus), I am > weighing not just the last call comments but the entire history of > discussion regarding this proposal, which stretches back somewhere > around a year or so (through two public policy meetings and multiple > PPML threads). Well, that was one of your mistakes. If you want to know the sense of the community on a given proposal, you look at what folks say about the specific text of the proposal after the debate winds down. That part of the process -- after the text is more or less locked and the debate complete -- is generally called "last call." If you look earlier, you count opinions on the general idea instead of the specific proposal. The general idea always has inflated support compared to the detailed proposal. Of course it would: it's in the details that folks start finding things to dislike. "Last call" on 2011-1 was a debate on completely fresh text which ran into hundreds of messages. After that debate wound down, on or around November 7, we were all asked to offer our final statements of support of opposition -- which in a properly handled last call would have been the only thing to happen. A tally of those statements found the majority opposed the draft going to the board. > Additionally, I don't typically expect many (if any) statements of > support during last call (here or elsewhere). Well, that's also a mistake. Last call should be relatively quiet, the settleable issues having been settled, the various points of view having been aired, the arguments all tired out. You don't expect many statements of support BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXPECT MANY STATEMENTS AT ALL. If it goes to hundreds of messages, with real debate back and forth, you've probably screwed up and moved something to last call that isn't ready. And should almost certainly take the hint. 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 Jan 12 23:41:30 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:41:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Following the end of the bulk of the debate over draft 2011-1 on or >> about November 7, 9 people offered statements of opposition while only >> 8 offered statements of support. I know of no definition of consensus >> in which the simple majority of respondents can be opposed. > > Yourself excluded, the comments of opposition predominantly noted concern > about the extent of edits that occurred after the Public Policy Meeting as > compared to raising about the actual revised draft policy. John, Your statement to the board was that the revised policy draft, "may go beyond the scope of what many in the community expected." "Many," not "some" or "a few" or "Bill Herrin." You were right then. Don't change the story now. 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 Jan 12 23:45:06 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:45:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > +1, 2011-11 has nothing at all to do with the 3-month limit on the > free pool. It removes slow start for transfers. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_11.html "Rationale: An organization which is not able to obtain its initial IPv4 address assignment from ARIN post-runout would otherwise be limited to purchasing only a 3-month supply (because the language in 4.2.4.4 regarding 8.3 transfers is not triggered)." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From paul at redbarn.org Thu Jan 12 23:52:49 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:52:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 Martin Hannigan wrote: > There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with > regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards > to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has > brought us to where we are today with this. Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with ARIN. If you think we're not transparent enough, or if as you implied the other day you think that staff rather than the community is getting what it wants, then I and/or every other member of the Board of Trustees would like to hear those details from you. Or, share it publically. -- Paul Vixie From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 13 00:23:58 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:23:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 > Martin Hannigan wrote: >> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >> brought us to where we are today with this. > > Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with > ARIN. If you think we're not transparent enough, or if as you implied Paul, Three, possibly four AC members explain their views to the PPML on many or most drafts. The rest show up (mostly), vote and hide their own opinions behind the anonymous "we" published by the group. Is that transparent? Does it allow non-AC draft authors to anticipate and address concerns a particular AC member is likely to have? I don't happen to see transparency at the root of ARIN's problems but there is surely room for improvement. 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 Fri Jan 13 00:28:47 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:28:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2AEA6D4E-DABD-4E97-927C-311D7E5C55D7@arin.net> On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:41 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> Following the end of the bulk of the debate over draft 2011-1 on or >>> about November 7, 9 people offered statements of opposition while only >>> 8 offered statements of support. I know of no definition of consensus >>> in which the simple majority of respondents can be opposed. >> >> Yourself excluded, the comments of opposition predominantly noted concern >> about the extent of edits that occurred after the Public Policy Meeting as >> compared to raising about the actual revised draft policy. > > John, > > Your statement to the board was that the revised policy draft, "may go > beyond the scope of what many in the community expected." "Many," not > "some" or "a few" or "Bill Herrin." You were right then. Don't change > the story now. Bill - I indicated to the Board that the 2011-1 rewrite "may go beyond the scope of what many in the community expected of ?last call revisions?" This was not an indication of degrees of support by the community or of non-support, but a statement regarding potential concerns about the process that was followed. I further noted that the "resulting (draft policy) does not appear different in function and the rewrite was allowable per the PDP" You did an excellent job expressing your concerns today about the draft policy (resources going outside the ARIN region according to number policy not developed by the ARIN community & lack of a requirement for reciprocal transfer policies.) If there are other concerns about the draft policy, it would be good to get them posted to PPML. I do not know if either of the concerns you noted were considered by the ARIN AC or were somehow introduced as a result of the last call revisions, but I expect that the Board will want to know that substantially any material concerns raised by the community have been considered by the ARIN AC in their recommendation for adoption. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From paul at redbarn.org Fri Jan 13 00:40:04 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:40:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> Message-ID: <20120113054004.00003666@unknown> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:23:58 -0500 William Herrin wrote: > > Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on > > with ARIN. If you think we're not transparent enough, ... > > Paul, > > Three, possibly four AC members explain their views to the PPML on > many or most drafts. The rest show up (mostly), vote and hide their > own opinions behind the anonymous "we" published by the group. quite a bit of "collegiality" can look to outsiders like "solidarity" but is not necessarily that. > Is that transparent? Does it allow non-AC draft authors to anticipate > and address concerns a particular AC member is likely to have? operatively, if an AC member is not influencing outcomes in any way then they are probably a net loss to both the community and to the AC as well as to draft policy authors. as a lurker on the AC mailing list i do not think that we have any AC members like that. > I don't happen to see transparency at the root of ARIN's problems but > there is surely room for improvement. can you explore out loud the parts of the AC's job you think should be conducted (for transparency's sake) in full public view vs. those not? -- Paul Vixie From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 13 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201201130553.q0D5r2Rt002061@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 26 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 13 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 34.62% | 9 | 34.85% | 60999 | bill at herrin.us 15.38% | 4 | 16.48% | 28842 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 11.54% | 3 | 11.49% | 20106 | hannigan at gmail.com 7.69% | 2 | 8.56% | 14979 | owen at delong.com 3.85% | 1 | 4.04% | 7066 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net 3.85% | 1 | 3.90% | 6820 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 3.76% | 6580 | jcurran at arin.net 3.85% | 1 | 3.73% | 6536 | farmer at umn.edu 3.85% | 1 | 3.50% | 6126 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.85% | 1 | 3.42% | 5986 | bensons at queuefull.net 3.85% | 1 | 3.22% | 5642 | info at arin.net 3.85% | 1 | 3.06% | 5352 | paul at redbarn.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 26 |100.00% | 175034 | Total From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 13 01:34:56 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:34:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <20120113054004.00003666@unknown> References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <20120113054004.00003666@unknown> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:23:58 -0500 > William Herrin wrote: >> Three, possibly four AC members explain their views to the PPML on >> many or most drafts. The rest show up (mostly), vote and hide their >> own opinions behind the anonymous "we" published by the group. > > quite a bit of "collegiality" can look to outsiders like "solidarity" > but is not necessarily that. Hi Paul, That may be the first time I've heard "collegial silence" cast in a positive light. Usually it's referred to as the "wall of silence" or the "stone wall." >> Is that transparent? Does it allow non-AC draft authors to anticipate >> and address concerns a particular AC member is likely to have? > > operatively, if an AC member is not influencing outcomes in any way > then they are probably a net loss Too true. But that doesn't answer the question, does it? >> I don't happen to see transparency at the root of ARIN's problems but >> there is surely room for improvement. > > can you explore out loud the parts of the AC's job you think should be > conducted (for transparency's sake) in full public view vs. those not? I personally like the part where Scott Leibrand stands up after most AC meetings and says, "These were the most telling factors for me in each of the drafts we considered and that's why I voted as I did." If I was king for a day, his voice wouldn't be a lonely one. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Fri Jan 13 02:28:59 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:28:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <4F0FDD3B.4000804@burnttofu.net> On 01/12/12 20:45, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Chris Grundemann > wrote: >> +1, 2011-11 has nothing at all to do with the 3-month limit on the >> free pool. It removes slow start for transfers. > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_11.html > > "Rationale: > > An organization which is not able to obtain its initial IPv4 address > assignment from ARIN post-runout would otherwise be limited to > purchasing only a 3-month supply (because the language in 4.2.4.4 > regarding 8.3 transfers is not triggered)." As Chris pointed out, that's slow-start. The 3-month slow-start requirement has always been around. You specifically called out the 3-month need period that was based on "folks dipping into a nearly empty 'free' pool," which I could only reasonably interpret as being the portion of 4.2.4.4 that kicks in after the IANA free pool exhaustion, which does NOT apply to 8.3 transfers. But that's not really relevant. 2011-11 aside (and I don't really support it, but I am more concerned about 2011-12), 2011-12 increases the current distortions in the IPv4 market and creates undesirable incentives. I oppose it, and would only support a similar policy if it were tied to free pool liberalization. michael From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Fri Jan 13 03:12:56 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:12:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: PPML, Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of prop-151, and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use "limiting" to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based requirement, what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some revised text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round. Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to know if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format of the existing section 8.3. -Dan Alexander Changes to the original prop-151 text: - Restored a needs requirement - Eliminated the /12 cap - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA. - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block". - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the possibility of inter-RIR transfers. - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining Conditions. - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate sections. Resulting text: Replace Section 8.3 with 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region. In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may be transferred according to the following conditions. Conditions on source of the transfer: * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. * The source entity must not have received an allocation from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. * The minimum transfer size is a /24 Conditions on recipient of the transfer: * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA. * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies. Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies. Conditions on source of the transfer: * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 address resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration. * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. * The minimum transfer size is a /24 Conditions on recipient of the transfer: * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined by the policies of the receiving RIR. * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. * The minimum transfer size is a /24 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jan 13 07:03:00 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:03:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <684A287D-9835-4345-8FF0-0EF82FE131C6@corp.arin.net> On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > > The 3-month need only applies to the ARIN free pool, not to 8.3 transfers, as NRPM Section 4.2.4.4 notes. 8.3 transfers already get a 12-month need window. > > The difference in the two need windows further distorts the market for IP addresses, unnecessarily inflating transfer market prices. It also prolongs the pathological situation where ARIN has a large free pool relative to other regions, presents the impression (wrongly, I agree) that ARIN is hoarding IP resources, and it places unnecessary burdens on ISPs attempting to legitimately get IP address space. Any concern that the ARIN pool would be raided by out-of-region entities is both a product of the current situation that shouldn't be prolonged and something which can be mitigated by placing time limits on transfers of recently-acquired address space. > > The free pool should match the transfer pool, and the free pool need should be liberalized, rather than the transfer pool being made more strict. As long as there are free addresses, ARIN should not attempt to protect them by giving incentives to use the transfer market and disincentives to come to ARIN for IPv4 resources. > > Until there is an effort to normalize the free pool and transfer policies, I can't support 2011-12, which would only increase the current distortions. Micheal - Under the present policies, we are indeed seeing established service providers looking to obtain addresses from the transfer market due to the certainty of getting up to 1 years worth of their documented need. Since the current allocation policy only provides for obtaining space equal to 3 months of demand directly from ARIN's free pool at a time, it is not clear to some providers that they'll be able to rely on the free pool in the region to obtain the equivalent address space. If address space received by direct allocation from the regional free pool equalled what could be obtained via transfer from existing address holders, then indeed there'd be very little reason for a party in the region to obtain addresses via transfer (which would be a desirable goal from your viewpoint if I understand your messages correctly.) It also would provide for similar routing impact when allocated address blocks are introduced into the global routing table, as opposed to the present situation involving more smaller blocks allocated for the same total space received. When one looks at the history of the 3 month allocation policy, it was considered a way of preventing a disproportionate advantage for service providers who would otherwise receive 12 months of space near the end of the free pool when compared those who immediately follow. Do you feel that the benefits of limiting that advantage at runout are not worth the distortions creating with respect to the specified transfer policy? I ask solely to better understand your perspective, since there are interactions between the various policy goals here and the relative tradeoffs between them have to be considered. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 10:28:00 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:28:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <20120113054004.00003666@unknown> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 23:34, William Herrin wrote: > I personally like the part where Scott Leibrand stands up after most > AC meetings and says, "These were the most telling factors for me in > each of the drafts we considered and that's why I voted as I did." If > I was king for a day, his voice wouldn't be a lonely one. Scott does indeed do a wonderful job elucidating his arguments. Many AC members believe that their job is to judge community consensus, rather than to drive it. Others believe that since they get a vote and get to speak their mind in the AC meeting proceeding each vote, that also posting arguments to PPML is over-reaching. As such, those members choose not to post verbosely on PPML. All AC members contribute during our meetings and the AC meeting minutes are always available for your review: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html. FWIW, I tend to agree with both of those schools of thought and have tried to limit my posts on PPML since being elected to pointing out mistakes, providing clarity, requesting information, and lightly moderating community discussion. I have not done this perfectly, but it is the direction I try to lean. Cheers, ~Chris > 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. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 11:05:26 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:05:26 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great work, thanks Dan! Comments inline, below. Cheers, ~Chris On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > PPML, > > Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of prop-151, > and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use "limiting" > to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based requirement, > what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some revised > text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round. > Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to know > if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format of > the existing section 8.3. Yes, I think the bulleted format is preferable. In addition to my personal preference, I have received comments in the past wrt other policies from community members stating as much. > -Dan Alexander > > > Changes to the original prop-151 text: > > - Restored a needs requirement While I agree with this, I wonder if we should do this in two separate proposals. The intent of prop-151 (as per the title) is to limit the needs requirement on transfers, are we overstepping by ignoring that seemingly fundamental tenement of the originator's intent? I guess the fundamental question is: Do we need to have the needs discussion again or not? > - Eliminated the /12 cap > - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA. > - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block". > - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the > possibility of inter-RIR transfers. > - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining > Conditions. > - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate sections. I was initially opposed to this. Seeing it here I think it may provide clarity and future flexibility. However, I still think that it may be better to collapse the two parts into one section. In any case, I think the best path forward is to work out the policy bits and then decide on format. > Resulting text: > > Replace Section 8.3 with > > 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region. > > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may be > transferred according to the following conditions. > > Conditions on source of the transfer: > > * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the > IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to > the status of those resources. > * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 > address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 > months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's > IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. > * The source entity must not have received an allocation from > ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. I think this should include assignments and transfers, and should be limited to IPv4 addresses (ASNs and IPv6 should not disqualify an IPv4 number transfer). It would then read: "The source entity must not have received an assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer." > * The minimum transfer size is a /24 > > > Conditions on recipient of the transfer: > > * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of > IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA. > * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies. > > > Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients > > Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the > transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies. Do we need to add a reciprocity requirement here? If yes, perhaps this sentence would read: "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer, share compatible needs-based policies, and allow transfers both into and out of their region." > Conditions on source of the transfer: > > * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 address > resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not be > involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. > * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements > defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration. > * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive > any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period > of 12 > months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, > whichever occurs first. > * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an > allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. Again, I think this should include transfers and be limited to IPv4 resources, similar to above: "Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer." > * The minimum transfer size is a /24 > > > Conditions on recipient of the transfer: > > * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined > by the policies of the receiving RIR. > * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN > policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. > * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to a > 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. > * The minimum transfer size is a /24 > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From john.sweeting at twcable.com Fri Jan 13 11:37:39 2012 From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:37:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Really good feedback Chris and thanks to Dan as well. I believe that Dan has been working with Mike Burns and they have an understanding on the needs based issue but it would be great if Mike or Dan could confirm that. I would really like to have input from Bill H. on this so we can be sure we are working in the right direction. I welcome everyone to take the time to provide thoughts and input as the time line for Vancouver is starting to get very short. Thanks. ++ On 1/13/12 11:05 AM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: >Great work, thanks Dan! Comments inline, below. > >Cheers, >~Chris > >On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> PPML, >> >> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of >>prop-151, >> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use >>"limiting" >> to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based requirement, >> what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some revised >> text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round. >> Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to >>know >> if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format >>of >> the existing section 8.3. > >Yes, I think the bulleted format is preferable. In addition to my >personal preference, I have received comments in the past wrt other >policies from community members stating as much. > >> -Dan Alexander >> >> >> Changes to the original prop-151 text: >> >> - Restored a needs requirement > >While I agree with this, I wonder if we should do this in two separate >proposals. The intent of prop-151 (as per the title) is to limit the >needs requirement on transfers, are we overstepping by ignoring that >seemingly fundamental tenement of the originator's intent? I guess the >fundamental question is: Do we need to have the needs discussion again >or not? > >> - Eliminated the /12 cap >> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA. >> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block". >> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the >> possibility of inter-RIR transfers. >> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining >> Conditions. >> - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate sections. > >I was initially opposed to this. Seeing it here I think it may provide >clarity and future flexibility. However, I still think that it may be >better to collapse the two parts into one section. In any case, I >think the best path forward is to work out the policy bits and then >decide on format. > >> Resulting text: >> >> Replace Section 8.3 with >> >> 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region. >> >> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may >>be >> transferred according to the following conditions. >> >> Conditions on source of the transfer: >> >> * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the >> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to >> the status of those resources. >> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 >> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 >> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's >> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. >> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from >> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. > >I think this should include assignments and transfers, and should be >limited to IPv4 addresses (ASNs and IPv6 should not disqualify an IPv4 >number transfer). It would then read: > >"The source entity must not have received an assignment, allocation, >or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior >to the transfer." > >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >> >> >> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >> >> * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of >> IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA. >> * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies. >> >> >> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >> >> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >> transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies. > >Do we need to add a reciprocity requirement here? If yes, perhaps this >sentence would read: > >"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to >the transfer, share compatible needs-based policies, and allow >transfers both into and out of their region." > >> Conditions on source of the transfer: >> >> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 >>address >> resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not >>be >> involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. >> * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements >> defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration. >> * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive >> any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a >>period >> of 12 >> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, >> whichever occurs first. >> * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >> allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the >>transfer. > >Again, I think this should include transfers and be limited to IPv4 >resources, similar to above: > >"Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN >for the 12 months prior to the transfer." > >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >> >> >> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >> >> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be >>defined >> by the policies of the receiving RIR. >> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN >> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. >> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to >>a >> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >-- >@ChrisGrundemann >weblog.chrisgrundemann.com >www.burningwiththebush.com >www.theIPv6experts.net >www.coisoc.org >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. From john.sweeting at twcable.com Fri Jan 13 12:08:07 2012 From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:08:07 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Mike. Just wanted to clarify that we would like to hear from Bill H. to ensure we are addressing his concerns and his thoughts on that. Thanks On 1/13/12 11:53 AM, "Mike Burns" wrote: >Yes, it's been watered down with the requirement for a needs test by >ARIN, >this is something I don't like, but still the proposal has some >protections >of the free pool which I think are necessary in order to get 2011-1 or >something similar passed. > >One of the underlying reasons for my proposal was an attempt to bring >together legacy and non-legacy addresses by reducing RSA restrictions, >but >this may be biting off too much in one proposal. > >I support free(er) trade of IPv4 addresses, and the proposal as modified >still moves us in that direction. > >I tried to introduce the idea of restrictions on accessing the free pool >for >those involved in the transfer market, because of the risk of plundering >the >free pool for profit. > >I support the modified proposal and thank Dan for his efforts to move it >along through compromise. > >Regards, >Mike > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sweeting, John >Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:37 AM >To: Chris Grundemann ; Alexander, Daniel >Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for >IPv4transfers > >Really good feedback Chris and thanks to Dan as well. I believe that Dan >has been working with Mike Burns and they have an understanding on the >needs based issue but it would be great if Mike or Dan could confirm that. >I would really like to have input from Bill H. on this so we can be sure >we are working in the right direction. I welcome everyone to take the time >to provide thoughts and input as the time line for Vancouver is starting >to get very short. Thanks. > > >++ > >On 1/13/12 11:05 AM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > >>Great work, thanks Dan! Comments inline, below. >> >>Cheers, >>~Chris >> >>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12, Alexander, Daniel >> wrote: >>> PPML, >>> >>> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of >>>prop-151, >>> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use >>>"limiting" >>> to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based >>>requirement, >>> what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some >>>revised >>> text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round. >>> Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to >>>know >>> if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format >>>of >>> the existing section 8.3. >> >>Yes, I think the bulleted format is preferable. In addition to my >>personal preference, I have received comments in the past wrt other >>policies from community members stating as much. >> >>> -Dan Alexander >>> >>> >>> Changes to the original prop-151 text: >>> >>> - Restored a needs requirement >> >>While I agree with this, I wonder if we should do this in two separate >>proposals. The intent of prop-151 (as per the title) is to limit the >>needs requirement on transfers, are we overstepping by ignoring that >>seemingly fundamental tenement of the originator's intent? I guess the >>fundamental question is: Do we need to have the needs discussion again >>or not? >> >>> - Eliminated the /12 cap >>> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA. >>> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block". >>> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the >>> possibility of inter-RIR transfers. >>> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining >>> Conditions. >>> - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate >>>sections. >> >>I was initially opposed to this. Seeing it here I think it may provide >>clarity and future flexibility. However, I still think that it may be >>better to collapse the two parts into one section. In any case, I >>think the best path forward is to work out the policy bits and then >>decide on format. >> >>> Resulting text: >>> >>> Replace Section 8.3 with >>> >>> 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region. >>> >>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may >>>be >>> transferred according to the following conditions. >>> >>> Conditions on source of the transfer: >>> >>> * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the >>> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to >>> the status of those resources. >>> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 >>> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 >>> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's >>> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. >>> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from >>> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. >> >>I think this should include assignments and transfers, and should be >>limited to IPv4 addresses (ASNs and IPv6 should not disqualify an IPv4 >>number transfer). It would then read: >> >>"The source entity must not have received an assignment, allocation, >>or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior >>to the transfer." >> >>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >>> >>> >>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >>> >>> * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply >>>of >>> IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA. >>> * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies. >>> >>> >>> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >>> >>> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >>> transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies. >> >>Do we need to add a reciprocity requirement here? If yes, perhaps this >>sentence would read: >> >>"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to >>the transfer, share compatible needs-based policies, and allow >>transfers both into and out of their region." >> >>> Conditions on source of the transfer: >>> >>> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 >>>address >>> resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not >>>be >>> involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. >>> * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements >>> defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration. >>> * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to >>>receive >>> any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a >>>period >>> of 12 >>> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 >>>space, >>> whichever occurs first. >>> * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >>> allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the >>>transfer. >> >>Again, I think this should include transfers and be limited to IPv4 >>resources, similar to above: >> >>"Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >>assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN >>for the 12 months prior to the transfer." >> >>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >>> >>> >>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >>> >>> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be >>>defined >>> by the policies of the receiving RIR. >>> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN >>> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. >>> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to >>>a >>> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. >>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >>-- >>@ChrisGrundemann >>weblog.chrisgrundemann.com >>www.burningwiththebush.com >>www.theIPv6experts.net >>www.coisoc.org >>_______________________________________________ >>PPML >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > >This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable >proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to >copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely >for >the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are >not >the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any >dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the >contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may >be >unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the >sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of >this >E-mail and any printout. >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 13 12:11:00 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:11:00 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of prop-151, > and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? > > Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients > > Conditions on recipient of the transfer: > > * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be defined > by the policies of the receiving RIR. > * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN > policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. > * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to a > 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. > * The minimum transfer size is a /24 Hi Dan, I think linchpin of the problem stems from the "destination RIR sets the rules" approach. The RIRs are not the same. ARIN has one of the strictest set of requirements on address recipients. With ARIN and outregion users bidding in the same pool of sellers, this places ARIN-region registrants at a distinct disadvantage. In order to keep "destination RIR sets the rules" without harming every would-be registrant in the ARIN region, the draft would need to do one of two things: 1. Make the "compatible policy" requirements stricter: destination RIR must have needs based policies of at least comparable strictness versus ARIN. 2. Race to the bottom: remove all but the most minimal requirements on an ARIN region recipient. Assume that the cash payment will be sufficient to assure efficient utilization. #1 is a terrible idea. If we want to set recipient policy globally, we should do it globally. Not by setting local policy which pressures another RIR to do things our way. #2 is not the worst idea in the world but IMHO it's very premature. So, we don't do #1 or #2. And we don't knowingly harm ARIN-region recipients. Thus we can't reasonably use "destination RIR sets the rules." QED. ARIN, as the source RIR, will have to set at least enough rules on the out-region recipient to avoid harmfully disadvantaging ARIN constituents. 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 Fri Jan 13 13:05:05 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:05:05 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods Message-ID: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods 2. Proposal Originator 1. name: Owen DeLong 2. e-mail: owen at delong.com 3. telephone: 408-890-7992 4. organization: Hurricane Electric 3. Proposal Version: 0.9 4. Date: 13 January, 2012 5. Proposal type: modify 6. Policy term: permanent 7. Policy statement: Amend the NRPM as follows: Replace section 4.2.2.1.3 as follows: 4.2.1.3 Justification Period Provide detailed information showing specifically how a /20 (or more) will be utilized within 12 months. Replace 4.2.2.2.2 as follows: 4.2.2.2.2 Justification Period Provide information showing that the requested IP address space will be utilized within 12 months and demonstrating an intent to announce the requested space in a multihomed fashion. Delete section 4.2.4.3 Replace section 4.2.4.4 as follows: 4.2.4.4 Justification Period An organization may request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses. In the event that section 8 is modified prior to adoption of this change to the NRPM, section 8 shall be revised as necessary to set the justification period for all transfers to 12 months. 8. Rationale: As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects this is having on the transfer market. 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate END OF TEMPLATE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 13 13:19:59 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:19:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <20120113054004.00003666@unknown> Message-ID: <9011532A-75D2-401F-993C-D1B879FB77DE@delong.com> On Jan 13, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 23:34, William Herrin wrote: > >> I personally like the part where Scott Leibrand stands up after most >> AC meetings and says, "These were the most telling factors for me in >> each of the drafts we considered and that's why I voted as I did." If >> I was king for a day, his voice wouldn't be a lonely one. > > Scott does indeed do a wonderful job elucidating his arguments. Many > AC members believe that their job is to judge community consensus, > rather than to drive it. Others believe that since they get a vote and > get to speak their mind in the AC meeting proceeding each vote, that > also posting arguments to PPML is over-reaching. As such, those > members choose not to post verbosely on PPML. All AC members > contribute during our meetings and the AC meeting minutes are always > available for your review: > https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html. > As most know, I both make my opinions known on PPML and vote in the AC meetings. What may or may not be obvious is that what I state on PPML is not necessarily in line with how I vote as a member of the AC. On PPML, I speak my mind as a member of the community and argue my own opinion on the matter. When it comes time to vote as a member of the AC, it's more complicated. My vote as a member of the AC is intended to represent the community consensus and the community's interests (usually aligned, but, not always). My own personal feelings about the proposal get little, if any weight in my decision when it comes to my vote on the proposal as an AC member. Anyone who chooses to review my voting record will see that I have, in fact, voted in favor of proposals I have opposed personally and that I have voted against proposals that I have personally supported in the past. Usually, I will explain my vote to the community when I believe there is value to doing so. If the community feels I should explain my votes more consistently or more often, I am certainly open to doing so. Perhaps it would be good for ARIN to conduct a survey asking the community if they generally would prefer the individual members of the AC to be more expressive of their views during the policy development process and/or whether they would like to see all AC members explain their votes in a manner similar to what Scott usually does. Owen From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Fri Jan 13 13:34:55 2012 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (aaron at wholesaleinternet.net) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:34:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> I think consistancy is always good and I support this proposal. I do have one question, Owen. What damage specifically do you think the current 3 month / 24 month discrepency is having on the transfer market? Aaron > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification > periods > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Owen DeLong > 2. e-mail: owen at delong.com > 3. telephone: 408-890-7992 > 4. organization: Hurricane Electric > 3. Proposal Version: 0.9 > 4. Date: 13 January, 2012 > 5. Proposal type: modify > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > > Amend the NRPM as follows: > Replace section 4.2.2.1.3 as follows: > 4.2.1.3 Justification Period > Provide detailed information showing specifically how a /20 (or more) will > be utilized within 12 months. > > Replace 4.2.2.2.2 as follows: > 4.2.2.2.2 Justification Period > Provide information showing that the requested IP address space will be > utilized within 12 months and demonstrating an intent to announce the > requested space in a multihomed fashion. > > Delete section 4.2.4.3 > > Replace section 4.2.4.4 as follows: > 4.2.4.4 Justification Period > > An organization may request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses. > > In the event that section 8 is modified prior to adoption of this change > to the NRPM, section 8 shall be revised as necessary to set the > justification period for all transfers to 12 months. > 8. Rationale: > As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last > call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between > free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to > normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects > this is having on the transfer market. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > END OF TEMPLATE > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Loralee.Wood at circles.com Fri Jan 13 13:59:39 2012 From: Loralee.Wood at circles.com (Wood, Loralee) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:59:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] UNSUBSCRIBE Message-ID: <5F0B9F1A33035A4E9F92DD97E6A9F7C80187F742@CHEEXCHANGE.circles.local> UNSUBSCRIBE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message contains information that may be confidential and proprietary. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message immediately. ============================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Fri Jan 13 15:30:46 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:30:46 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F109476.6000407@arin.net> ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. 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) ## * ## ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods On 1/13/12 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods > 2. Proposal Originator > 1. name: Owen DeLong > 2. e-mail:owen at delong.com > 3. telephone: 408-890-7992 > 4. organization: Hurricane Electric > 3. Proposal Version: 0.9 > 4. Date: 13 January, 2012 > 5. Proposal type: modify > 6. Policy term: permanent > 7. Policy statement: > > Amend the NRPM as follows: > Replace section 4.2.2.1.3 as follows: > 4.2.1.3 Justification Period > Provide detailed information showing specifically how a /20 (or more) will be utilized within 12 months. > > Replace 4.2.2.2.2 as follows: > 4.2.2.2.2 Justification Period > Provide information showing that the requested IP address space will be utilized within 12 months and demonstrating an intent to announce the requested space in a multihomed fashion. > > Delete section 4.2.4.3 > > Replace section 4.2.4.4 as follows: > 4.2.4.4 Justification Period > > An organization may request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses. > > In the event that section 8 is modified prior to adoption of this change to the NRPM, section 8 shall be revised as necessary to set the justification period for all transfers to 12 months. > 8. Rationale: > As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects this is having on the transfer market. > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > END OF TEMPLATE > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 13 16:06:36 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:06:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification > periods Hi Owen, I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers, significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much less than with free pool consumption. Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate 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 owen at delong.com Fri Jan 13 17:15:53 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:15:53 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> Message-ID: <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> I think it is skewing prices (more expensive) and creating incentives for people to use the transfer market rather than obtaining space from ARIN while there is still a free pool. This is harmful in multiple ways: First, making things more expensive is rarely beneficial to the community as a whole. Second, making the ARIN free pool last artificially longer will only further the disconnect between ARIN runout and runout in the rest of the world. We're already seeing negative impacts from this and I believe that situation will get worse if we continue to allow the skew to expand. Owen On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:34 AM, aaron at wholesaleinternet.net wrote: > I think consistancy is always good and I support this proposal. I do have > one question, Owen. > > What damage specifically do you think the current 3 month / 24 month > discrepency is having on the transfer market? > > Aaron > > > >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >> >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification >> periods >> 2. Proposal Originator >> 1. name: Owen DeLong >> 2. e-mail: owen at delong.com >> 3. telephone: 408-890-7992 >> 4. organization: Hurricane Electric >> 3. Proposal Version: 0.9 >> 4. Date: 13 January, 2012 >> 5. Proposal type: modify >> 6. Policy term: permanent >> 7. Policy statement: >> >> Amend the NRPM as follows: >> Replace section 4.2.2.1.3 as follows: >> 4.2.1.3 Justification Period >> Provide detailed information showing specifically how a /20 (or more) will >> be utilized within 12 months. >> >> Replace 4.2.2.2.2 as follows: >> 4.2.2.2.2 Justification Period >> Provide information showing that the requested IP address space will be >> utilized within 12 months and demonstrating an intent to announce the >> requested space in a multihomed fashion. >> >> Delete section 4.2.4.3 >> >> Replace section 4.2.4.4 as follows: >> 4.2.4.4 Justification Period >> >> An organization may request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses. >> >> In the event that section 8 is modified prior to adoption of this change >> to the NRPM, section 8 shall be revised as necessary to set the >> justification period for all transfers to 12 months. >> 8. Rationale: >> As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last >> call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between >> free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to >> normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects >> this is having on the transfer market. >> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate >> >> END OF TEMPLATE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Fri Jan 13 17:37:15 2012 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:37:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F10B21B.7070007@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 1/13/12 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... making the ARIN free pool last artificially longer will only further ... a. This is a policy question, and everything we do, everything, has exhaustion consequences, one way or another. There is no "artificial", no "natural" no nothing but policy choices and the public interest and engineering benefits and costs to evaluate. b. Will only further _what_? Eric From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 13 17:51:15 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:51:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F10B21B.7070007@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> <4F10B21B.7070007@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Second, making the ARIN free pool last artificially longer will only further >> the disconnect between ARIN runout and runout in the rest of the world. > b. Will only further _what_? ARIN having a free pool while APNIC does not places political pressure on ARIN to share. This in turn makes policy decisions about things like inter-region transfers more difficult. IMHO, that's a lousy reason to encourage the exhaustion of the ARIN free pool. But, it is a reason. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 17:57:56 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:57:56 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: <4F0FDD3B.4000804@burnttofu.net> References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> <4F0F84BA.7010408@burnttofu.net> <4F0FDD3B.4000804@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <4F10B6F4.7030103@matthew.at> On 1/12/2012 11:28 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > On 01/12/12 20:45, William Herrin wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Chris Grundemann >> wrote: >>> +1, 2011-11 has nothing at all to do with the 3-month limit on the >>> free pool. It removes slow start for transfers. >> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_11.html >> >> "Rationale: >> >> An organization which is not able to obtain its initial IPv4 address >> assignment from ARIN post-runout would otherwise be limited to >> purchasing only a 3-month supply (because the language in 4.2.4.4 >> regarding 8.3 transfers is not triggered)." > > As Chris pointed out, that's slow-start. The 3-month slow-start > requirement has always been around. You specifically called out the > 3-month need period that was based on "folks dipping into a nearly > empty 'free' pool," which I could only reasonably interpret as being > the portion of 4.2.4.4 that kicks in after the IANA free pool > exhaustion, which does NOT apply to 8.3 transfers. > > But that's not really relevant. 2011-11 aside (and I don't really > support it, but I am more concerned about 2011-12), 2011-12 increases > the current distortions in the IPv4 market and creates undesirable > incentives. I oppose it, and would only support a similar policy if > it were tied to free pool liberalization. I proposed the original text for 2011-12. I would *also* like to see the free pool liberalized, but the "sky-is-falling protect-the-supply" crowd is much more opposed to that than transfers, so I figured we'd just do one at a time. And, frankly, I thought that by the time 2011-12 passed we'd actually be a lot closer to runout, so it wouldn't matter anyway. Matthew Kaufman From michael at rancid.berkeley.edu Fri Jan 13 17:41:40 2012 From: michael at rancid.berkeley.edu (Michael Sinatra) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:41:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification >> periods > > Hi Owen, > > I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. > > The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress > frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers, > significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently > suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based > consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much > less than with free pool consumption. > > Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not > appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly > rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for > transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here. Hi Bill: My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation thereof. I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it :). I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free pool from the discussions in Philadelphia. To be honest, there are a lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion. I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool. As Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used. The fact that Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his opinion, BTW. Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at this point. That hurts everyone. If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him for submitting it. (I was going to propose the same thing during the Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy. Sorry about that.) michael From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 13 18:15:45 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:15:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: >?I am not interested in > speeding the run-out, but I am also not interested in the continued > unnecessary protection of the free pool. Hi Michael, ARIN policies shouldn't result in new organizations being barred from obtaining their own IP addresses. Practically speaking, that means that individual /24's must be routinely available on the transfer market or they must be available via the free pool. They're not yet routinely available on the transfer market... to date it has been predominantly concerned with transfers of large amounts of address space. When that changes, I expect my concerns about preserving the remaining free pool will evaporate. When it changes. > As Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 > addresses should be used. ?The fact that Geoff comes from the the APNIC > region does not skew my view of his opinion, BTW. Geoff offers some of the best researched information available on the subject of IP address consumption. He's always worth listening to. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 17:52:39 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:52:39 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-11 and ARIN-2011-12 - Last Call In-Reply-To: References: <4EF0A1A3.80202@arin.net> <4F0380AC.9090301@umn.edu> <4F0E1861.30800@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4F10B5B7.1050602@matthew.at> On 1/12/2012 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > I support these proposals. > > Bill's comment below captures my essential feeling on the topic. > > Similar to Marty's sentiment, I also think that a longer window would be better. But these are a step in the right direction for ARIN. > +1 on all the above (not surprisingly) Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 18:22:42 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:22:42 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F10BCC2.3000004@matthew.at> I'd support this if it was >12 months. At 12 months it'd just roll back the proposal to at least move the non-free-pool to 24 months. But really, they're two different animals. The free pool (in theory) you can come back to when the time is up. The paid transfer on the other hand, you have no idea if there will be sellers, what the prices will be, etc. So you really need to be sure you're buying enough when spending that much money. So the only argument in favor of extending the free pool timing is that you believe you *can't* come back to the free pool, or that somehow people feel better buying 12 months now instead of getting free pool every 3 months for the next 12 months. What I *think* is really going on is that the buyers on the current transfer market are buying way more than 3 or even 12 months worth of space, but the price paid is worth fighting to have the transfer recognized. Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 18:24:18 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:24:18 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F10BD22.2020201@matthew.at> On 1/13/2012 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification >> periods > Hi Owen, > > I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. > > The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress > frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. This of course is why I support liberalizing the free pool. If we're going to strip mine the whole mountain anyway, we might as well do it before the winter. Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 18:25:30 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:25:30 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F10BD6A.7010806@matthew.at> On 1/13/2012 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I think it is skewing prices (more expensive) and creating incentives for people > to use the transfer market rather than obtaining space from ARIN while there is > still a free pool. > > This is harmful in multiple ways: > > First, making things more expensive is rarely beneficial to the community as > a whole. One could argue that the current transfer prices are demonstrating how much it will cost to NOT move to IPv6. > > Second, making the ARIN free pool last artificially longer will only further > the disconnect between ARIN runout and runout in the rest of the world. > We're already seeing negative impacts from this and I believe that situation > will get worse if we continue to allow the skew to expand. Agree strongly here. So why not 24 months for both instead of 12? Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 18:33:22 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:33:22 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F10BF42.9010908@matthew.at> What might be useful in conjunction with this might be one of the wash-rinse-repeat preventions we discussed at lunchtime during the last meeting. Like "addresses received under this policy may not be transferred for months". Matthew Kaufman From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 13 19:44:44 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:44:44 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2012, at 3:15 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Michael Sinatra > wrote: >> I am not interested in >> speeding the run-out, but I am also not interested in the continued >> unnecessary protection of the free pool. > > Hi Michael, > > ARIN policies shouldn't result in new organizations being barred from > obtaining their own IP addresses. Practically speaking, that means > that individual /24's must be routinely available on the transfer > market or they must be available via the free pool. They're not yet > routinely available on the transfer market... to date it has been > predominantly concerned with transfers of large amounts of address > space. > Are they not available, or, are people who need individual /24s not bothering to seek them via transfer? I would argue that under the current situation, there is absolutely no possible reason a rational person would even consider using a transfer to obtain a single /24 within ARIN policy since it is cheaper and easier to get it from the ARIN free pool so long as there are any left in the free pool. As near as I can tell, so far, all of the transfers have been the result of organizations either seeking to make the best of bad debt or by organizations seeking to get longer justification periods than are available to them under allocation policy. I think that if an organization wanted a /24 on the transfer market, they could easily find one to transfer. I don't think that availability is the missing side here. The only way in which this proposal liberalizes the free pool consumption is: 1. Repealing the 3-month justification period for ISP allocations. There seems to be general outcry from the community for this to occur. 2. Extending the initial slow-start term to 12 months. Either limiting organizations with whom ARIN has limited experience to 3 months is a good idea or it isn't. Whether it is or not does not, IMHO, change depending on whether they are obtaining those addresses via transfer or from the ARIN free pool. > When that changes, I expect my concerns about preserving the remaining > free pool will evaporate. When it changes. > Supporting a change to regulations on the free pool only after conditions which amount to "once the free pool is completely exhausted" seems rather a hollow statement at best. > >> As Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 >> addresses should be used. The fact that Geoff comes from the the APNIC >> region does not skew my view of his opinion, BTW. > > Geoff offers some of the best researched information available on the > subject of IP address consumption. He's always worth listening to. > Yes, I'd highly recommend that you review his presentation from APNIC Busan and/or ARIN Philadelphia (he gave roughly the same presentation to both audiences). Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 13 19:46:32 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:46:32 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F10BD6A.7010806@matthew.at> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> <4F10BD6A.7010806@matthew.at> Message-ID: <80CF8A1D-0ACB-47E7-8FED-1B0080EFFDF8@delong.com> On Jan 13, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 1/13/2012 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I think it is skewing prices (more expensive) and creating incentives for people >> to use the transfer market rather than obtaining space from ARIN while there is >> still a free pool. >> >> This is harmful in multiple ways: >> >> First, making things more expensive is rarely beneficial to the community as >> a whole. > > One could argue that the current transfer prices are demonstrating how much it will cost to NOT move to IPv6. > >> >> Second, making the ARIN free pool last artificially longer will only further >> the disconnect between ARIN runout and runout in the rest of the world. >> We're already seeing negative impacts from this and I believe that situation >> will get worse if we continue to allow the skew to expand. > > Agree strongly here. So why not 24 months for both instead of 12? > > Matthew Kaufman If there is community support to make that change, it can easily be made during the PDP. However, I think that 12 is a reasonable compromise for now. I would not support changing it to 24 months, but, if there is strong community support for doing so, I will accept it. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 13 19:53:36 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:53:36 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F10BCC2.3000004@matthew.at> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F10BCC2.3000004@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I'd support this if it was >12 months. At 12 months it'd just roll back the proposal to at least move the non-free-pool to 24 months. > For transfers, yes. However, it also rolls the free pool forward to 12 months. > But really, they're two different animals. The free pool (in theory) you can come back to when the time is up. The paid transfer on the other hand, you have no idea if there will be sellers, what the prices will be, etc. So you really need to be sure you're buying enough when spending that much money. > At this point, you don't know whether there will be a free pool or not, either. > So the only argument in favor of extending the free pool timing is that you believe you *can't* come back to the free pool, or that somehow people feel better buying 12 months now instead of getting free pool every 3 months for the next 12 months. > Which has been shown to be the case. > What I *think* is really going on is that the buyers on the current transfer market are buying way more than 3 or even 12 months worth of space, but the price paid is worth fighting to have the transfer recognized. > I'm not sure I understand this statement. Owen From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jan 13 20:29:19 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:29:19 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F10BCC2.3000004@matthew.at> Message-ID: <4F10DA6F.8070009@matthew.at> On 1/13/2012 4:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> What I *think* is really going on is that the buyers on the current transfer market are buying way more than 3 or even 12 months worth of space, but the price paid is worth fighting to have the transfer recognized. >> > I'm not sure I understand this statement. > If I want some address space, I go write up an application and apply and see how much I get. But if I just paid $1M for a /16, then I have $1M riding on making sure my application justifies a /16. I think that incentive results in more carefully worded applications, as it were. Matthew Kaufman From kevinb at thewire.ca Fri Jan 13 20:57:08 2012 From: kevinb at thewire.ca (Kevin Blumberg) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:57:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> <4F10B21B.7070007@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E701088F3B@SBS2011.thewireinc.local> William, What I am seeing is people are not going to the free pool and instead optimizing the space they currently have well beyond the 80 percent justification. A 3 month allotment while good on paper has had a negative effect to the region. I would be in support of any proposal that removes the 3 months as I see it as actually harming more than helping. We need certainty with the few remaining allocations from the free pool and we need to bring our region in line with the draw rate of other RIR free pools to improve IPv6 adoption. My 2 cents. Kevin Blumberg -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 5:51 PM To: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Second, making the ARIN free pool last artificially longer will only further >> the disconnect between ARIN runout and runout in the rest of the world. > b. Will only further _what_? ARIN having a free pool while APNIC does not places political pressure on ARIN to share. This in turn makes policy decisions about things like inter-region transfers more difficult. IMHO, that's a lousy reason to encourage the exhaustion of the ARIN free pool. But, it is a reason. 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 kevinb at thewire.ca Fri Jan 13 21:02:44 2012 From: kevinb at thewire.ca (Kevin Blumberg) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:02:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F10BCC2.3000004@matthew.at> Message-ID: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E701088F74@SBS2011.thewireinc.local> Owen, I understand the reluctance of moving the transfer market to 24 months due to abuse. One of the reasons most often given was that it would allow a startup with no track to go and acquire space based on useless data sets. Would you be more inclined to support a 2 tier approach. * 12 Month transfer is the standard * 24 Month transfer for organizations in region that can show usage over the previous 24 months. Thanks, Kevin Blumberg -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:54 PM To: matthew at matthew.at Cc: policy; arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods On Jan 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I'd support this if it was >12 months. At 12 months it'd just roll back the proposal to at least move the non-free-pool to 24 months. > For transfers, yes. However, it also rolls the free pool forward to 12 months. > But really, they're two different animals. The free pool (in theory) you can come back to when the time is up. The paid transfer on the other hand, you have no idea if there will be sellers, what the prices will be, etc. So you really need to be sure you're buying enough when spending that much money. > At this point, you don't know whether there will be a free pool or not, either. > So the only argument in favor of extending the free pool timing is that you believe you *can't* come back to the free pool, or that somehow people feel better buying 12 months now instead of getting free pool every 3 months for the next 12 months. > Which has been shown to be the case. > What I *think* is really going on is that the buyers on the current transfer market are buying way more than 3 or even 12 months worth of space, but the price paid is worth fighting to have the transfer recognized. > I'm not sure I understand this statement. 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 owen at delong.com Fri Jan 13 21:54:40 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:54:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E701088F74@SBS2011.thewireinc.local> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F10BCC2.3000004@matthew.at> <7E7773B523E82C478734E793E58F69E701088F74@SBS2011.thewireinc.local> Message-ID: <2231EA33-4692-4B16-9256-8D4B1FA8E83C@delong.com> On Jan 13, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote: > Owen, > > I understand the reluctance of moving the transfer market to 24 months due to abuse. One of the reasons most often given was that it would allow a startup with no track to go and acquire space based on useless data sets. > > Would you be more inclined to support a 2 tier approach. > > * 12 Month transfer is the standard > * 24 Month transfer for organizations in region that can show usage over the previous 24 months. > At this point, only if we applied the same tiered approach to the free pool. Owen > > Thanks, > > Kevin Blumberg > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:54 PM > To: matthew at matthew.at > Cc: policy; arin-ppml at arin.net List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods > > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > >> I'd support this if it was >12 months. At 12 months it'd just roll back the proposal to at least move the non-free-pool to 24 months. >> > > For transfers, yes. However, it also rolls the free pool forward to 12 months. > >> But really, they're two different animals. The free pool (in theory) you can come back to when the time is up. The paid transfer on the other hand, you have no idea if there will be sellers, what the prices will be, etc. So you really need to be sure you're buying enough when spending that much money. >> > > At this point, you don't know whether there will be a free pool or not, either. > >> So the only argument in favor of extending the free pool timing is that you believe you *can't* come back to the free pool, or that somehow people feel better buying 12 months now instead of getting free pool every 3 months for the next 12 months. >> > Which has been shown to be the case. > >> What I *think* is really going on is that the buyers on the current transfer market are buying way more than 3 or even 12 months worth of space, but the price paid is worth fighting to have the transfer recognized. >> > > I'm not sure I understand this statement. > > 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 ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Fri Jan 13 22:09:14 2012 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:09:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <58903d7c652364732a9d921d1822810d.squirrel@mail.wholesaleinternet.net> <55F6140B-FA7A-4B14-9A92-C2FB1972FA31@delong.com> <4F10B21B.7070007@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Message-ID: <4F10F1DA.3060202@abenaki.wabanaki.net> On 1/13/12 5:51 PM, William Herrin wrote: > the disconnect between ARIN runout and runout in the rest of the world. Thanks for the effort at clarification Bill. The adoption of regions and delegation of policy to regional bodies has resulted in distinct policies. The policies are "disconnected". A separate policy choice of a single policy (and single interpretation of that policy) would create "connected" policies. Owen's note characterized a policy as "artificial" and claimed a adverse consequence of regional policy difference. Does the fact situation (ARIN and AFNIC having free pools and APNIC not) have allocation consequences? Of course. And I agree with your concluding comment. Eric From jmaimon at chl.com Sun Jan 15 19:55:19 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:55:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods > 8. Rationale: > > As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects this is having on the transfer market. > > 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate > > > END OF TEMPLATE Opposed. Three month window is one of the few things (of many proposed) ARIN did that resembled a sane response to an impending resource starvation issue. Undoing it because it is working (surprisingly well) as designed is silly, foolish, destructive and harmful to IPv4, which apparently people seem to still want to use. Was it only a good idea when you thought it would not have any effect or that it would hasten the demise of IPv4 and help push people to use IPv6, whether they wanted to or not, whether they were ready or not? I reject again the notion that keeps rearing its ugly head that for IPv6 to thrive we must hasten and cheer on the demise of IPv4. Yes, I understand its seductive appeal. Short of giving it away (maybe it is time to try that, hmm?), there is not much more we can do to promote IPv6 adoption in the face of near market indifference. Proper stewardship of IPv4 for the community of those who still seem to want to use it (everyone) should never involve telling the community that they will use and like ipv6, like it or not, ready or not. That is the antithesis of bottom up. As for the other regions, grasshopper, ants. Joe From owen at delong.com Sun Jan 15 23:08:11 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:08:11 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> Message-ID: On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0 >> >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods > >> 8. Rationale: >> >> As a result of discussions surrounding current draft policies in last call, concern has been raised over the discrepancies in timing between free pool and transfer justification periods. This proposal seeks to normalize those justification periods to eliminate the harmful effects this is having on the transfer market. >> >> 9. Timetable for implementation: immediate >> >> >> END OF TEMPLATE > > > > Opposed. Three month window is one of the few things (of many proposed) ARIN did that resembled a sane response to an impending resource starvation issue. > > Undoing it because it is working (surprisingly well) as designed is silly, foolish, destructive and harmful to IPv4, which apparently people seem to still want to use. > > Was it only a good idea when you thought it would not have any effect or that it would hasten the demise of IPv4 and help push people to use IPv6, whether they wanted to or not, whether they were ready or not? It was a good idea when I thought ARIN would be one of the early registries to run out and that it would help to equalize the runout date. > > I reject again the notion that keeps rearing its ugly head that for IPv6 to thrive we must hasten and cheer on the demise of IPv4. > This is not about attempting to hasten the demise of IPv4 to support IPv6 adoption. That will happen in due course no matter what we do. This is about reducing the skew of runout date amongst the different registries in order to reduce the harmful effects of asymmetrical runout on the global internet as a whole. > Yes, I understand its seductive appeal. Short of giving it away (maybe it is time to try that, hmm?), there is not much more we can do to promote IPv6 adoption in the face of near market indifference. > I think IPv6 adoption is well enough promoted at this point. This is actually about reducing the damage to the IPv4 internet that is being done by the skewed runout dates across different regions. > Proper stewardship of IPv4 for the community of those who still seem to want to use it (everyone) should never involve telling the community that they will use and like ipv6, like it or not, ready or not. > I'm really not sure how you get that from this proposal. If anything, this proposal encourages the use of IPv4. Owen From paul at redbarn.org Sun Jan 15 23:43:02 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:43:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> Message-ID: <4F13AAD6.5090207@redbarn.org> On 1/16/2012 4:08 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > > This is about reducing the skew of runout date amongst the different registries in order to reduce the harmful effects of asymmetrical runout on the global internet as a whole. i think that the above concern is outside the domain of responsibility of a 501(c)(6). i'm not going to say whether i think asymmetric runout is or is not good for the world. i will say that no 501(c)(6) can be an activist championing causes considered to be controversial among the industry we serve in the region we serve. please let policies be justified on a basis compatible with our charter, our mission statement, and our corporate status. paul vixie trustee, arin From jmaimon at chl.com Mon Jan 16 02:46:22 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:46:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> Message-ID: <4F13D5CE.70204@chl.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > > I'm really not sure how you get that from this proposal. If anything, this proposal encourages the use of IPv4. > > Owen Which use? Prudent or profligate? Joe From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 16 08:44:29 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:44:29 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F13D5CE.70204@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> <4F13D5CE.70204@chl.com> Message-ID: <3332ECA8-12A7-4DC8-85F1-87D8DB0361D6@delong.com> On Jan 15, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> I'm really not sure how you get that from this proposal. If anything, this proposal encourages the use of IPv4. >> >> Owen > > Which use? Prudent or profligate? > > Joe Prudent in my opinion, but, one man's idea of prudence is another man's profligacy, so, I guess it's a matter of perspective. Owen From jmaimon at chl.com Mon Jan 16 10:34:49 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:34:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <3332ECA8-12A7-4DC8-85F1-87D8DB0361D6@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F137577.6070107@chl.com> <4F13D5CE.70204@chl.com> <3332ECA8-12A7-4DC8-85F1-87D8DB0361D6@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F144399.2060204@chl.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 15, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> >> Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I'm really not sure how you get that from this proposal. If anything, this proposal encourages the use of IPv4. >>> >>> Owen >> Which use? Prudent or profligate? >> >> Joe > Prudent in my opinion, but, one man's idea of prudence is another man's profligacy, so, I guess it's a matter of perspective. > > Owen > > The history of IPv4 is belated prudence, hindsight profligacy, rinse and repeat. Whats different this time around? Less demand? Joe From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jan 16 18:22:23 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:22:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you for the feedback Chris. I was hoping to put the discussion of completely eliminating a needs review on hold for now. There are details that need to be cleaned up with respect to transfers, and the needs discussion sidetracks the conversation too quickly. We should first solidify transfer policies, and then we can debate the issue of needs assessment without an undue sense of urgency regarding other details. Not including "assignments" in section 8.3 was an oversight on my part. It should be "allocations and assignments". I would, however hesitate on including the word transfers in this restriction. The 12 month exclusion is intended to prevent people from obtaining IPv4 resources from the free pool and profiting from the transfer market. Do people think an organization should be precluded from obtaining resources on the transfer market if they exceed their original expectations and need more IP resources? I would be interested in hearing feedback on the refined text. "The source entity (within the ARIN region) must not have received an allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer." "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies." Thanks, Dan Alexander On 1/13/12 11:05 AM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: >Great work, thanks Dan! Comments inline, below. > >Cheers, >~Chris > >On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> PPML, >> >> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of >>prop-151, >> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use >>"limiting" >> to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based requirement, >> what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some revised >> text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round. >> Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to >>know >> if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format >>of >> the existing section 8.3. > >Yes, I think the bulleted format is preferable. In addition to my >personal preference, I have received comments in the past wrt other >policies from community members stating as much. > >> -Dan Alexander >> >> >> Changes to the original prop-151 text: >> >> - Restored a needs requirement > >While I agree with this, I wonder if we should do this in two separate >proposals. The intent of prop-151 (as per the title) is to limit the >needs requirement on transfers, are we overstepping by ignoring that >seemingly fundamental tenement of the originator's intent? I guess the >fundamental question is: Do we need to have the needs discussion again >or not? > >> - Eliminated the /12 cap >> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA. >> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block". >> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the >> possibility of inter-RIR transfers. >> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining >> Conditions. >> - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate sections. > >I was initially opposed to this. Seeing it here I think it may provide >clarity and future flexibility. However, I still think that it may be >better to collapse the two parts into one section. In any case, I >think the best path forward is to work out the policy bits and then >decide on format. > >> Resulting text: >> >> Replace Section 8.3 with >> >> 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region. >> >> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may >>be >> transferred according to the following conditions. >> >> Conditions on source of the transfer: >> >> * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the >> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to >> the status of those resources. >> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 >> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 >> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's >> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. >> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from >> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. > >I think this should include assignments and transfers, and should be >limited to IPv4 addresses (ASNs and IPv6 should not disqualify an IPv4 >number transfer). It would then read: > >"The source entity must not have received an assignment, allocation, >or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior >to the transfer." > >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >> >> >> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >> >> * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of >> IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA. >> * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies. >> >> >> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >> >> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >> transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies. > >Do we need to add a reciprocity requirement here? If yes, perhaps this >sentence would read: > >"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to >the transfer, share compatible needs-based policies, and allow >transfers both into and out of their region." > >> Conditions on source of the transfer: >> >> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 >>address >> resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not >>be >> involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. >> * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements >> defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration. >> * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive >> any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a >>period >> of 12 >> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, >> whichever occurs first. >> * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >> allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the >>transfer. > >Again, I think this should include transfers and be limited to IPv4 >resources, similar to above: > >"Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN >for the 12 months prior to the transfer." > >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >> >> >> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >> >> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be >>defined >> by the policies of the receiving RIR. >> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN >> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. >> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to >>a >> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > >-- >@ChrisGrundemann >weblog.chrisgrundemann.com >www.burningwiththebush.com >www.theIPv6experts.net >www.coisoc.org From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jan 16 18:22:30 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:22:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill, I agree that the number one below is a difficult idea, and would add to it. I think the only way an inter-RIR transfer structure would work is if the source RIR does not have to be in the business of reviewing requests from another region. I don't think it scales, and puts an operational burden on the source RIR that would be better distributed to the destination. My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, it could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of the situation is achieved. If my presumption is accurate, it is not in another RIR's interest to approve transfers without regard. It would not benefit their community to bring the issue to question, putting transfers on hold for the benefit of a few. I would be interested in hearing thoughts whether my presumption is in line with how others see the policy working. I am not naive enough to think this will be 100% efficient, but policy rarely is. -Dan Alexander On 1/13/12 12:11 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: >On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of >>prop-151, >> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? >> >> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >> >> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >> >> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be >>defined >> by the policies of the receiving RIR. >> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN >> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. >> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to >>a >> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. >> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 > > >Hi Dan, > >I think linchpin of the problem stems from the "destination RIR sets >the rules" approach. The RIRs are not the same. ARIN has one of the >strictest set of requirements on address recipients. With ARIN and >outregion users bidding in the same pool of sellers, this places >ARIN-region registrants at a distinct disadvantage. > >In order to keep "destination RIR sets the rules" without harming >every would-be registrant in the ARIN region, the draft would need to >do one of two things: > >1. Make the "compatible policy" requirements stricter: destination RIR >must have needs based policies of at least comparable strictness >versus ARIN. > >2. Race to the bottom: remove all but the most minimal requirements on >an ARIN region recipient. Assume that the cash payment will be >sufficient to assure efficient utilization. > >#1 is a terrible idea. If we want to set recipient policy globally, we >should do it globally. Not by setting local policy which pressures >another RIR to do things our way. > >#2 is not the worst idea in the world but IMHO it's very premature. > >So, we don't do #1 or #2. And we don't knowingly harm ARIN-region >recipients. Thus we can't reasonably use "destination RIR sets the >rules." QED. > >ARIN, as the source RIR, will have to set at least enough rules on the >out-region recipient to avoid harmfully disadvantaging ARIN >constituents. > >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 Mon Jan 16 20:10:29 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:10:29 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <719139F7-76B3-4EE3-803D-E957E46D7386@delong.com> I would like to see us somehow prevent repetitive bidirectional transfers (that is the repeated acquisition and subsequent resale of addresses). I'm not sure how to go about that without negative consequences. The best I've come up with so far is: No party that has received resources from ARIN or via transfer within the preceding 12 months shall be allowed to act as a source for a transfer. OR No party which has acted as a source for a transfer within the preceding 12 months shall be permitted to receive resources from ARIN or via transfer. The problem with the first option is that it may cause a hold-down effect on making resources legitimately available. The problem with the second approach is that it may penalize an organization for unforeseen changes in circumstances. My inclination is to go with the second option, perhaps allowing staff discretion in the case of a compelling unforeseen change in circumstances. Owen On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Thank you for the feedback Chris. > > I was hoping to put the discussion of completely eliminating a needs > review on hold for now. There are details that need to be cleaned up with > respect to transfers, and the needs discussion sidetracks the conversation > too quickly. We should first solidify transfer policies, and then we can > debate the issue of needs assessment without an undue sense of urgency > regarding other details. > > Not including "assignments" in section 8.3 was an oversight on my part. It > should be "allocations and assignments". I would, however hesitate on > including the word transfers in this restriction. The 12 month exclusion > is intended to prevent people from obtaining IPv4 resources from the free > pool and profiting from the transfer market. Do people think an > organization should be precluded from obtaining resources on the transfer > market if they exceed their original expectations and need more IP > resources? > > I would be interested in hearing feedback on the refined text. > > "The source entity (within the ARIN region) must not have received an > allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 > months prior to the transfer." > > > "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the > transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies." > > > Thanks, > Dan Alexander > > > On 1/13/12 11:05 AM, "Chris Grundemann" wrote: > >> Great work, thanks Dan! Comments inline, below. >> >> Cheers, >> ~Chris >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12, Alexander, Daniel >> wrote: >>> PPML, >>> >>> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of >>> prop-151, >>> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use >>> "limiting" >>> to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based requirement, >>> what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some revised >>> text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round. >>> Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to >>> know >>> if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format >>> of >>> the existing section 8.3. >> >> Yes, I think the bulleted format is preferable. In addition to my >> personal preference, I have received comments in the past wrt other >> policies from community members stating as much. >> >>> -Dan Alexander >>> >>> >>> Changes to the original prop-151 text: >>> >>> - Restored a needs requirement >> >> While I agree with this, I wonder if we should do this in two separate >> proposals. The intent of prop-151 (as per the title) is to limit the >> needs requirement on transfers, are we overstepping by ignoring that >> seemingly fundamental tenement of the originator's intent? I guess the >> fundamental question is: Do we need to have the needs discussion again >> or not? >> >>> - Eliminated the /12 cap >>> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA. >>> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block". >>> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the >>> possibility of inter-RIR transfers. >>> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining >>> Conditions. >>> - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate sections. >> >> I was initially opposed to this. Seeing it here I think it may provide >> clarity and future flexibility. However, I still think that it may be >> better to collapse the two parts into one section. In any case, I >> think the best path forward is to work out the policy bits and then >> decide on format. >> >>> Resulting text: >>> >>> Replace Section 8.3 with >>> >>> 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region. >>> >>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may >>> be >>> transferred according to the following conditions. >>> >>> Conditions on source of the transfer: >>> >>> * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the >>> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to >>> the status of those resources. >>> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 >>> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12 >>> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's >>> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first. >>> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from >>> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer. >> >> I think this should include assignments and transfers, and should be >> limited to IPv4 addresses (ASNs and IPv6 should not disqualify an IPv4 >> number transfer). It would then read: >> >> "The source entity must not have received an assignment, allocation, >> or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior >> to the transfer." >> >>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >>> >>> >>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >>> >>> * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of >>> IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA. >>> * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies. >>> >>> >>> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients >>> >>> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the >>> transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies. >> >> Do we need to add a reciprocity requirement here? If yes, perhaps this >> sentence would read: >> >> "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to >> the transfer, share compatible needs-based policies, and allow >> transfers both into and out of their region." >> >>> Conditions on source of the transfer: >>> >>> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 >>> address >>> resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not >>> be >>> involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources. >>> * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements >>> defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration. >>> * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive >>> any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a >>> period >>> of 12 >>> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space, >>> whichever occurs first. >>> * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >>> allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the >>> transfer. >> >> Again, I think this should include transfers and be limited to IPv4 >> resources, similar to above: >> >> "Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an >> assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN >> for the 12 months prior to the transfer." >> >>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >>> >>> >>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer: >>> >>> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be >>> defined >>> by the policies of the receiving RIR. >>> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN >>> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received. >>> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to >>> a >>> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space. >>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> @ChrisGrundemann >> weblog.chrisgrundemann.com >> www.burningwiththebush.com >> www.theIPv6experts.net >> www.coisoc.org > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net Mon Jan 16 20:23:26 2012 From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:23:26 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <719139F7-76B3-4EE3-803D-E957E46D7386@delong.com> References: <719139F7-76B3-4EE3-803D-E957E46D7386@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F14CD8E.50203@abenaki.wabanaki.net> > No party that has received resources from ARIN or via transfer within the > preceding 12 months shall be allowed to act as a source for a transfer. > > OR > > No party which has acted as a source for a transfer within the preceding > 12 months shall be permitted to receive resources from ARIN or via transfer. Both assume that the address space acquired (or surrendered) is equivalent to the address space to be surrendered (or acquired). Seeking a /xx and offering a /yy, where there are many more bits in the /yy, doesn't seem to be inherently bad, or supporting a repeated acquisition and subsequent resale, if the /yy wasn't in the /xx, or the sum of all /yys in a metering period is less than the /xx sought. Short form: address blocks are not fungible, so rules should distinguish between things that are like, and things that are unlike. Eric From cgrundemann at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 21:07:49 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:07:49 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 16:22, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Not including "assignments" in section 8.3 was an oversight on my part. It > should be "allocations and assignments". I would, however hesitate on > including the word transfers in this restriction. The 12 month exclusion > is intended to prevent people from obtaining IPv4 resources from the free > pool and profiting from the transfer market. Do people think an > organization should be precluded from obtaining resources on the transfer > market if they exceed their original expectations and need more IP > resources? To clarify, this is a restriction on the source of transfers, not the recipient. A transfer recipient who ends up needing more space within the initial 12 months is still free to obtain said space. What would not be allowed, under my proposed text, is for an entity to obtain space via transfer and then turn around and transfer space off immediately. ~Chris > Thanks, > Dan Alexander > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From bill at herrin.us Tue Jan 17 11:25:51 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:25:51 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to > the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If > ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, it > could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that > inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of > the situation is achieved. Dan, You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the same policies they apply to any other recipient. In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his RIR for the same transfer. That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest. -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 17 14:22:34 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:22:34 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C94084D-6069-417E-AF96-0923D2F7676F@delong.com> On Jan 17, 2012, at 8:25 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to >> the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If >> ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, it >> could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that >> inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of >> the situation is achieved. > > Dan, > > You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving > badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and > reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary > policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the > same policies they apply to any other recipient. > > In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of > any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own > local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder > time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular > transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his > RIR for the same transfer. > Bill, you keep claiming that other RIRs have less strict policies. Do you have any evidence or actual policy citations to back that up? I don't believe it to actually be the case based on my experience dealing with requests from 4 of the 5. Admittedly, I haven't done any requests from LACNIC, so I can't really compare their situation. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jan 17 17:37:14 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:37:14 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> On 1/17/12 10:25 CST, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to >> the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If >> ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, it >> could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that >> inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of >> the situation is achieved. > > Dan, > > You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving > badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and > reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary > policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the > same policies they apply to any other recipient. > > In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of > any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own > local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder > time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular > transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his > RIR for the same transfer. > > That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer > addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so > objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to > capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest. Bill, Can you please provide specific policies of the other RIRs you feel are less strict. When I look at the policies I see them as more or less equivalent, on some issues we are more strict and on others we are less, but we seem to be in the same ballpark on most everything. So, yes, the polices are not identical. But, on balance, I don't believe there is that significant of a difference, at least not enough difference to justify calling it unfair. There seems to be a general impression that the other RIR's policies are more lax than ARIN's, but I don't believe that is born out in reality. The current NRO comparative overview is located at; http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2011-03 Previous version can be found at; http://www.nro.net/policies/rir-comparative-policy-overview I'm willing to be convinced that there are differences that matter. However, I'm unwilling just take this as "everybody knows" the other RIRs are less strict, I need a much stronger argument. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 18:06:51 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:06:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> Message-ID: Asking people for "evidence" of this is a red herring. It is a widely held belief that I have heard from even reliable sources including RIR staff members that it is/was/has been relatively easy to acquire address space in the APNIC region, for example. That is not indicative of right or wrong. I do take it as fact considering the sources and their numbers. Best, -M< On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > On 1/17/12 10:25 CST, William Herrin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel >> ?wrote: >>> >>> My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to >>> the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If >>> ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, >>> it >>> could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that >>> inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of >>> the situation is achieved. >> >> >> Dan, >> >> You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving >> badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and >> reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary >> policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the >> same policies they apply to any other recipient. >> >> In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of >> any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own >> local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder >> time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular >> transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his >> RIR for the same transfer. >> >> That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer >> addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so >> objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to >> capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest. > > > Bill, > > Can you please provide specific policies of the other RIRs you feel are less > strict. ?When I look at the policies I see them as more or less equivalent, > on some issues we are more strict and on others we are less, but we seem to > be in the same ballpark on most everything. ?So, yes, the polices are not > identical. ?But, on balance, I don't believe there is that significant of a > difference, at least not enough difference to justify calling it unfair. > > There seems to be a general impression that the other RIR's policies are > more lax than ARIN's, but I don't believe that is born out in reality. > > The current NRO comparative overview is located at; > > http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2011-03 > > Previous version can be found at; > > http://www.nro.net/policies/rir-comparative-policy-overview > > I'm willing to be convinced that there are differences that matter. However, > I'm unwilling just take this as "everybody knows" the other RIRs are less > strict, I need a much stronger argument. > > Thanks > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE ? ? ?Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Tue Jan 17 18:50:58 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:50:58 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> Message-ID: <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> It is relatively easy to acquire address space in the ARIN region as well. I don't believe for one moment that APNIC's policies or their application of those policies is significantly less strict than ARIN"s. If it were, APNIC would have consumed a much greater quantity of IPv4 address space. It may be a widely held belief. That does not make it correct. Owen On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Asking people for "evidence" of this is a red herring. > > It is a widely held belief that I have heard from even reliable > sources including RIR staff members that it is/was/has been relatively > easy to acquire address space in the APNIC region, for example. That > is not indicative of right or wrong. I do take it as fact considering > the sources and their numbers. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >> On 1/17/12 10:25 CST, William Herrin wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to >>>> the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. If >>>> ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, >>>> it >>>> could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that >>>> inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of >>>> the situation is achieved. >>> >>> >>> Dan, >>> >>> You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving >>> badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and >>> reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary >>> policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the >>> same policies they apply to any other recipient. >>> >>> In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of >>> any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own >>> local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder >>> time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular >>> transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his >>> RIR for the same transfer. >>> >>> That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer >>> addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so >>> objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to >>> capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest. >> >> >> Bill, >> >> Can you please provide specific policies of the other RIRs you feel are less >> strict. When I look at the policies I see them as more or less equivalent, >> on some issues we are more strict and on others we are less, but we seem to >> be in the same ballpark on most everything. So, yes, the polices are not >> identical. But, on balance, I don't believe there is that significant of a >> difference, at least not enough difference to justify calling it unfair. >> >> There seems to be a general impression that the other RIR's policies are >> more lax than ARIN's, but I don't believe that is born out in reality. >> >> The current NRO comparative overview is located at; >> >> http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2011-03 >> >> Previous version can be found at; >> >> http://www.nro.net/policies/rir-comparative-policy-overview >> >> I'm willing to be convinced that there are differences that matter. However, >> I'm unwilling just take this as "everybody knows" the other RIRs are less >> strict, I need a much stronger argument. >> >> Thanks >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> =============================================== >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Tue Jan 17 20:26:59 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:26:59 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> On 1/17/12 17:50 CST, Owen DeLong wrote: > It is relatively easy to acquire address space in the ARIN region as well. > > I don't believe for one moment that APNIC's policies or their application of > those policies is significantly less strict than ARIN"s. If it were, APNIC would > have consumed a much greater quantity of IPv4 address space. > > It may be a widely held belief. That does not make it correct. > > Owen I'm actually willing to believe that it is true, I just don't have personal knowledge that it is or is not true. Additionally, when I look at the differences in policies, they don't seem rise to the level of what I would call an unfair difference. So, I'm simply asking for a specific example of a difference in policies that Bill or someone else believes rises to the level of being an unfair difference. Or, if someone is willing to state, publicly or privately, that they have direct first-hand knowledge it is, or has been, significantly easier to get address space from APNIC, or any other RIR, than it is to get equilivant address space from ARIN. I honestly don't believe this is a red herring or asking to much from the proponents of the idea that it is significantly harder to get address from ARIN than the other RIRs. I'm only asking for a specific example of a policy difference or a first-hand anecdote. I'm just not willing to accept "everyone knows" or second and third hand rumors. > On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> Asking people for "evidence" of this is a red herring. >> >> It is a widely held belief that I have heard from even reliable >> sources including RIR staff members that it is/was/has been relatively >> easy to acquire address space in the APNIC region, for example. That >> is not indicative of right or wrong. I do take it as fact considering >> the sources and their numbers. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< -- =============================================== 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 Tue Jan 17 21:45:04 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:45:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 1/17/12 17:50 CST, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> It is relatively easy to acquire address space in the ARIN region as well. >> >> I don't believe for one moment that APNIC's policies or their application >> of >> those policies is significantly less strict than ARIN"s. If it were, APNIC >> would >> have consumed a much greater quantity of IPv4 address space. >> >> It may be a widely held belief. That does not make it correct. >> >> Owen > > > I'm actually willing to believe that it is true, I just don't have personal > knowledge that it is or is not true. ?Additionally, when I look at the > differences in policies, they don't seem rise to the level of what I would > call an unfair difference. I believe that APNIC runs their region how they see fit and we run ours how we see fit. They seem to be more fine with that than we are for some reason, but that's fine too. The fact that they had disposed of need at one point probably lends itself to Williams point. I think trying to dismiss that point all considered by seeking "evidence" is not useful. Best, -M< From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 22:00:50 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:00:50 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> when I look at the >> differences in policies, they don't seem rise to the level of what I would >> call an unfair difference. > > I believe that APNIC runs their region how they see fit and we run > ours how we see fit. ?They seem to be more fine with that than we are > for some reason, but that's fine too. Agreed (with both). > The fact that they had disposed of need at one point probably lends > itself to Williams point. It's not hard for an ISP or mobile operator to justify need for more public IPs when it has ten times as many customers as IPs. The fact that APNIC was the first to run out of space isn't evidence of lax policy, but of demographic realities. IMO if an organization has a need for IPs and a plan to use them within the next 24 months, and is willing to pay for them on the transfer market, ARIN should not stand in their way. I personally believe ARIN policy will be in about the right spot once 2011-11 and 2011-12 are implemented, but if anyone sees examples of companies with a reasonable need for space who are unable to justify it under ARIN policy, I'd like to see details so we can adjust policy accordingly. But I don't see that as a reason we should restrict inter-regional transfers. -Scott From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 10:36:29 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:36:29 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 19:45, Martin Hannigan wrote: > The fact that they had disposed of need at one point probably lends > itself to Williams point. I think trying to dismiss that point all > considered by seeking "evidence" is not useful. "evidence" and "facts" are pesky little buggers indeed... > Best, > > -M< From bill at herrin.us Wed Jan 18 11:45:35 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:45:35 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Bill, you keep claiming that other RIRs have less strict policies. > Do you have any evidence or actual policy citations to back that up? Owen, You can find a comparison of RIR IPv4 policies at http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2010-04#2 Differences in strictness are obvious even in the first section (section 2.1). ARIN requires you to demonstrate use within 3 months. All others allow 1 year. ARIN requires multihoming for requests smaller than a /20. LACNIC does not. And so on. In a few details one or two of the other RIRs come out more strict. But, on average ARIN's policies are the strictest. And here's a another difference described in that document: APNIC allocates a lot of addresses to National Internet Registries. ARIN does not; registrants hold addresses directly. What isn't clear (and the AC has NOT researched despite the problem being pointed out) is that an APNIC transfer policy would require the NIRs to permit out-region transfers the way our draft policy binds ARIN. We've already determined that transfer reciprocity is NOT required for another RIR's policies to be found compatible for the purposes of allowing out-region transfer of ARIN addresses. We know this because the President of ARIN was asked the question and he said so. On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I don't believe for one moment that APNIC's policies or their application of > those policies is significantly less strict than ARIN"s. If it were, APNIC would > have consumed a much greater quantity of IPv4 address space. It is, as a matter of simple fact, less strict. How much significance you find in the difference is a matter of opinion. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that the difference is not important. On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > "evidence" and "facts" are pesky little buggers indeed... They sure are. Aloha, 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 Wed Jan 18 12:02:58 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:02:58 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> Message-ID: <12496FF8-D595-4A10-A623-F5072D521122@delong.com> On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:45 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Bill, you keep claiming that other RIRs have less strict policies. >> Do you have any evidence or actual policy citations to back that up? > > Owen, > > You can find a comparison of RIR IPv4 policies at > http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2010-04#2 > > Differences in strictness are obvious even in the first section > (section 2.1). ARIN requires you to demonstrate use within 3 months. > All others allow 1 year. ARIN requires multihoming for requests > smaller than a /20. LACNIC does not. And so on. > ARIN only requires use within 3 months in a few select cases. Usually it is actually 1 year, so, I'd say that's generally comparable. I would support relaxing the multihoming requirement on smaller allocations within the ARIN region, but, again, I don't see that as being a significant disadvantage to ARIN members vs. inter-regional transfers. > In a few details one or two of the other RIRs come out more strict. > But, on average ARIN's policies are the strictest. > Looking at the exact same comparison and having worked with 4 of the 5 RIRs on actual allocations/assignments, I would say that they are roughly comparably strict overall. Yes, there are differences, but, I don't agree with your contention that those differences would create a substantial disadvantage for ARIN constituents in an environment where inter-regional transfers are allowed. > And here's a another difference described in that document: APNIC > allocates a lot of addresses to National Internet Registries. ARIN > does not; registrants hold addresses directly. What isn't clear (and > the AC has NOT researched despite the problem being pointed out) is > that an APNIC transfer policy would require the NIRs to permit > out-region transfers the way our draft policy binds ARIN. We've > already determined that transfer reciprocity is NOT required for > another RIR's policies to be found compatible for the purposes of > allowing out-region transfer of ARIN addresses. We know this because > the President of ARIN was asked the question and he said so. I believe you misunderstand and/or misrepresent the functioning of NIRs in the APNIC region. I think it would be more accurate to say that APNIC issues a lot of addresses through NIRs rather than to the NIRs. My understanding is that NIR policies cannot and do not supersede APNIC policy and that a registrant who obtained APNIC addresses through an NIR still has all the same rights and abilities with regard to those registrations as if they had obtained them through APNIC directly. As such, I believe this to be a non-issue. > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I don't believe for one moment that APNIC's policies or their application of >> those policies is significantly less strict than ARIN"s. If it were, APNIC would >> have consumed a much greater quantity of IPv4 address space. > > It is, as a matter of simple fact, less strict. How much significance > you find in the difference is a matter of opinion. I respectfully > disagree with your opinion that the difference is not important. > I disagree. First, the page you referenced is out of date and ARIN's actual policies have been significantly relaxed since then. In actual fact, there are areas of policy where ARIN is more strict than APNIC and areas of policy where APNIC is more strict than ARIN. Overall, I think it is roughly a wash. Admittedly, this is a subjective opinion and there is no way to make such an evaluation objective, so, likely we will continue to disagree on the matter. > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >> "evidence" and "facts" are pesky little buggers indeed... > > They sure are. > Yes, but, to be useful, they must be current. Unfortunately, there really isn't an objective way to compare the relative strictness of policies. That's one of the reasons I find your proposed language to be extraordinarily problematic from a policy perspective. Owen From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 17:17:24 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:17:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 > Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >> brought us to where we are today with this. > > Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with > ARIN. Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy forum. Best, -M< From paul at redbarn.org Wed Jan 18 17:35:53 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:35:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> Message-ID: <20120118223553.00007360@unknown> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:17:24 -0500 Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on > > with ARIN. > > Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer > that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as > part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy > forum. marty, i hope you will raise this issue in the members meeting, and/or in the arin-members@ mailing list, and/or in person or by phone with myself or any trustee, at your earliest opportunity. -- Paul Vixie From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 17:49:30 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:49:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <20120118223553.00007360@unknown> References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <20120118223553.00007360@unknown> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:17:24 -0500 > Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> > Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on >> > with ARIN. >> >> Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer >> that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as >> part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy >> forum. > > marty, i hope you will raise this issue in the members meeting, and/or > in the arin-members@ mailing list, and/or in person or by phone with > myself or any trustee, at your earliest opportunity. > Probably privately. While I gave you a non-answer (something common in this forum these days) I appreciate your interest. Best, -M< From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 18:52:08 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:52:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <4F15F81A.2080408@umn.edu> <70957892-DA0C-4B2E-AC4A-155B25A4C050@delong.com> <4F161FE3.9070200@umn.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Bill! I think this elevates the debate considerably. Cheers, ~Chris On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:45, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Bill, you keep claiming that other RIRs have less strict policies. >> Do you have any evidence or actual policy citations to back that up? > > Owen, > > You can find a comparison of RIR IPv4 policies at > http://www.nro.net/rir-comparative-policy-overview/rir-comparative-policy-overview-2010-04#2 > > Differences in strictness are obvious even in the first section > (section 2.1). ARIN requires you to demonstrate use within 3 months. > All others allow 1 year. ARIN requires multihoming for requests > smaller than a /20. LACNIC does not. And so on. > > In a few details one or two of the other RIRs come out more strict. > But, on average ARIN's policies are the strictest. > > And here's a another difference described in that document: APNIC > allocates a lot of addresses to National Internet Registries. ARIN > does not; registrants hold addresses directly. What isn't clear (and > the AC has NOT researched despite the problem being pointed out) is > that an APNIC transfer policy would require the NIRs to permit > out-region transfers the way our draft policy binds ARIN. We've > already determined that transfer reciprocity is NOT required for > another RIR's policies to be found compatible for the purposes of > allowing out-region transfer of ARIN addresses. ?We know this because > the President of ARIN was asked the question and he said so. > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I don't believe for one moment that APNIC's policies or their application of >> those policies is significantly less strict than ARIN"s. If it were, APNIC would >> have consumed a much greater quantity of IPv4 address space. > > It is, as a matter of simple fact, less strict. How much significance > you find in the difference is a matter of opinion. I respectfully > disagree with your opinion that the difference is not important. > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >> "evidence" and "facts" are pesky little buggers indeed... > > They sure are. > > Aloha, > 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. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 18 19:15:47 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:15:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> Message-ID: <73CADE81-D7B0-4735-87B2-5096199B9CFD@delong.com> On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 >> Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >>> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >>> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >>> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >>> brought us to where we are today with this. >> >> Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with >> ARIN. > > Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer > that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as > part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy > forum. > > Best, > > -M< You could always use a real MUA and answer the question on arin-discuss if you feel it's a membership matter rather than policy. Owen From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 19:25:04 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:25:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <73CADE81-D7B0-4735-87B2-5096199B9CFD@delong.com> References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <73CADE81-D7B0-4735-87B2-5096199B9CFD@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 >>> Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>>> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >>>> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >>>> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >>>> brought us to where we are today with this. >>> >>> Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with >>> ARIN. >> >> Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer >> that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as >> part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy >> forum. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< > > You could always use a real MUA and answer the question on arin-discuss > if you feel it's a membership matter rather than policy. > > Owen Owen, Thanks for again being an example of what is wrong with ARIN at the exact right time. Best, -M< From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 20 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201201200553.q0K5r2Ow006402@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 66 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 20 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 21.21% | 14 | 24.10% | 119254 | owen at delong.com 12.12% | 8 | 11.04% | 54634 | bill at herrin.us 10.61% | 7 | 7.61% | 37678 | matthew at matthew.at 7.58% | 5 | 7.92% | 39197 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 7.58% | 5 | 6.81% | 33699 | hannigan at gmail.com 4.55% | 3 | 5.93% | 29357 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 3.03% | 2 | 5.69% | 28153 | john.sweeting at twcable.com 4.55% | 3 | 3.37% | 16673 | paul at redbarn.org 4.55% | 3 | 3.32% | 16435 | jmaimon at chl.com 4.55% | 3 | 3.24% | 16012 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 3.03% | 2 | 3.22% | 15924 | farmer at umn.edu 3.03% | 2 | 3.15% | 15600 | jcurran at arin.net 3.03% | 2 | 2.88% | 14238 | kevinb at thewire.ca 1.52% | 1 | 3.03% | 14983 | info at arin.net 1.52% | 1 | 1.76% | 8701 | loralee.wood at circles.com 1.52% | 1 | 1.49% | 7373 | aaron at wholesaleinternet.net 1.52% | 1 | 1.47% | 7300 | michael at rancid.berkeley.edu 1.52% | 1 | 1.38% | 6828 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 1.52% | 1 | 1.31% | 6481 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.52% | 1 | 1.29% | 6403 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 66 |100.00% | 494923 | Total From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 20 13:59:54 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:59:54 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <20120113054004.00003666@unknown> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 23:34, William Herrin wrote: >> I personally like the part where Scott Leibrand stands up after most >> AC meetings and says, "These were the most telling factors for me in >> each of the drafts we considered and that's why I voted as I did." If >> I was king for a day, his voice wouldn't be a lonely one. > > Scott does indeed do a wonderful job elucidating his arguments. Many > AC members believe that their job is to judge community consensus, > rather than to drive it. Chris, The beauty of Scott's method is that it does not drive the consensus. When Scott explains himself, the consensus has already been tallied and the vote already taken. Yet his explanations make it clear that he listened and usually that he understood what folks were saying. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Fri Jan 20 14:01:21 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:01:21 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <73CADE81-D7B0-4735-87B2-5096199B9CFD@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:59 -0500 >>>> Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's not a lot more to be said about what has transpired with >>>>> regards to this proposal. The AC is effectively paralyzed with regards >>>>> to 2011-1. I believe that lack of transparency on ARIN's part has >>>>> brought us to where we are today with this. >>>> >>>> Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with >>>> ARIN. >>> >>> Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer >>> that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as >>> part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy >>> forum. >> >> You could always use a real MUA and answer the question on arin-discuss >> if you feel it's a membership matter rather than policy. > > Thanks for again being an example of what is wrong with ARIN at the > exact right time. Clarifying for those who didn't catch it: arin-discuss is a closed forum available only to paying ISP members. NOT transparent. Correct me if I'm wrong Marty, but you believe this attitude, this kind of default thinking, is symptomatic of the AC majority's disrespect for the general public. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 16:02:35 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:02:35 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <20120113045249.00005a31@unknown> <73CADE81-D7B0-4735-87B2-5096199B9CFD@delong.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >>>>> Marty, I'm ever curious to know if there's anything bad going on with >>>>> ARIN. >>>> >>>> Paul, there isn't enough buffer memory in my browser for me to answer >>>> that question. It's also off topic for the most part, belonging as >>>> part of a discussion at the members meeting more than the policy >>>> forum. >>> >>> You could always use a real MUA and answer the question on arin-discuss >>> if you feel it's a membership matter rather than policy. >> >> Thanks for again being an example of what is wrong with ARIN at the >> exact right time. > > > Clarifying for those who didn't catch it: arin-discuss is a closed > forum available only to paying ISP members. NOT transparent. Correct > me if I'm wrong Marty, but you believe this attitude, this kind of > default thinking, is symptomatic of the AC majority's disrespect for > the general public. I don't think anyone is trying to move anything out of open forums and into closed ones. The context here was an attempt to get feedback (here, on the open PPML list) if anyone feels that there is anything that can be improved at ARIN. It's also worth noting that the member's meetings are open to the general public, and that the arin-discuss list is very low traffic. The last thread I see on arin-discuss was back on October 5th, when Marty suggested that we move a meeting item to a different timeslot in order to allow for increased community participation. All of the items discussed since then have been here on PPML. There will also be a new Policy Development Process being posted for community input, maybe in a month or two from what I've heard. The drafts I've seen of the new PDP (including at the most recent public policy meeting) push for additional transparency from the AC in at least one area, requiring the AC to document its consideration of input received from the public on policy proposals. -Scott From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jan 23 14:22:59 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:22:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill, Thank you for clarifying your point. If I understand you correctly, needs requirements should be consistent across all regions for inter-RIR transfers to be equitable to those within the ARIN region. To achieve this parity, you feel it is more appropriate to define requirements through global policy, and not through local pressures exerted on another RIR. You also mention on the other end, that ARIN could race to the bottom and reduce it's requirements to match all the other regions, but that may be a premature approach. A concern I have is that a global needs review proposal would take years to work through. I would also assume that it is not operationally sustainable having ARIN vet all requests both in and out of region. Do you think these are fair assumptions, or would you prefer that ARIN review the requests of recipients outside of the region? Is there a middle ground or alternative you would find acceptable in a proposal that did not define the policies of another RIR? Dan Alexander Speaking as AC Shepherd for 151 On 1/17/12 11:25 AM, "William Herrin" wrote: >On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to >> the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request. >>If >> ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable, >>it >> could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that >> inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of >> the situation is achieved. > >Dan, > >You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving >badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and >reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary >policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the >same policies they apply to any other recipient. > >In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of >any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own >local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder >time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular >transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his >RIR for the same transfer. > >That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer >addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so >objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to >capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest. > >-Bill > > >-- >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 Mon Jan 23 15:09:15 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:09:15 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Thank you for clarifying your point. If I understand you correctly, needs > requirements should be consistent across all regions for inter-RIR > transfers to be equitable to those within the ARIN region. To achieve this > parity, you feel it is more appropriate to define requirements through > global policy, and not through local pressures exerted on another RIR. Hi Dan, That, OR set local policy so that any unavoidable unfairness is weighted to favor recipients in the originating region. > You > also mention on the other end, that ARIN could race to the bottom and > reduce it's requirements to match all the other regions, but that may be a > premature approach. There's a persuasive argument to be made that the cost per IPv4 address is likely to be high enough that money alone will be sufficient to assure efficient utilization. That would allow us to withdraw the other controls. IF that proves to be the case, the the only remaining objection to an interregion transfer policy would be the lack of a reciprocity requirement. Under 2011-1, the receiving RIR is not required to have a policy which permits ARIN registrants to receive transfers from that RIR's region. However, persuasive though the argument is I'm not yet sold on the idea that dollars alone get the job done. I'd prefer to wait and see what happens when the free pool is finally empty before taking that step. > A concern I have is that a global needs review proposal would take years > to work through. I would also assume that it is not operationally > sustainable having ARIN vet all requests both in and out of region. Do you > think these are fair assumptions Given that we've been trying to create a global policy for address reallocation for several years and have thus far failed, I think the first assumption is a safe one. The latter assumption doesn't ring entirely true. ARIN regularly vets requests from entities which have not previously interacted with ARIN. How is asking them to vet a request for a transfer out-region meaningfully more onerous? > Is there a middle ground or > alternative you would find acceptable in a proposal that did not define > the policies of another RIR? If anyone came up with a viable middle ground, I missed it in the noise. Maybe something like having the recipient RIR make the evaluation, but expect the RIR to apply the strictest merge of both RIR's recipient policies. Make that application a condition of the policy being deemed compatible. Sort of like what happens in U.S. Courts: a large dollar lawsuit in state court can be removed to federal court when the parties are from different states. But when that happens, the federal court follows state law instead of federal law. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jan 23 16:52:09 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:52:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 1/23/12 3:09 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: >On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> Thank you for clarifying your point. If I understand you correctly, >>needs >> requirements should be consistent across all regions for inter-RIR >> transfers to be equitable to those within the ARIN region. To achieve >>this >> parity, you feel it is more appropriate to define requirements through >> global policy, and not through local pressures exerted on another RIR. > >Hi Dan, > >That, OR set local policy so that any unavoidable unfairness is >weighted to favor recipients in the originating region. > >> You >> also mention on the other end, that ARIN could race to the bottom and >> reduce it's requirements to match all the other regions, but that may >>be a >> premature approach. > >There's a persuasive argument to be made that the cost per IPv4 >address is likely to be high enough that money alone will be >sufficient to assure efficient utilization. That would allow us to >withdraw the other controls. IF that proves to be the case, the the >only remaining objection to an interregion transfer policy would be >the lack of a reciprocity requirement. Under 2011-1, the receiving RIR >is not required to have a policy which permits ARIN registrants to >receive transfers from that RIR's region. > >However, persuasive though the argument is I'm not yet sold on the >idea that dollars alone get the job done. I'd prefer to wait and see >what happens when the free pool is finally empty before taking that >step. [DA] I'm not sold either, but I think the hold requirements that are incorporated into 151 should help mitigate this problem. One suggestion that has also been raised is whether the hold requirement should be applied to transfers, in addition to allocations, or assignments from the free pool. I haven't gotten a feel yet for what people think about a change like that. > > >> A concern I have is that a global needs review proposal would take years >> to work through. I would also assume that it is not operationally >> sustainable having ARIN vet all requests both in and out of region. Do >>you >> think these are fair assumptions > >Given that we've been trying to create a global policy for address >reallocation for several years and have thus far failed, I think the >first assumption is a safe one. > >The latter assumption doesn't ring entirely true. ARIN regularly vets >requests from entities which have not previously interacted with ARIN. >How is asking them to vet a request for a transfer out-region >meaningfully more onerous? [DA] The concern was more about volume than complexity. Staffing, expense, etc. > >> Is there a middle ground or >> alternative you would find acceptable in a proposal that did not define >> the policies of another RIR? > >If anyone came up with a viable middle ground, I missed it in the >noise. Maybe something like having the recipient RIR make the >evaluation, but expect the RIR to apply the strictest merge of both >RIR's recipient policies. Make that application a condition of the >policy being deemed compatible. [DA] This circles back to my concern of scalability, or what is practical. If ARIN reviews all requests, the staff would likely have to scale up to accommodate. This would have cost implications that would have to be sorted out, outside of policy, but this could be an option. [DA] To have the recipient RIR applying the strictest merge of both policies, we would be expecting the staff of all the other RIR to become proficient in the practices of ARIN Registration Services. I think that crosses a line of what is reasonable for implementation. [DA] I would be curious to hear from others whether the conditions of the recipient RIR are a sufficient review or that they agree with Bill that this is a bad direction. [DA] While not perfect, the other consideration comes through the passage of 2011-11 and/or 2011-12. If ARIN's requirement review for transfers is increased to 12 or 24 months, than everyone's requirements may be at a state of strictness that could be considered acceptable. Would a 24 month window on transfers be enough to overcome your objection to the recipient's RIR performing the review? > >Sort of like what happens in U.S. Courts: a large dollar lawsuit in >state court can be removed to federal court when the parties are from >different states. But when that happens, the federal court follows >state law instead of federal law. > >Regards, >Bill Herrin > > > >-- >William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: >Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jan 23 17:25:11 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:25:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three month allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead of making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak section 4.2.4.4? Replace: "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP addresses." With: "When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP addresses." This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many thought was a good idea. Dan Alexander Speaking as myself On 1/13/12 5:41 PM, "Michael Sinatra" wrote: >On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer >>>justification >>> periods >> >> Hi Owen, >> >> I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. >> >> The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress >> frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers, >> significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently >> suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based >> consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much >> less than with free pool consumption. >> >> Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not >> appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly >> rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for >> transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here. > >Hi Bill: > >My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market >currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation >thereof. I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it :). > I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven >run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free >pool from the discussions in Philadelphia. To be honest, there are a >lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out >and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion. > I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not >interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool. As >Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used. The fact that >Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his >opinion, BTW. > >Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer >market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at >this point. That hurts everyone. > >If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him >for submitting it. (I was going to propose the same thing during the >Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy. Sorry about that.) > >michael >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage 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 michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Mon Jan 23 17:29:57 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:29:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1DDF65.2080309@burnttofu.net> I would support that. I am at a conference now, but I am trying to remember when we hit the requirement for only being able to make micro-allocations for transition technologies. Is that the last /10? On 1/23/12 2:25 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > > Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three month > allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead of > making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak > section 4.2.4.4? > > Replace: > > "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An > organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP > addresses." > > With: > > "When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an > equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will > be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply > of IP addresses." > > This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One > concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many > thought was a good idea. > > Dan Alexander > Speaking as myself > > > On 1/13/12 5:41 PM, "Michael Sinatra" wrote: > >> On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer >>>> justification >>>> periods >>> >>> Hi Owen, >>> >>> I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. >>> >>> The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress >>> frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers, >>> significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently >>> suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based >>> consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much >>> less than with free pool consumption. >>> >>> Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not >>> appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly >>> rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for >>> transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here. >> >> Hi Bill: >> >> My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market >> currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation >> thereof. I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it :). >> I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven >> run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free >> pool from the discussions in Philadelphia. To be honest, there are a >> lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out >> and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion. >> I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not >> interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool. As >> Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used. The fact that >> Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his >> opinion, BTW. >> >> Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer >> market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at >> this point. That hurts everyone. >> >> If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him >> for submitting it. (I was going to propose the same thing during the >> Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy. Sorry about that.) >> >> michael >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 jmaimon at chl.com Mon Jan 23 17:40:01 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:40:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1DE1C1.4050708@chl.com> Alexander, Daniel wrote: > > Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three month > allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead of > making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak > section 4.2.4.4? Not I. Joe From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jan 23 17:46:22 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:46:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: <4F1DDF65.2080309@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: Are you referring to 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment? If you are, I believe that proposal set aside A /10. Not THE last /10. The intent would be that blocks reserved for dedicated use would not be considered in this calculation. -Dan On 1/23/12 5:29 PM, "Michael Sinatra" wrote: >I would support that. > >I am at a conference now, but I am trying to remember when we hit the >requirement for only being able to make micro-allocations for transition >technologies. Is that the last /10? > >On 1/23/12 2:25 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: >> >> Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three >>month >> allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead >>of >> making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak >> section 4.2.4.4? >> >> Replace: >> >> "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, >> the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. >>An >> organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP >> addresses." >> >> With: >> >> "When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an >> equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request >>will >> be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply >> of IP addresses." >> >> This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One >> concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many >> thought was a good idea. >> >> Dan Alexander >> Speaking as myself >> >> >> On 1/13/12 5:41 PM, "Michael Sinatra" >>wrote: >> >>> On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer >>>>> justification >>>>> periods >>>> >>>> Hi Owen, >>>> >>>> I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. >>>> >>>> The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress >>>> frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers, >>>> significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently >>>> suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based >>>> consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much >>>> less than with free pool consumption. >>>> >>>> Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not >>>> appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly >>>> rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for >>>> transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here. >>> >>> Hi Bill: >>> >>> My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market >>> currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation >>> thereof. I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it >>>:). >>> I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven >>> run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free >>> pool from the discussions in Philadelphia. To be honest, there are a >>> lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out >>> and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion. >>> I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not >>> interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool. >>>As >>> Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used. The fact that >>> Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his >>> opinion, BTW. >>> >>> Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer >>> market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at >>> this point. That hurts everyone. >>> >>> If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him >>> for submitting it. (I was going to propose the same thing during the >>> Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy. Sorry about that.) >>> >>> michael >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Mon Jan 23 18:02:25 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:02:25 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1DE701.5050806@umn.edu> Another option was ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure, which reserves the equilivant of a /16 for Critical Infrastructure I was implemented in July 2011 so I would interpret that it is reserved until July 2014. On 1/23/12 16:46 CST, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Are you referring to 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 > deployment? If you are, I believe that proposal set aside A /10. Not THE > last /10. The intent would be that blocks reserved for dedicated use would > not be considered in this calculation. -Dan > > On 1/23/12 5:29 PM, "Michael Sinatra" wrote: > >> I would support that. >> >> I am at a conference now, but I am trying to remember when we hit the >> requirement for only being able to make micro-allocations for transition >> technologies. Is that the last /10? >> >> On 1/23/12 2:25 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three >>> month >>> allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead >>> of >>> making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak >>> section 4.2.4.4? >>> >>> Replace: >>> >>> "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, >>> the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. >>> An >>> organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP >>> addresses." >>> >>> With: >>> >>> "When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an >>> equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request >>> will >>> be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply >>> of IP addresses." >>> >>> This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One >>> concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many >>> thought was a good idea. >>> >>> Dan Alexander >>> Speaking as myself >>> >>> >>> On 1/13/12 5:41 PM, "Michael Sinatra" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/13/12 1:06 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>>>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Normalize Free pool and Transfer >>>>>> justification >>>>>> periods >>>>> >>>>> Hi Owen, >>>>> >>>>> I OPPOSE this proposal in concept and in the particulars. >>>>> >>>>> The sole purpose of needs-based policy, the only one, is to suppress >>>>> frivolous consumption of a limited common resource. With transfers, >>>>> significant and growing sums of money change hands, a fact inherently >>>>> suppresses frivolous use. The need to suppress transfer-based >>>>> consumption with policy, if it exists at all, is consequently much >>>>> less than with free pool consumption. >>>>> >>>>> Just as the regulations which apply to a strip mine are not >>>>> appropriate when applied to a recycler, rules which are perfectly >>>>> rational for free pool allocations can be onerous and excessive for >>>>> transfers. "One size fits all" is entirely inappropriate here. >>>> >>>> Hi Bill: >>>> >>>> My hunch is that your implicit assumption is that the transfer market >>>> currently clears itself efficiently, or some close approximation >>>> thereof. I disagree with that assumption, even if you don't hold it >>>> :). >>>> I became especially aware of the problems arising from the uneven >>>> run-out and the issues surround ARIN's current "protection" of its free >>>> pool from the discussions in Philadelphia. To be honest, there are a >>>> lot of issues that will be resolved once the RIRs' free pools run out >>>> and they transfer markets can operate with (relatively) low distortion. >>>> I am not interested in speeding the run-out, but I am also not >>>> interested in the continued unnecessary protection of the free pool. >>>> As >>>> Geoff Huston pointed out, IPv4 addresses should be used. The fact that >>>> Geoff comes from the the APNIC region does not skew my view of his >>>> opinion, BTW. >>>> >>>> Forcing ISPs to run up the price of IPv4 resources on the transfer >>>> market should not be a part of ARIN policy, but it unfortunately is at >>>> this point. That hurts everyone. >>>> >>>> If it's not obvious already, I support Owen's proposal, and thank him >>>> for submitting it. (I was going to propose the same thing during the >>>> Philadelphia meeting, but I was busy and/or lazy. Sorry about that.) >>>> >>>> michael >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage 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. -- =============================================== 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 jcurran at arin.net Mon Jan 23 18:03:03 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:03:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21B3A88B-3D15-45D2-9555-18D7D7F30D1C@corp.arin.net> On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > There's no reason why policy modifications can't be submitted > between now and Vancouver. As I was recently asked for clarification on this, I'm replying publicly to keep everyone in synch: The AC cannot directly change 2011-1 at this time, since it is a Recommended Draft Policy before the ARIN Board of Trustees. That should not prevent discussion of language improvements on this mailing list, as the Board could easily remand the policy back to the AC if it were clear that the language needed to be revised before further consideration. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 18:11:37 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:11:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: <21B3A88B-3D15-45D2-9555-18D7D7F30D1C@corp.arin.net> References: <21B3A88B-3D15-45D2-9555-18D7D7F30D1C@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> There's no reason why policy modifications can't be submitted >> between now and Vancouver. > > As I was recently asked for clarification on this, I'm replying > publicly to keep everyone in synch: > > The AC cannot directly change 2011-1 at this time, since it is > a Recommended Draft Policy before the ARIN Board of Trustees. > > That should not prevent discussion of language improvements on > this mailing list, as the Board could easily remand the policy > back to the AC if it were clear that the language needed to be > revised before further consideration. > I'm encouraging competing proposals, proposals that my have entirely different language altogether. Operating in the current realm, and as you describe, is limiting. This topic is important enough where folks should not feel constrained by the PDP. Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jan 23 18:21:36 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:21:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <21B3A88B-3D15-45D2-9555-18D7D7F30D1C@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Jan 23, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > I'm encouraging competing proposals, proposals that my have entirely > different language altogether. Operating in the current realm, and as > you describe, is limiting. This topic is important enough where folks > should not feel constrained by the PDP. Acknowledged. The AC is always free to consider policy proposals, even those which take an different direction or those that are predicated on changing policy language that would become effective with adoption of Recommended Draft Policy 2011-1. > Operating in the current realm, and as you describe, is limiting. This > topic is important enough where folks should not feel constrained by > the PDP. I wasn't aware of any constraints expressed (other than not changing 2011-1 while its presently in consideration by the ARIN Board); if you feel there are other constraints in the way, please let me know I will be happy to look into them. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 19:49:51 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:49:51 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > > Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three month > allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead of > making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak > section 4.2.4.4? > > Replace: > > "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An > organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP > addresses." > > With: > > "When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an > equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will > be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply > of IP addresses." I think I could support that. > This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One > concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many > thought was a good idea. Agreed. I don't think eliminating the 3-month requirement is a good idea. > Dan Alexander > Speaking as myself Ditto. -Scott From bill at herrin.us Tue Jan 24 01:04:41 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:04:41 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <21B3A88B-3D15-45D2-9555-18D7D7F30D1C@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM, John Curran wrote: >> The AC cannot directly change 2011-1 at this time, since it is >> a Recommended Draft Policy before the ARIN Board of Trustees. >> >> That should not prevent discussion of language improvements on >> this mailing list, as the Board could easily remand the policy >> back to the AC if it were clear that the language needed to be >> revised before further consideration. > > I'm encouraging competing proposals, proposals that my have entirely > different language altogether. Operating in the current realm, and as > you describe, is limiting. This topic is important enough where folks > should not feel constrained by the PDP. And I'm willing to spend the effort writing one and following through with it given some reason to believe it won't be Charlie Brown and the football from the AC. So far, I have satisfactory assurance from 2 of 15 members. 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 Tue Jan 24 10:20:41 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:20:41 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal -- Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods In-Reply-To: References: <4F10B324.9010007@rancid.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <6CCDF4C8-FBB8-4888-8AEA-CDFD4B79629C@delong.com> I could go either way. Certainly at the current time, the 3 month window is doing more harm than good. I'm OK with eliminating the 3-month and going back to 12 (or even 24 months) and I'm OK with moving the 3-month trigger out to when ARIN holds ?/8 in inventory not counting reserved pools (2011-14 and reserved space for IPv6 transition) which I believe totals a /16+/10 of reserved space. Owen On Jan 23, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: >> >> Does anyone share my opinion that the soft landing approach of three month >> allocations was a good idea, but the trigger may have been off? Instead of >> making all timeframes equal, would it make better sense to just tweak >> section 4.2.4.4? >> >> Replace: >> >> "When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, >> the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An >> organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP >> addresses." >> >> With: >> >> "When ARIN's available pool of IPv4 address space is less than an >> equivalent /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will >> be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply >> of IP addresses." > > I think I could support that. > >> This was discussed in the past, but may be worth another visit. One >> concern I have over prop-161 is it eliminates the soft landing that many >> thought was a good idea. > > Agreed. I don't think eliminating the 3-month requirement is a good idea. > >> Dan Alexander >> Speaking as myself > > Ditto. > > -Scott > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Tue Jan 24 10:31:57 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:31:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: <21B3A88B-3D15-45D2-9555-18D7D7F30D1C@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: > And I'm willing to spend the effort writing one and following through > with it given some reason to believe it won't be Charlie Brown and the > football from the AC. So far, I have satisfactory assurance from 2 of > 15 members. > Bill, I assure you that I give any policy proposal submitted due consideration prior to deciding whether to vote to put it on the docket or abandon it. I do not believe that the AC response to any of your proposals has been Charlie Brown and the Football, so much as a genuine belief that what was proposed lacked community support and/or would not result in an improvement to policy. I will not promise to vote to put a proposal on the docket prior to seeing the proposal, but, if I believe the proposal has merit, I will vote to put it on the docket regardless of who authored it and/or whether or not I actually support the proposal. A review of my voting record on the AC will reflect this fact. I have voted to put many proposals on the docket that I did not feel represented good policy if I believed there was community support for them. I have also voted to abandon proposals I supported when I did not feel there was adequate community consensus. Owen From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Tue Jan 24 11:13:11 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:13:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: These kind of accusations are disappointing. Bill, you are currently working on an alternative and your input has been very helpful. Prop-151 is a rewrite and directly incorporates some of your feedback. It is also an example of compromise between the author, the community, and the AC. Prop-151 has evolved considerably from its original text, to the credit of the author, and could add to the foundation laid by 2011-1. If we need another proposed approach that is different from prop-151, than lets get it submitted. Can we get back to working on policy? Dan Alexander Speaking as myself On 1/24/12 1:04 AM, "William Herrin" wrote: >On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Martin Hannigan >wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> The AC cannot directly change 2011-1 at this time, since it is >>> a Recommended Draft Policy before the ARIN Board of Trustees. >>> >>> That should not prevent discussion of language improvements on >>> this mailing list, as the Board could easily remand the policy >>> back to the AC if it were clear that the language needed to be >>> revised before further consideration. >> >> I'm encouraging competing proposals, proposals that my have entirely >> different language altogether. Operating in the current realm, and as >> you describe, is limiting. This topic is important enough where folks >> should not feel constrained by the PDP. > >And I'm willing to spend the effort writing one and following through >with it given some reason to believe it won't be Charlie Brown and the >football from the AC. So far, I have satisfactory assurance from 2 of >15 members. > >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 bill at herrin.us Tue Jan 24 20:57:21 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:57:21 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > These kind of accusations are disappointing. Bill, you are currently > working on an alternative and your input has been very helpful. Prop-151 > is a rewrite and directly incorporates some of your feedback. It is also > an example of compromise between the author, the community, and the AC. Dan, If you mean an example of the AC hijacking a proposal to achieve an end radically different than the one envisioned by the original author, you're right. The original didn't address inter-region transfers at all and certainly wasn't concerned with balancing cross-rir fairness issues. I don't mean to be harsh about it but Mike's ideas for transfers have independent merit from the issues raised in 2011-1. Conflating them serves to prevent both sets of issues from getting a fair hearing. > If we need > another proposed approach that is different from prop-151, than lets get > it submitted. I've seen too many proposals die at the AC without a fair hearing by the wider community. Too many more have gotten a hatchet job, like prop 151. Give me reason to believe another proposal will not only make it to a PPM, but make it reasonably intact. Do that and a proposal you shall have. > Can we get back to working on policy? Love to. Make it possible. 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 Jan 25 00:23:25 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:23:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2012, at 7:57 PM, William Herrin wrote: > I've seen too many proposals die at the AC without a fair hearing by > the wider community. Too many more have gotten a hatchet job, like > prop 151. Give me reason to believe another proposal will not only > make it to a PPM, but make it reasonably intact. Do that and a > proposal you shall have. Bill - The Advisory Council is elected for the purpose of developing sound Internet number resource policy. That's their actual purpose in the policy development process, and while that does generally have them nurturing policy proposals to a fruitful result, it can also at times require that proposals be edited, merged, or dropped from further consideration. Their role holding the editors pen in the policy process has definitely improved the quality of the number resource policy in the region. The Policy Development process contains a protective mechanism in the form of a petition process which allows 10 people to stay a final action of the Advisory Council with respect a policy proposal or draft policy. Given that each policy proposal is posted to PPML, obtaining an expression of support from just 10 folks is a rather low threshold for any policy proposal that the community thinks merits further consideration than provided by the Advisory Council. >> From: Daniel Alexander >> Can we get back to working on policy? > > Love to. Make it possible. As you are aware, we're about to release a new proposed PDP for community comment. Some of the changes therein are the direct result of input from you on this list, but I'd also welcome any and all further suggestions for improvement to the policy development process. While many policy proposals go relatively unchanged to the public policy meeting as draft policies, the Advisory Council developing a set of draft policies for PPM discussion is necessary if we are to have sufficient time for adequate discussion by the community. If somehow the 15 elected AC members seem to get this task wrong, it takes but 10 people in the community to get your proposal to PPM discussion and reasonably intact in the process. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From info at arin.net Wed Jan 25 13:00:14 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:00:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 Message-ID: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for adoption: ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods The AC abandoned the following proposal: ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this 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 scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 15:57:51 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:57:51 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: As I often do, here are my own personal opinions on the policies and proposals below. As always, I'm speaking for myself, not the AC. On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory > Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about > several draft policies and proposals. > > The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for > adoption: > > ?ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers > ?ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months I believe both of these are useful policies, and were well supported in Philadelphia. I supported sending them to the Board. > The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and > evaluation: > > ?ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods Personally I think the existing policy that allows organizations to get up to a 3-month supply of addresses from ARIN's free pool is good policy. As noted earlier, I would also be fine if the 3-month restriction didn't go into effect until we get down to one /8 left in the free pool, but I don't see the discrepancy between the 3-month supply criterion for the free pool, and the 12-month (soon to be 24-month) criterion for the transfer market, as problematic. That said, I do think this issue should be discussed at an upcoming Public Policy meeting, so I voted to put it on the docket. > The AC abandoned the following proposal: > > ?ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization > > Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a > significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for > receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change > on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." I agree with the statement above, but I still voted against abandonment to give the author and ARIN staff more time to work through the clarity and understanding step of the PDP. Given that the plurality of the AC disagreed with me, it looks to me like the best way forward is to resubmit a revised proposal based on the feedback received so far. > The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort > and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. Heartily agreed, as always. -Scott > The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The petition to advance this 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) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Wed Jan 25 19:05:47 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:05:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: <55903D80-77C4-40C2-8122-2EBABCEFEB7B@delong.com> On Jan 25, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > As I often do, here are my own personal opinions on the policies and > proposals below. As always, I'm speaking for myself, not the AC. > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ARIN wrote: >> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory >> Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about >> several draft policies and proposals. >> >> The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for >> adoption: >> >> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months > > I believe both of these are useful policies, and were well supported > in Philadelphia. I supported sending them to the Board. > I voted against both of these for the same reasons I have outlined before. However, I agree that they had some community support and accept and support the decision of the Advisory Council. >> >> The AC abandoned the following proposal: >> >> ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization >> >> Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a >> significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for >> receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change >> on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." > > I agree with the statement above, but I still voted against > abandonment to give the author and ARIN staff more time to work > through the clarity and understanding step of the PDP. Given that the > plurality of the AC disagreed with me, it looks to me like the best > way forward is to resubmit a revised proposal based on the feedback > received so far. > I voted to abandon. In addition to the lack of merit in the proposal, the misleading title, and the vague and useless rationale, I felt that the policy change proposed would have harmful effects on IPv4 number resource policy. The proposal also would create an asymmetrical benefit for a very small subset of the ARIN resource holding community which is inconsistent with good stewardship of the address space. Owen From bill at herrin.us Thu Jan 26 12:00:19 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:00:19 -1000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: <55903D80-77C4-40C2-8122-2EBABCEFEB7B@delong.com> References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> <55903D80-77C4-40C2-8122-2EBABCEFEB7B@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 25, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: I want to take a moment to thank both Scott and Owen for sharing the reasoning behind their respective votes. On the question of process transparency, you lead with your example. 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 Thu Jan 26 14:39:21 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:39:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > As I often do, here are my own personal opinions on the policies and > proposals below. ?As always, I'm speaking for myself, not the AC. > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ARIN wrote: >> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory >> Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about >> several draft policies and proposals. >> >> The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for >> adoption: >> >> ?ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >> ?ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months > > I believe both of these are useful policies, and were well supported > in Philadelphia. ?I supported sending them to the Board. Similiar reasons here except with 2011-12 I think the window should have been extended to 36 or even 60 months. 24 is an ok start. >> The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and >> evaluation: >> >> ?ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods > > Personally I think the existing policy that allows organizations to > get up to a 3-month supply of addresses from ARIN's free pool is good > policy. ?As noted earlier, I would also be fine if the 3-month > restriction didn't go into effect until we get down to one /8 left in > the free pool, but I don't see the discrepancy between the 3-month > supply criterion for the free pool, and the 12-month (soon to be > 24-month) criterion for the transfer market, as problematic. I mostly agree, but I don't think that the 3 month rule is doing anything but causing additional damage to v6 transition efforts and increasing cost of operating our networks. I doubt that the use rate would accelerate until near the end of the supply, the last perceived quarter. At this point, cost should be the main concern and moving this back to 12mos and matching it to a local condition vs. a condition elsewhere is rational. > > That said, I do think this issue should be discussed at an upcoming > Public Policy meeting, so I voted to put it on the docket. > >> The AC abandoned the following proposal: >> >> ?ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization >> >> Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a >> significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for >> receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change >> on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." > > I agree with the statement above, but I still voted against > abandonment to give the author and ARIN staff more time to work > through the clarity and understanding step of the PDP. ?Given that the > plurality of the AC disagreed with me, it looks to me like the best > way forward is to resubmit a revised proposal based on the feedback > received so far. > I'm not sure that the AC actually did it's job with this proposal. I was the author so I have an interest in this, but at a basic level the existing policy allows an unlimited amount of entities including ARIN to audit not only the space that the network being asked provided, but any other space provided whether or not its connected to them. ARIN is regulated in their audits under Section 12. Others are not. Also, and as many have agreed in the past, Section 12 is adequate and we've resisted efforts to change it since most realize that being subject to a Section 12 audit is both costly and extremely time consuming. The result of this policy is also an impediment to aggregation. Pushing need away from PA to PI increases dis-aggregation. So there were sufficient components here to at least have had serious consideration, cost, aggregation, ARIN's responsibilities, etc. Two concerns were stated as reasons to abandon during our discussion. The first was that the "title was misleading". It had been established that the AC could opt to change the title of a proposal so may not be a valid reason to abandon and then the reason stated above is weak. The second was a fear of 'address kiting', something that should be able to be caught easily in Section 12 audits. Coupled with the split vote closely along industry sectors, perhaps it is worthy of a petition. Best, -M< From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Jan 26 14:56:52 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:56:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:39 PM > To: Scott Leibrand > Cc: ARIN-PPML List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January > 2012 > > > Coupled with the split vote closely along industry sectors, perhaps it > is worthy of a petition. > > > Best, > > -M< Hi Marty, Just wanted to state that I'm not so certain that the vote was split as a result of industry sectors. I felt the proposal was worthy of further work by the AC and therefore should make it onto the docket. I'm not so certain that it would have ever made it to the recommended (or even draft) policy stage, but certainly could have used further discussion. That was the reason for my vote against the motion to abandon. It had nothing to do with my industry sector. I shall note that I have in the past abstained from votes if I felt there was a perceived conflict between my AC duties and my personal/business interests. Regards, Bill From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 15:03:20 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:03:20 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bill Sandiford wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:39 PM >> To: Scott Leibrand >> Cc: ARIN-PPML List >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January >> 2012 >> > >> >> Coupled with the split vote closely along industry sectors, perhaps it >> is worthy of a petition. >> >> >> Best, >> >> -M< > > Hi Marty, > > Just wanted to state that I'm not so certain that the vote was split as a result of industry sectors. Howdy Bill, Point taken. To clarify, I think the vote was split mostly "along" industry sector lines. While I found it somewhat odd, I don't have a solid conclusion to draw from that at this time, but felt it was worth mentioning. >?I felt the proposal was worthy of further work by the AC and therefore should make it onto the docket. ?I'm not so certain that it would have ever made it to the recommended (or even draft) policy stage, but certainly could have used further discussion. > Agreed. > That was the reason for my vote against the motion to abandon. ?It had nothing to do with my industry sector. ?I shall note that I have in the past abstained from votes if I felt there was a perceived conflict between my AC duties and my personal/business interests. > Thanks for the addendum, I agree with all of your comments. I hope my followup helps to clarify my comments a bit. Best, -M< From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Jan 26 15:09:22 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:09:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:03 PM > To: Bill Sandiford > Cc: Scott Leibrand; ARIN-PPML List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January > 2012 > > > Thanks for the addendum, I agree with all of your comments. I hope my > followup helps to clarify my comments a bit. > It does. Thank you. Bill From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 19:14:44 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:14:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: Petition for 160 please. On Wednesday, January 25, 2012, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. > > The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for > adoption: > > ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers > ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months > > The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: > > ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods > > The AC abandoned the following proposal: > > ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization > > Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." > > The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort > and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. > > The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this 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) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Jan 27 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:53:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201201270553.q0R5r2ns005632@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 31 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 27 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 19.35% | 6 | 17.96% | 41112 | bill at herrin.us 16.13% | 5 | 18.58% | 42548 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 12.90% | 4 | 14.38% | 32913 | hannigan at gmail.com 9.68% | 3 | 9.76% | 22342 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 9.68% | 3 | 9.38% | 21485 | owen at delong.com 9.68% | 3 | 8.27% | 18926 | jcurran at arin.net 6.45% | 2 | 4.93% | 11292 | bill at telnetcommunications.com 3.23% | 1 | 4.86% | 11136 | farmer at umn.edu 3.23% | 1 | 4.00% | 9152 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net 3.23% | 1 | 3.17% | 7261 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.23% | 1 | 2.59% | 5931 | info at arin.net 3.23% | 1 | 2.12% | 4858 | jmaimon at chl.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 31 |100.00% | 228956 | Total From info at arin.net Fri Jan 27 09:59:23 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:59:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. 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) ## * ## ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 1.0 Date: 27 JAN 2012 Proposal type: MODIFY Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: NRPM Section 4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year Change the following text from: When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP addresses. To: When the ARIN free pool is down to one allocation away from the last /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to three month supply of IP addresses. Rationale: There has been discussion in the community that the excess inventory in the ARIN region is damaging the transition to v6 by elongating the amount of time between internal exhaustion and exhaustion by other RIR's and allowing all to proceed in a manner which can be described as "business as usual". ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of primary concern in this region. Asking businesses to request addresses on a three month basis with such large inventory available at ARIN unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of operating the network; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate paperwork requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all compound the pain. Considering that ARIN has roughly 6 /8's available, restating the need window to one year and basing an austerity measure on a local condition now that we have experience seems prudent and in the interest of all. From cja at daydream.com Fri Jan 27 10:06:47 2012 From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:06:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> Message-ID: Marty this says you're changing from "request up to a 3-month supply of IP addresses." to "request up to three month supply of IP addresses." It doesn't seem to change the policy at all. What am I missing here? Thanks ----Cathy On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:59 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > 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) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JAN 2012 > > Proposal type: MODIFY > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > NRPM Section 4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year > > Change the following text from: > > When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. > An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP > addresses. > > To: > > When the ARIN free pool is down to one allocation away from the last /8, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. > An organization may choose to request up to three month supply of IP > addresses. > > Rationale: > > There has been discussion in the community that the excess inventory > in the ARIN region is damaging the transition to v6 by elongating the > amount of time between internal exhaustion and exhaustion by other > RIR's and allowing all to proceed in a manner which can be described > as "business as usual". ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of > primary concern in this region. Asking businesses to request addresses > on a three month basis with such large inventory available at ARIN > unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of operating the > network; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate paperwork > requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all compound the > pain. > > Considering that ARIN has roughly 6 /8's available, restating the need > window to one year and basing an austerity measure on a local > condition now that we have experience seems prudent and in the > interest of all. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 Jan 27 10:14:04 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:14:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> Message-ID: <78012E07-974B-4388-89FD-BBAE78FFE3BE@corp.arin.net> Cathy - I believe that the intent of the proposal is to change the trigger condition for going from a 12-month window to a 3-month window to occur when the ARIN allocation pool transitions below one /8 of IPv4 available space (rather than the previous "final 5 /8" event) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:06 AM, CJ Aronson wrote: > Marty this says you're changing from "request up to a 3-month supply > of IP addresses." to "request up to three month supply of IP > addresses." > > It doesn't seem to change the policy at all. What am I missing here? > > Thanks > ----Cathy > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:59 AM, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 >> >> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the >> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy >> Development Process. >> >> 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) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 >> >> Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan >> >> Proposal Version: 1.0 >> >> Date: 27 JAN 2012 >> >> Proposal type: MODIFY >> >> Policy term: PERMANENT >> >> Policy statement: >> >> NRPM Section 4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year >> >> Change the following text from: >> >> When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, >> the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. >> An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP >> addresses. >> >> To: >> >> When the ARIN free pool is down to one allocation away from the last /8, >> the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. >> An organization may choose to request up to three month supply of IP >> addresses. >> >> Rationale: >> >> There has been discussion in the community that the excess inventory >> in the ARIN region is damaging the transition to v6 by elongating the >> amount of time between internal exhaustion and exhaustion by other >> RIR's and allowing all to proceed in a manner which can be described >> as "business as usual". ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of >> primary concern in this region. Asking businesses to request addresses >> on a three month basis with such large inventory available at ARIN >> unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of operating the >> network; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate paperwork >> requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all compound the >> pain. >> >> Considering that ARIN has roughly 6 /8's available, restating the need >> window to one year and basing an austerity measure on a local >> condition now that we have experience seems prudent and in the >> interest of all. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 Fri Jan 27 10:17:03 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:17:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <78012E07-974B-4388-89FD-BBAE78FFE3BE@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <78012E07-974B-4388-89FD-BBAE78FFE3BE@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM, John Curran wrote: > Cathy - > > ?I believe that the intent of the proposal is to change the trigger > ?condition for going from a 12-month window to a 3-month window to > ?occur when the ARIN allocation pool transitions below one /8 of > ?IPv4 available space (rather than the previous "final 5 /8" event) For the most part, yes. The language needs some fine tuning, but that is the basic intent. Best, -M< From info at arin.net Fri Jan 27 10:19:55 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:19:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition for Discussion of ARIN-prop-160 In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F22C09B.802@arin.net> The message below started a petition regarding the ARIN Advisory Council's decision to abandon ARIN-prop-160. The AC's decision was posted by ARIN staff to PPML on 25 January 2012. If successful, this petition will change ARIN-prop-160 into a Draft Policy which will be published for adoption discussion on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in April 2012. If the petition fails, the proposal will be closed. For this petition to be successful, the petition needs statements of support from at least 10 different people from 10 different organizations. If you wish to support this petition, post a statement of support to PPML on this thread. The duration of the petition is until five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. ARIN staff will post the result of the petition to PPML. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html The proposal text is below and 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) ##### > Petition for 160 please. > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2012, ARIN wrote: >> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. >> >> The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for >> adoption: >> >> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months >> >> The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: >> >> ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods >> >> The AC abandoned the following proposal: >> >> ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization >> >> Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." >> >> The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort >> and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. >> >> The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this 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) >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage 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 ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 1 Date: 22 DEC 2011 Proposal type: MODIFY Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: Change policy statement from: 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Reassignment information for prior allocations must show that each customer meets the 80% utilization criteria and must be available via SWIP / RWhois prior to your issuing them additional space. To: 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization Reassignment information for prior allocations made from the same ISP's inventory must show that each customer meets the 80% utilization criteria and must be available via SWIP / RWhois prior to your issuing them additional number resources. Rationale: Existing policy is vague. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From owen at delong.com Fri Jan 27 10:34:59 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:34:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> Message-ID: <62574C19-B0D5-4EF3-A9AB-859B1343F591@delong.com> I would rather see this simply state when the ARIN free pool has less than one /8 of space remaining, notwithstanding reservations under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 rather than the convoluted retroactive phrasing in the current proposal text. Otherwise, I would support the proposal. Owen On Jan 27, 2012, at 6:59 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > 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) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JAN 2012 > > Proposal type: MODIFY > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > NRPM Section 4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year > > Change the following text from: > > When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. > An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP > addresses. > > To: > > When the ARIN free pool is down to one allocation away from the last /8, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. > An organization may choose to request up to three month supply of IP > addresses. > > Rationale: > > There has been discussion in the community that the excess inventory > in the ARIN region is damaging the transition to v6 by elongating the > amount of time between internal exhaustion and exhaustion by other > RIR's and allowing all to proceed in a manner which can be described > as "business as usual". ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of > primary concern in this region. Asking businesses to request addresses > on a three month basis with such large inventory available at ARIN > unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of operating the > network; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate paperwork > requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all compound the > pain. > > Considering that ARIN has roughly 6 /8's available, restating the need > window to one year and basing an austerity measure on a local > condition now that we have experience seems prudent and in the > interest of all. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 mike at nationwideinc.com Fri Jan 27 10:53:30 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:53:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> Message-ID: <8D94ED2C2018472FBCBF56478FC3E1D6@MPC> Support, three months is too short given the size of our pool. -----Original Message----- From: ARIN Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:59 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. 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) ## * ## ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 1.0 Date: 27 JAN 2012 Proposal type: MODIFY Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: NRPM Section 4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year Change the following text from: When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP addresses. To: When the ARIN free pool is down to one allocation away from the last /8, the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. An organization may choose to request up to three month supply of IP addresses. Rationale: There has been discussion in the community that the excess inventory in the ARIN region is damaging the transition to v6 by elongating the amount of time between internal exhaustion and exhaustion by other RIR's and allowing all to proceed in a manner which can be described as "business as usual". ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of primary concern in this region. Asking businesses to request addresses on a three month basis with such large inventory available at ARIN unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of operating the network; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate paperwork requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all compound the pain. Considering that ARIN has roughly 6 /8's available, restating the need window to one year and basing an austerity measure on a local condition now that we have experience seems prudent and in the interest of all. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage 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 Fri Jan 27 11:43:12 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:43:12 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-161 and 162 In-Reply-To: <8D94ED2C2018472FBCBF56478FC3E1D6@MPC> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <8D94ED2C2018472FBCBF56478FC3E1D6@MPC> Message-ID: <4F22D420.7020509@umn.edu> With twenty-twenty hide-sight it was premature to trigger the change to 3 months at IANA run-out, we ended up with way more addresses than anyone realistically expected. I think resetting the trigger to an equivalent of a /8 in the free pool, excluding the special reservations we've made, is appropriate. However, I have a question for the community, do you want to discuss only a draft policy based on ARIN-prop-162 in Vancouver or would you also like to discuss a draft policy based on ARIN-prop-161 also? Personally, I would be incline to only move a draft policy based on ARIN-prop-162 forward for adoption discussion in Vancouver. Although, I see no harm in also moving a version of ARIN-prop-161 forward for discussion if there is interest in the community to discuss it as well. On 1/27/12 09:53 CST, Mike Burns wrote: > Support, three months is too short given the size of our pool. > > > -----Original Message----- From: ARIN Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 > 9:59 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 > Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > 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) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JAN 2012 > > Proposal type: MODIFY > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > NRPM Section 4.2.4.4. Subscriber Members After One Year > > Change the following text from: > > When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. > An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP > addresses. > > To: > > When the ARIN free pool is down to one allocation away from the last /8, > the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced. > An organization may choose to request up to three month supply of IP > addresses. > > Rationale: > > There has been discussion in the community that the excess inventory > in the ARIN region is damaging the transition to v6 by elongating the > amount of time between internal exhaustion and exhaustion by other > RIR's and allowing all to proceed in a manner which can be described > as "business as usual". ARIN's stewardship responsibilities are of > primary concern in this region. Asking businesses to request addresses > on a three month basis with such large inventory available at ARIN > unnecessarily increases the cost and complexity of operating the > network; repeated and slow interactions with ARIN, duplicate paperwork > requirements and an inefficient use of resources by all compound the > pain. > > Considering that ARIN has roughly 6 /8's available, restating the need > window to one year and basing an austerity measure on a local > condition now that we have experience seems prudent and in the > interest of all. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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. -- =============================================== 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 jmaimon at chl.com Fri Jan 27 11:43:34 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:43:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> Message-ID: <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 I suppose before we get into this, we should clarify a) how large is ARIN's free pool likely to be at the time of implementation of any such proposal b) What happens if the pool grows back to over /8? Does anyone else recall when runout management proposals (before runout) were shouted down as deck chair arrangements. What has changed? Possibly that this particular policy, mediocre an effort as it was, was effective enough that ARIN is still afloat and deck chairs are still relevant? So why do we want to change that again? So the land rush can resume its normal pace? I oppose this proposal, in any shape. I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the least served members, including those who dont even exist yet. I do not believe we should be concerned with ensuring that the existing members can continue their consumption rate without impediment. Joe From jmaimon at chl.com Fri Jan 27 12:05:18 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:05:18 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-161 and 162 In-Reply-To: <4F22D420.7020509@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <8D94ED2C2018472FBCBF56478FC3E1D6@MPC> <4F22D420.7020509@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4F22D94E.1080003@chl.com> David Farmer wrote: > However, I have a question for the community, do you want to discuss > only a draft policy based on ARIN-prop-162 in Vancouver or would you > also like to discuss a draft policy based on ARIN-prop-161 also? > Personally I would like to see them both abandoned, with the reasoning congruent to that quoted for many other abandonments of post ipv4 runout policies. Joe From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 13:00:45 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:00:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Petition for Discussion of ARIN-prop-160 In-Reply-To: <4F22C09B.802@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22C09B.802@arin.net> Message-ID: Support. On Friday, January 27, 2012, ARIN wrote: > The message below started a petition regarding the ARIN Advisory > Council's decision to abandon ARIN-prop-160. The AC's decision was > posted by ARIN staff to PPML on 25 January 2012. > > If successful, this petition will change ARIN-prop-160 into a Draft > Policy which will be published for adoption discussion on the PPML and > at the Public Policy Meeting in April 2012. If the petition fails, the > proposal will be closed. > > For this petition to be successful, the petition needs statements of > support from at least 10 different people from 10 different > organizations. If you wish to support this petition, post a statement of > support to PPML on this thread. > > The duration of the petition is until five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. ARIN staff will post the result of > the petition to PPML. > > For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP > Petitions at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > The proposal text is below and 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) > > > ##### > > >> Petition for 160 please. >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2012, ARIN wrote: >>> >>> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. >>> >>> The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for >>> adoption: >>> >>> ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers >>> ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months >>> >>> The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and evaluation: >>> >>> ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods >>> >>> The AC abandoned the following proposal: >>> >>> ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization >>> >>> Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." >>> >>> The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort >>> and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. >>> >>> The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The petition to advance this 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) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage 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 > > > ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 22 DEC 2011 > > Proposal type: MODIFY > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > Change policy statement from: > > 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization > > Reassignment information for prior allocations must show that each > customer meets the 80% utilization criteria and must be available via > SWIP / RWhois prior to your issuing them additional space. > > To: > > 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization > > Reassignment information for prior allocations made from the same > ISP's inventory must show that each customer meets the 80% utilization > criteria and must be available via SWIP / RWhois prior to your issuing > them additional number resources. > > Rationale: > > Existing policy is vague. > > 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. > -- Sent via a mobile device -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 13:03:19 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:03:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> Message-ID: How many new entrants were there in 2011 and how much v4 address space did they receive? On Friday, January 27, 2012, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > ARIN wrote: >> >> ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 > > I suppose before we get into this, we should clarify > > a) how large is ARIN's free pool likely to be at the time of implementation of any such proposal > > b) What happens if the pool grows back to over /8? > > Does anyone else recall when runout management proposals (before runout) were shouted down as deck chair arrangements. > > What has changed? > > Possibly that this particular policy, mediocre an effort as it was, was effective enough that ARIN is still afloat and deck chairs are still relevant? > > So why do we want to change that again? So the land rush can resume its normal pace? > > I oppose this proposal, in any shape. > > I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the least served members, including those who dont even exist yet. > > I do not believe we should be concerned with ensuring that the existing members can continue their consumption rate without impediment. > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage 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 jcurran at arin.net Fri Jan 27 19:04:00 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:04:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics on IPv4 space issued and new entrants (was: ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4) In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > How many new entrants were there in 2011 and how much v4 address space did they receive? Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2011: 318 Total IPv4 space approved for: 2,812 /24s Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2011: 497 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. Total IPv4 space approved for: 70,569 /24s FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From heather.skanks at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 00:07:17 2012 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:07:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal 159 - Modification - feedback request Message-ID: Proposal 159 seeks to add an additional way to justify a subsequent IPv6 allocation. Prop 159 would make it possible for ISP's that have begun subnetting and allocating their IPv6 space, but who may not have planned for enough subnets, or longer term growth, to receive an additional allocation. I have included our suggested modification, the text as it currently is in NRPM, and the original prop 159 text submitted. The ARIN staff clarity and understanding statement expressed concern about the original text over the potential for abuse. I believe this modification addresses that concern. --Heather Schiller Modify 6.5.3.b as follows: An LIR may request a subsequent allocation when they can show utilization of: 75% or more of their total address space or more than 90% of any serving site or when 75% of the aggregate has been subnetted, and each subnet contains atleast 1* customer or infrastructure allocation or assignment ( *1 can be replaced here with any reasonable number) Section 6.5.3.b as it stands today: b. An LIR which can show utilization of 75% or more of their total address space, or more than 90% of any serving site shall be entitled to a subsequent allocation. Original Prop 159 text: NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6) Add: 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the tie down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from the /36). From cgrundemann at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 12:52:37 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:52:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposal 159 - Modification - feedback request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 22:07, Heather Schiller wrote: > Proposal 159 seeks to add an additional way to justify a subsequent > IPv6 allocation. ?Prop 159 would make it possible for ISP's that have > begun subnetting and allocating their IPv6 space, but who may not have > planned for enough subnets, or longer term growth, to receive an > additional allocation. ? I have included our suggested modification, > the text as it currently is in NRPM, and the original prop 159 text > submitted. ? The ARIN staff clarity and understanding statement > expressed concern about the original text over the potential for > abuse. ?I believe this modification addresses that concern. Thanks Heather, I think this is a definite improvement on the original text, without losing the intent. I do have one question, below. > --Heather Schiller > > Modify 6.5.3.b as follows: > > An LIR may request a subsequent allocation when they can show utilization of: > > 75% or more of their total address space > ?or > more than 90% of any serving site > ?or > when 75% of the aggregate has been subnetted, and each subnet contains > atleast 1* customer or infrastructure > allocation or assignment Doesn't this third requirement supersede the first requirement? It appears to me that a network would always meet this third requirement before meeting the first requirement, and that a network which meets the first requirement would also meet this third requirement. Additionally, this still seems ripe for abuse. The existing allocation policy is already VERY generous. Effectively reducing the subsequent allocation requirement to one prefix per subnet seems a bit too lax. For example, let's say my ISP Grund-NET get's a /32. I break that at the nibble boundary into 16 /36. I assign one to each of 12 regions (75% of the 16). Now I assign one /48 to a customer in each of those 12 regions. This allows me to go back for a subsequent allocation under requirement three in your text (AFAICT). Having actually used just 12 of 65,536 /48s (or a utilization of about .02%) I am now eligible to double my allocation (correct me if I misunderstand). Perhaps the third requirement could be re-worded to find a middle ground (addressing the proposers problem without opening the door completely)? Maybe something like: "50% or more of their total address space when at least 90% of the aggregate has been subnetted, and each subnet contains at least 1* customer or infrastructure allocation or assignment" Just some food for thought... ~Chris > ( *1 can be replaced here with any reasonable number) > > Section 6.5.3.b as it stands today: > b. An LIR which can show utilization of 75% or more of their total > address space, or more than 90% of any serving site shall be entitled > to a subsequent allocation. > > > Original Prop 159 text: > NRPM section 2.16 Utilized (IPv6) > Add: > > 3. Tie down blocks shall be considered fully utilized, for the purpose > of subsequent allocations, when the first reassignment is made from the > tie down pool. (e.g. a /36 tie down for customer /48s will be considered > utilized for subsequent allocations once the first /48 is assigned from > the /36). > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From cgrundemann at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 13:12:59 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:12:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics on IPv4 space issued and new entrants (was: ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4) In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> Message-ID: Thanks John! Could ARIN staff also provide the same statistics for 2010? It may be interesting to compare (roughly) before/after the 3-month allocation window kicked in. Thanks, ~Chris On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 17:04, John Curran wrote: > On Jan 27, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> How many new entrants were there in 2011 and how much v4 address space did they receive? > > Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2011: ?318 > Total IPv4 space approved for: ? ? 2,812 /24s > > Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2011: ?497 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. > Total IPv4 space approved for: ? 70,569 /24s > > 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. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From cgrundemann at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 13:42:36 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:42:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012 In-Reply-To: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> References: <4F20432E.8090007@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:00, ARIN wrote: > In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory > Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about > several draft policies and proposals. > > The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for > adoption: > > ?ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers I remain opposed to this policy and voted against the recommendation for that reason. I personally believe that removing slow start from transfers is unneeded at this time, is potentially dangerous from an abuse perspective, and is absolutely premature in any case. However, I do agree that the AC decision is in line with the majority of the community and support our decision for that reason. > ?ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months I supported this proposal reluctantly. Ultimately, I believe that this is the best choice for the community and is supported by the majority of the community. > The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and > evaluation: > > ?ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods While at this time I am personally opposed to the changes it proposes, I believe this proposal warrants further discussion by the community. > The AC abandoned the following proposal: > > ?ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization > > Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a > significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for > receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change > on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time." I did not see significant support for this change from the community, I was unconvinced by the rational included, and the problem that this proposal is meant to solve has not been illustrated to my satisfaction - I agree with the AC decision to abandon. > The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort > and contributions to these and all other policy considerations. > > The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may > initiate a petition. The petition to advance this 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) > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From owen at delong.com Sat Jan 28 13:44:57 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:44:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics on IPv4 space issued and new entrants (was: ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4) In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> Message-ID: <1AFEEF5D-02D1-4A16-A3B8-18F0517210F9@delong.com> Actually, can we get a quarterly 5 year perspective on that? The reason is I would like to attempt to see what is overall trend, what is consequence of the 3 month policy shift, and, what, if any, is ramp-up to runout. I realize that the above may not clearly delineate those things, but, I think it's a reasonable tradeoff between effort to create the graphs and ability to make reasonable determinations of the above factors (or at least reasonably good semi-educated guesses). Owen On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > Thanks John! > > Could ARIN staff also provide the same statistics for 2010? > > It may be interesting to compare (roughly) before/after the 3-month > allocation window kicked in. > > Thanks, > ~Chris > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 17:04, John Curran wrote: >> On Jan 27, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> How many new entrants were there in 2011 and how much v4 address space did they receive? >> >> Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2011: 318 >> Total IPv4 space approved for: 2,812 /24s >> >> Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2011: 497 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. >> Total IPv4 space approved for: 70,569 /24s >> >> 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. > > > > -- > @ChrisGrundemann > weblog.chrisgrundemann.com > www.burningwiththebush.com > www.theIPv6experts.net > www.coisoc.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 michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Sat Jan 28 17:48:50 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:48:50 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> Message-ID: <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> On 01/27/12 08:43, Joe Maimon wrote: > I oppose this proposal, in any shape. FTR, I support prop 162. > I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the > least served members, including those who dont even exist yet. If we wish to have address space in reserve for entities that don't exist at an arbitrary time N, then we will likely be asking ARIN to hoard IPv4 addresses forever. > I do not believe we should be concerned with ensuring that the existing > members can continue their consumption rate without impediment. We needn't be concerned with that. But we need to be concerned with the issues that arise with uneven runout. We also need to be concerned with issues that arise as a result of a transfer market that is underway at a time when there is still a free pool, when policies assumed that free pool runout would have happened by now. 162 addresses those concerns and I support it. Your concern makes sense in a world where neither IPv6 nor an operating transfer market exist. michael From jmaimon at chl.com Sat Jan 28 22:53:08 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:53:08 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> Michael Sinatra wrote: > >> I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the >> least served members, including those who dont even exist yet. > > If we wish to have address space in reserve for entities that don't > exist at an arbitrary time N, then we will likely be asking ARIN to > hoard IPv4 addresses forever. Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in. Thanks John, Thanks Marty! > But we need to be concerned with the issues that arise with uneven runout. This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is this a race to the bottom? The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a date after which aint nobody getting nothing. Precisely what does that solve? > We also need to be concerned with issues that arise as a result of a > transfer market that is underway at a time when there is still a free > pool, when policies assumed that free pool runout would have happened > by now. 162 addresses those concerns and I support it. > > Your concern makes sense in a world where neither IPv6 nor an > operating transfer market exist. > > michael I dont understand how you believe simultaneously that the transfer market causes issues but that a hastier consumption of ARIN resources would ameliorate them, due to the existence of said market. I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address market, fueled by those who did. Thats good stewardship. IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to date. Best, Joe From owen at delong.com Sun Jan 29 01:17:24 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:17:24 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Michael Sinatra wrote: >> >>> I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the >>> least served members, including those who dont even exist yet. >> >> If we wish to have address space in reserve for entities that don't exist at an arbitrary time N, then we will likely be asking ARIN to hoard IPv4 addresses forever. > > Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in. > I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that preserving a /9 for those that may exist vs. using it for those that DO exist is profligate waste of resources. > Thanks John, Thanks Marty! > > >> But we need to be concerned with the issues that arise with uneven runout. > > This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is this a race to the bottom? > The issue is the various non-solutions that it spurs in the areas where runout has occurred early which then create additional costs to transition. > The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a date after which aint nobody getting nothing. > No, there are actually several other possible ways to even things out. We're not talking about perfectly even, but, several years of asymmetry is a bad thing. > Precisely what does that solve? > See Geoff Huston's presentation from Philadelphia and/or Busan. >> We also need to be concerned with issues that arise as a result of a transfer market that is underway at a time when there is still a free pool, when policies assumed that free pool runout would have happened by now. 162 addresses those concerns and I support it. >> >> Your concern makes sense in a world where neither IPv6 nor an operating transfer market exist. >> >> michael > > I dont understand how you believe simultaneously that the transfer market causes issues but that a hastier consumption of ARIN resources would ameliorate them, due to the existence of said market. > The presence of a transfer market alongside a free pool causes issues. It is the interaction and combination of the two factors that is creating concern. Yes, transfers have their own set of new problems they bring to the table, but, that's an unfortunate necessity of the current state of things. > I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address market, fueled by those who did. > > Thats good stewardship. > What you call good stewardship, I call a form of socialism. > IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to date. > Huh? Owen From jmaimon at chl.com Sun Jan 29 10:45:06 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:45:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> Message-ID: <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in. >> > I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that preserving a /9 for those that may exist vs. using it for those that DO exist is profligate waste of resources. I dont think that word means what you think it means. Balanacing the history of consumption against 0.2% of the consumed resource to be used in a far more responsible fashion, I fail to see any rationale to term the latter profligacy. They didnt gorge themselves enough yet, is that it? >> >> This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is this a race to the bottom? >> > The issue is the various non-solutions that it spurs in the areas where runout has occurred early which then create additional costs to transition. So now your are a proponent of helping those who have no resources at the expense of those who do? How does increasing our consumption rate of a still available resource do that, unless you are proposing ARIN transfer its free pool to APNIC? It will runout. There is no stopping that. Those for whom it ran out faster than those who it didnt have done a poor job in stewardship and in preparation, and I dont see why we have to express contrition and repentance towards them, at our own expense. Can you stop hand waving and actually be specific? Are you referring to APNIC? Are you referring to US mega ISP's who are finding it slightly more difficult to scoop up ipv4 one /12 at a time? > >> The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a date after which aint nobody getting nothing. >> > No, there are actually several other possible ways to even things out. We're not talking about perfectly even, but, several years of asymmetry is a bad thing. How so? Your cure is worse than the alleged disease. Let APNIC go on an aggressive reclamation and reservation policy regime until their runout matches ARIN's again. Since it is their problem, then it should be their impetus to resolve it. >> Precisely what does that solve? >> > See Geoff Huston's presentation from Philadelphia and/or Busan. Geoff's presentation shows that ARIN's policies are working to preserve IPv4 access, APNIC's policies have failed, IPv6 transition has failed and shortly after stating he did not know the solution, he falls into the trap that increasing and hastening our collective misery will somehow drive IPv6 and not make everybody upset at us for our poor judgement. I disagree on both counts. Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then? What Geoff fails to discuss in the presentation I saw is that for the End User at the edge (which he does acknowledge as the transition challenge), runout is not defined at IANA or RIR levels. It is defined by the SP. And the SP will always have IPv4 resources, to divvy up in a manner most efficient and value driven as per its own judgement. So long as they arrived in time for the party while the getting was good. Exhausting RIR stock serves only to harden and restrict the pool of the available service providers, to deny qualifying end users any other option than being at the mercy of the collective service providers with a monopoly on the resource, to the mercy of the market when they are the smallest, most vulnerable participants in it. It certainly is not stewardship of a public resource, even as it may be the appropriate end state of private property. Fail. (He does confirm what all the non-optimist have been saying for years, those whom you have claimed to not number yourself a member of all that time. Transition has not occurred with IANA runout. It has not occurred with RiR runout. It will not occur with SP runout, nor has it been induced by CGN and the like, which was our last hope. It will only occur with a seamless and properly working backwards compatible transition technology that doesnt eat its own expense via its own success. Fix 6to4 or Teredo or replace it, otherwise I can only see modest pickups in transition speed for the next decade.) > The presence of a transfer market alongside a free pool causes issues. It is the interaction and combination of the two factors that is creating concern. Yes, transfers have their own set of new problems they bring to the table, but, that's an unfortunate necessity of the current state of things. Stop handwaving and start with the specifics. I dont see any issues caused by the existence of both that are not made worse by the elimination of the other. >> I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address market, fueled by those who did. >> >> Thats good stewardship. >> > What you call good stewardship, I call a form of socialism. Its called many things, most of them good. Good business sense to ensure a steady influx of new customers. Good stewardship of a public resource that has been consumed in profligate fashion in years past. Good survival instincts to remain relevant to the needs of your constituency and to publicly show responsibility and even handedness, even if belated. Not good for those who still want gorge as they have in the past. Fetch me a violin, please. Now, community networks for free or reduced fee, that sounds more like it. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt we both support that? > >> IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to date. >> > Huh? > > Owen > Please follow along with me for a bit. The existence of IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant or in demand. The runout and exhaustion of IPv4 has not may IPv6 any more then marginally more relevant and in demand. Contrary to those who confidently claimed it would be otherwise. Was that not your whole thrust, specifically the inclusion and quoting of Geoff's research to bolster your assertion that all of us exhausting faster is good for the internet, by which you mean the IPv6 version of the internet? It most certainly is not good for the IPv4 internet, which is the one we have now. To reiterate. Slash and burn of IPv4 in the pursuit of IPv6 a) unwise b) unsound c) unkind d) unhelpful e) unsupported f) all of the above Best, Joe From cgrundemann at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 11:52:03 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:52:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 08:45, Joe Maimon wrote: > The existence of IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant or in demand. The > runout and exhaustion of IPv4 has not may IPv6 any more then marginally more > relevant and in demand. I must disagree with you here Joe. While I do agree that IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant yet (and it won't until we reach some tipping point in global adoption), I have to take issue with the second statement. IPv6 interest, demand, and deployment is at an all time high. Since the protocol is more than a decade old, I have to attribute at least some of this to the exhaustion of IPv4 free pools. General awareness of IPv6 has skyrocketed in the past 2 years. IPv6 deployments at major service providers have recently started shifting from trials to production roll-outs. IPv6 is happening and I think that we must give some of the credit to IPv4 free pool exhaustion. Yes, we have a long way to go - we're not even close to done yet, but iPv6 is absolutely more relevant and more in demand than ever before. See: www.worldipv6launch.org which crashed on the day of the press release because they received as much traffic in the first few hours as they did in the entire time that last year's event was active. I don't think that any of this necessarily points to a need to change IPv4 policy, but I do think that it was worth pointing out. Cheers, ~Chris > Best, > > Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.theIPv6experts.net www.coisoc.org From owen at delong.com Sun Jan 29 12:21:54 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:21:54 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> Message-ID: <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> On Jan 29, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >>> Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in. >>> >> I suppose that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that preserving a /9 for those that may exist vs. using it for those that DO exist is profligate waste of resources. > > I dont think that word means what you think it means. > I'm pretty sure it does. > Balanacing the history of consumption against 0.2% of the consumed resource to be used in a far more responsible fashion, I fail to see any rationale to term the latter profligacy. > I think, however, we disagree on the contextual definition of the term responsible. > They didnt gorge themselves enough yet, is that it? > ISPs do not consume addresses primarily for their own purposes. They use them to provide services to their customers (mostly by handing those addresses out to said customers for use on their equipment). Denying addressees to customers that want to use them today through existing providers in order to keep them available for possible customers later who might use them through providers who don't exist yet is not, IMHO, responsible. >>> >>> This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is this a race to the bottom? >>> >> The issue is the various non-solutions that it spurs in the areas where runout has occurred early which then create additional costs to transition. > > So now your are a proponent of helping those who have no resources at the expense of those who do? How does increasing our consumption rate of a still available resource do that, unless you are proposing ARIN transfer its free pool to APNIC? > Interesting interpretation of my words. Let me try and clarify my thinking in the hopes of actually communicating with you rather than continuing to engage in heated rhetoric... We have entered a period of escalating pain. The pain will continue to escalate until the transition to IPv6 is complete. The sooner we complete that transition, the sooner the pain will end. The longer we hold out and attempt to cobble various solutions to keep IPv4 limping along, the more pain we will inflict on ourselves and on the global internet. The period of pain began almost 15 years ago with a relatively minor scratch (NAT). We've allowed that scratch to fester, expand, and become pervasive where there are now more end-users behind NAT than on the actual internet. Now, we're talking about pushing these pervasive minor lacerations into deep flesh wounds in the forms of CGN, NAT64, and other solutions that provide a progressively less functional internet at progressively greater cost. > It will runout. There is no stopping that. Those for whom it ran out faster than those who it didnt have done a poor job in stewardship and in preparation, and I dont see why we have to express contrition and repentance towards them, at our own expense. APNIC has done a poor job of stewardship? Seriously? You're talking about more than 50% of the world population in the APNIC service region, yet they have less than 25% of the IPv4 address space. How can you possibly claim that is a poor job of stewardship? OTOH, ARIN administers more than 50% of all IPv4 address space and yet our region encompasses less than 25% of the world population and yet only the smallest registries with the poorest regions have any chance of running out later than we will even under proposal 162. Stewardship means getting the addresses that are available into the most effective use possible. It does not mean preserving a free pool for unknown possible uses in the face of known scarcity for legitimate present uses. > Can you stop hand waving and actually be specific? Are you referring to APNIC? Are you referring to US mega ISP's who are finding it slightly more difficult to scoop up ipv4 one /12 at a time? > I'm not referring to any of them specifically, but, the overall global situation with the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and ARIN's role in that transition. > >> >>> The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a date after which aint nobody getting nothing. >>> >> No, there are actually several other possible ways to even things out. We're not talking about perfectly even, but, several years of asymmetry is a bad thing. > > How so? Your cure is worse than the alleged disease. > We can agree to disagree about that. > Let APNIC go on an aggressive reclamation and reservation policy regime until their runout matches ARIN's again. > I would be willing to bet that there is far less underutilized space in the APNIC region than in the ARIN region. > Since it is their problem, then it should be their impetus to resolve it. While I would agree that they are presently the region suffering the most, your claim that it is "their problem" ignores the genesis of the problem, the history of the internet, and the role of ARIN and its predecessors in the creation of that problem. See the statistics above. > >>> Precisely what does that solve? >>> >> See Geoff Huston's presentation from Philadelphia and/or Busan. > > Geoff's presentation shows that ARIN's policies are working to preserve IPv4 access, APNIC's policies have failed, IPv6 transition has failed and shortly after stating he did not know the solution, he falls into the trap that increasing and hastening our collective misery will somehow drive IPv6 and not make everybody upset at us for our poor judgement. > An interesting way to characterize what he said. Another way to look at it is to realize that IPv4 global runout is upon us. It is inevitable in all regions. The longer it takes, the longer it will take us to complete the transition. Said transition has not failed, it is merely not proceeding as rapidly as would be ideal. Continuing to limp along with the present state of IPv4 is painful. Attempting to preserve it longer will become progressively more painful and more expensive. Focusing on the transition instead of limping along with IPv4 will create a small increase in short-term pain levels, but, provide much greater long term relief much sooner. > I disagree on both counts. > As is your right. Time may tell which of is is more correct, or, time may only tell us that whatever path we do choose as a community was obviously not ideal. > Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then? Had we done that 10 years ago, that might have actually been a better idea. It certainly did a better job of facilitating the transition from NCP to TCP/IP than what we have done with the IPv4->IPv6 transition. > > What Geoff fails to discuss in the presentation I saw is that for the End User at the edge (which he does acknowledge as the transition challenge), runout is not defined at IANA or RIR levels. It is defined by the SP. And the SP will always have IPv4 resources, to divvy up in a manner most efficient and value driven as per its own judgement. Quite frankly, the end-user transition is going to occur fairly soon whether we want it to or not. The only way SP can continue to have IPv4 resources to divvy up is by providing a progressively more and more degraded user experience to their customers, so, your claim there is utterly inaccurate. OTOH, if the end user transition is overtaken by events and occurs before there is sufficient critical mass among the service and content providers on IPv6, it will be much more painful for both the end users and their service providers. While Geoff may not have covered that fact in detail in the slide deck, I believe he at list mentioned it in his presentation. > So long as they arrived in time for the party while the getting was good. Even if you got to the party early and got a /8, once you pass the 16,000,000 customer mark, things are likely getting pretty tight for you even if you only give one address to each customer (which is already a degraded form of service). Beyond that, all you can do unless you can get more address space is to further degrade your services. > Exhausting RIR stock serves only to harden and restrict the pool of the available service providers, to deny qualifying end users any other option than being at the mercy of the collective service providers with a monopoly on the resource, to the mercy of the market when they are the smallest, most vulnerable participants in it. On the other hand, preserving a free pool and preventing those existing providers from expanding their service offerings without degrading the quality of their services will deny qualifying end users any other option than progressively more degraded internet experiences and force those service providers to inflict those degraded service levels not only on new customers, but, also on some (or all) of their existing customers as well. Bottom line, no matter how you manage it, runout hurts the end users. > It certainly is not stewardship of a public resource, even as it may be the appropriate end state of private property. Stewardship of a public resource is a balancing act to try and get the resource(s) into the most effective use. The free pool cannot possibly be the most effective use of a resource in a time of shortage. > Fail. > > (He does confirm what all the non-optimist have been saying for years, those whom you have claimed to not number yourself a member of all that time. Transition has not occurred with IANA runout. It has not occurred with RiR runout. It will not occur with SP runout, nor has it been induced by CGN and the like, which was our last hope. It will only occur with a seamless and properly working backwards compatible transition technology that doesnt eat its own expense via its own success. Fix 6to4 or Teredo or replace it, otherwise I can only see modest pickups in transition speed for the next decade.) Transition IS occurring. It has been occurring and it will continue to occur. Transition speed has actually been achieving a more than modest pickup in speed since last February, so, your statement here is not born out by the statistics. The problem is that even with that acceleration, it's still too little too late for avoiding significant pain in the transition process. There is a backwards compatible transition technology that doesn't eat its own expense via its own success. It's called dual stack. It's the only 100% viable transition technology that does not damage the user experience. Unfortunately, it requires IPv4 availability which we cannot preserve at this point. > >> The presence of a transfer market alongside a free pool causes issues. It is the interaction and combination of the two factors that is creating concern. Yes, transfers have their own set of new problems they bring to the table, but, that's an unfortunate necessity of the current state of things. > > Stop handwaving and start with the specifics. I dont see any issues caused by the existence of both that are not made worse by the elimination of the other. > 1. There are tremendous potentials for abuse of either by leveraging the other. 2. So far, the market has only served to prevent the return of addresses to the free pool from bankruptcies, thus increasing the cost of IPv4 resources while not actually increasing their availability. There are other specifics that I cannot go into due to NDAs. >>> I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address market, fueled by those who did. >>> >>> Thats good stewardship. >>> >> What you call good stewardship, I call a form of socialism. > > Its called many things, most of them good. Good business sense to ensure a steady influx of new customers. Good stewardship of a public resource that has been consumed in profligate fashion in years past. Good survival instincts to remain relevant to the needs of your constituency and to publicly show responsibility and even handedness, even if belated. > But this doesn't ensure a steady influx of new customers. Instead, it ensures that we force existing customers to choose between not accepting new customers or degrading the services to their existing customers in order to support new ones. There is little or nothing that can be done about past profligacy. However, whether a 3 month or 12 month needs basis is used in ARIN policy, I do not believe you can call the present needs-based policies profligate in either case. At least not with any degree of accuracy. Frankly, experience with the 3-month policy to date has shown the opposite of remaining relevant to the needs of our constituency. The policy is equally even handed whether it is based on 3 month or 12 month need, so, I fail to see your argument there. > Not good for those who still want gorge as they have in the past. Fetch me a violin, please. Sorry, not buying this. > Now, community networks for free or reduced fee, that sounds more like it. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt we both support that? I still support that. You will, however, note that the community networks policy (which did not get the fee support we hoped from the board), applies only to IPv6 and not to IPv4. Owen > >> >>> IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to date. >>> >> Huh? >> >> Owen >> > > Please follow along with me for a bit. > > The existence of IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant or in demand. The runout and exhaustion of IPv4 has not may IPv6 any more then marginally more relevant and in demand. > > Contrary to those who confidently claimed it would be otherwise. > > Was that not your whole thrust, specifically the inclusion and quoting of Geoff's research to bolster your assertion that all of us exhausting faster is good for the internet, by which you mean the IPv6 version of the internet? > > It most certainly is not good for the IPv4 internet, which is the one we have now. > > To reiterate. Slash and burn of IPv4 in the pursuit of IPv6 > > a) unwise > > b) unsound > > c) unkind > > d) unhelpful > > e) unsupported > > f) all of the above > > Best, > > Joe From jmaimon at chl.com Sun Jan 29 12:28:42 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:28:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> Message-ID: <4F2581CA.2030902@chl.com> Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 08:45, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> The existence of IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant or in demand. The >> runout and exhaustion of IPv4 has not may IPv6 any more then marginally more >> relevant and in demand. /marginal/ > I must disagree with you here Joe. While I do agree that IPv6 has not > made IPv4 any less relevant yet (and it won't until we reach some > tipping point in global adoption), I have to take issue with the > second statement. > > IPv6 interest, demand, and deployment is at an all time high. It doesnt sound like we disagree at all. I agree with your statement and you agree with mine. That all time high is however, pitifully small compared to where it was expected and hoped to be. A lot more of almost nothing is still just a little more than nothing. > Since > the protocol is more than a decade old, I have to attribute at least > some of this to the exhaustion of IPv4 free pools. General awareness > of IPv6 has skyrocketed in the past 2 years. IPv6 deployments at major > service providers have recently started shifting from trials to > production roll-outs. IPv6 is happening and I think that we must give > some of the credit to IPv4 free pool exhaustion. Credit for the advances you cite goes to advocacy and public relations, not to actual hardships experienced by those attempting to obtain and utilize IPv4. While the former looks to be a long hard slow slog, the latter is exceedingly unwise to attempt to embark on. Joe From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Sun Jan 29 13:12:04 2012 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:12:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F2581CA.2030902@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> <4F2581CA.2030902@chl.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Chris Grundemann wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 08:45, Joe Maimon ?wrote: >> >>> The existence of IPv6 has not made IPv4 any less relevant or in demand. >>> The >>> runout and exhaustion of IPv4 has not may IPv6 any more then marginally >>> more >>> relevant and in demand. > > /marginal/ > >> I must disagree with you here Joe. While I do agree that IPv6 has not >> made IPv4 any less relevant yet (and it won't until we reach some >> tipping point in global adoption), I have to take issue with the >> second statement. >> >> IPv6 interest, demand, and deployment is at an all time high. > > > It doesnt sound like we disagree at all. I agree with your statement and you > agree with mine. > > That all time high is however, pitifully small compared to where it was > expected and hoped to be. > > A lot more of almost nothing is still just a little more than nothing. > > > >> ?Since >> the protocol is more than a decade old, I have to attribute at least >> some of this to the exhaustion of IPv4 free pools. General awareness >> of IPv6 has skyrocketed in the past 2 years. IPv6 deployments at major >> service providers have recently started shifting from trials to >> production roll-outs. IPv6 is happening and I think that we must give >> some of the credit to IPv4 free pool exhaustion. > > > Credit for the advances you cite goes to advocacy and public relations, not > to actual hardships experienced by those attempting to obtain and utilize > IPv4. > > While the former looks to be a long hard slow slog, the latter is > exceedingly unwise to attempt to embark on. > > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. All, I'm a bit late to this discussion, but it would seem beneficial to me to leave 4.2.4.4 as-is and adopt ARIN-2011-12 in order to encourage commercial users to utilize the transfer market, lending to austerity of the free pool. .. or have I missed the point altogether? -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions From jmaimon at chl.com Sun Jan 29 21:04:11 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:04:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F25FA9B.7080404@chl.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > > ISPs do not consume addresses primarily for their own purposes. They use them to provide services to their customers (mostly by handing those addresses out to said customers for use on their equipment). > > Denying addressees to customers that want to use them today through existing providers in order to keep them available for possible customers later who might use them through providers who don't exist yet is not, IMHO, responsible. Preventing the entire pie from being eaten by those who have already have plenty, even though they have bigger stomachs then the newcomers for whom the barest crumb is preserved, is responsible to both. We both know that comparing the provider with millions of addresses and millions of customers to the provider who needs hundreds of address but and can have thousands of customers is ridiculous. > We have entered a period of escalating pain. The pain will continue to > escalate until the transition to IPv6 is complete. The sooner we > complete that transition, the sooner the pain will end. The longer we > hold out and attempt to cobble various solutions to keep IPv4 limping > along, the more pain we will inflict on ourselves and on the global > internet. The period of pain began almost 15 years ago with a > relatively minor scratch (NAT). We've allowed that scratch to fester, > expand, and become pervasive where there are now more end-users behind > NAT than on the actual internet. Now, we're talking about pushing > these pervasive minor lacerations into deep flesh wounds in the forms > of CGN, NAT64, and other solutions that provide a progressively less > functional internet at progressively greater cost. The users of NAT generally do not agree with you. Its causes them far less pain now then it did 15 years ago. It also enables them to connect to the internet in ways that would not be possible were we still trying to do it en masse how it was done in 15 years. Reality trumped idealistic theory. As I have underscored previously, you are espousing an amputation position in your pursuit of IPv6. The largest problem with that is that the patient has not given consent and can never do so. We do not define the community ARIN serves by its existing member base. >> It will runout. There is no stopping that. Those for whom it ran out faster than those who it didnt have done a poor job in stewardship and in preparation, and I dont see why we have to express contrition and repentance towards them, at our own expense. > APNIC has done a poor job of stewardship? Seriously? You're talking about more than 50% of the world population in the APNIC service region, Which percentage of that population is internet served? > yet they have less than 25% of the IPv4 address space. How can you possibly claim that is a poor job of stewardship? Simple. They dont have any left and we do. > > Stewardship means getting the addresses that are available into the most effective use possible. It does not mean preserving a free pool for unknown possible uses in the face of known scarcity for legitimate present uses. The proposal you wrote does a poor job of getting ARIN resources into APNIC's hands if that is your intent. > >> Can you stop hand waving and actually be specific? Are you referring to APNIC? Are you referring to US mega ISP's who are finding it slightly more difficult to scoop up ipv4 one /12 at a time? >> > I'm not referring to any of them specifically, but, the overall global situation with the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and ARIN's role in that transition. Lets call a spade a spade. I have requested repeatedly for actual issues that is within ARIN IPv4 stewardship scope, regional and communal. You have not provided anything worth discussing in that context. Your only problem with the current situation is that ARIN can still allocate IPv4 to its members and is projected to do so for longer then it makes you happy. You want everyone to suffer in the noble belief that it will spur IPv6 transition and uptake, taking the user and service population there kicking and screaming, at which time they will spew effusive gratification to the wise internet overloads who forced them onto the journey they mistakenly believed themselves unready for. End justified by the means etc.. Its immoral, its tyrannical, its unwise and its neither ARIN business nor yours to intentionally do things like this. In fact, I suggest you recuse yourself since action taken specifically to advance IPv6 uptake at the expense of IPv4 can easily be seen as a conflict of interest, considering your day job. The most minimal action ARIN has taken to deal with runout responsibility, has actually worked better then expected, but now you want to reverse it? >> Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then? > Had we done that 10 years ago, that might have actually been a better idea. It certainly did a better job of facilitating the transition from NCP to TCP/IP than what we have done with the IPv4->IPv6 transition. IPv4 is not a sacrificial lamb on the road to IPv6. > >> What Geoff fails to discuss in the presentation I saw is that for the End User at the edge (which he does acknowledge as the transition challenge), runout is not defined at IANA or RIR levels. It is defined by the SP. And the SP will always have IPv4 resources, to divvy up in a manner most efficient and value driven as per its own judgement. > Quite frankly, the end-user transition is going to occur fairly soon whether we want it to or not. We all want that. And if it is inevitable, stop meddling. > The only way SP can continue to have IPv4 resources to divvy up is by providing a progressively more and more degraded user experience to their customers, so, your claim there is utterly inaccurate. We all know that is hardly a uniform assumption. We have discussed this at length. I am convinced that the providers who are the users of the majority of space in ARIN can free upwards of 50% of their addresses with a variety of tactics, with varying amounts of end user inconvenience and service provider effort. 50% of a lot is still plenty. > >> So long as they arrived in time for the party while the getting was good. > Even if you got to the party early and got a /8, once you pass the 16,000,000 customer mark, things are likely getting pretty tight for you even if you only give one address to each customer (which is already a degraded form of service). Beyond that, all you can do unless you can get more address space is to further degrade your services. We both know which organization we would prefer to be once our registry has nothing to give either of us. The one with the /8 and 16m customers or the one with a PA /25 and 500 customer? > Stewardship of a public resource is a balancing act to try and get the resource(s) into the most effective use. The free pool cannot possibly be the most effective use of a resource in a time of shortage. Giving it away faster does not increase effective use. On the contrary, slower and smaller allocations encourage greater efficiencies, as we can now personally attest to. > > > There is a backwards compatible transition technology that doesn't eat its own expense via its own success. It's called dual stack. It's the only 100% viable transition technology that does not damage the user experience. Unfortunately, it requires IPv4 availability which we cannot preserve at this point. Dual stack as a transition strategy without NAT is and has been DoA for about half a dozen years every since somebody did the math. > >> >> Stop handwaving and start with the specifics. I dont see any issues caused by the existence of both that are not made worse by the elimination of the other. >> > 1. There are tremendous potentials for abuse of either by leveraging the other. Handwaving > 2. So far, the market has only served to prevent the return of addresses to the > free pool from bankruptcies, thus increasing the cost of IPv4 resources while > not actually increasing their availability. Yeah, it would have been returned. Not. And look at that, some megacorp got the space. I thought you were happy with that end goal. We already know what your real issue is. >> Its called many things, most of them good. Good business sense to ensure a steady influx of new customers. Good stewardship of a public resource that has been consumed in profligate fashion in years past. Good survival instincts to remain relevant to the needs of your constituency and to publicly show responsibility and even handedness, even if belated. >> > But this doesn't ensure a steady influx of new customers. Sure it does. ARIN did pretty well in 2011, considering it had a free pool to attract new members. I dont expect it to do as well once it does not. Putting all your hope in the transfer market remaining a beast that ARIN can properly constrain is wishful thinking at best. There will be lots of going along to get along. > Instead, it ensures that we force existing customers to choose between not accepting new customers or degrading the services to their existing customers in order to support new ones. Let somebody who has been in that position speak up. I have. I have had to risk customers because I either did not have at the time resources (or no viable to speedily obtain them) as per their request or I simply couldnt close my eyes and hand it over, like everybody much larger was doing without second thought. I suspect they will make do like I had to, only with much larger flexibility and capital. > > There is little or nothing that can be done about past profligacy. However, whether a 3 month or 12 month needs basis is used in ARIN policy, I do not believe you can call the present needs-based policies profligate in either case. At least not with any degree of accuracy. Since the utilization has slowed, obviously the past utilization rate was profligate in comparison. Joe From jmaimon at chl.com Sun Jan 29 21:08:11 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:08:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F25FB8B.5010807@chl.com> Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 29, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then? > Had we done that 10 years ago, that might have actually been a better idea. It certainly did a better job of facilitating the transition from NCP to TCP/IP than what we have done with the IPv4->IPv6 transition. The rationale of your proposal at its most eloquent. And my opposition. IPv4 is not a sacrificial lamb on the road to IPv6. Best, Joe From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Sun Jan 29 22:48:03 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:48:03 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> Message-ID: <4F2612F3.5000109@burnttofu.net> On 01/28/12 19:53, Joe Maimon wrote: > Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in. And based on John's numbers, you'd need to cut off all resource allocations to existing entities once you get down to that final /9 of unreserved space, and only allocate to new entities from that /9 from then on. That sounds like a policy proposal. Why don't you write it up and submit it? I think it deserves to be discussed, whether or not I agree with it. > This I dont get. What issues? We should all be equally miserable? Is this a race to the bottom? > > The only way to get even runout is for all the RiR's to decide upon a date after which aint nobody getting nothing. Or, to create policies that make it so difficult to get IPv4 resources, that it effectively simulates runout and unevenly distorts the transfer market. That's precisely why I generally disagree with your policy prescriptions, although I am still intrigued with only allocating the final /9 to new entities. > Precisely what does that solve? Basically, there's been a lot of hand-wringing on this mailing list (and at the Philadelphia meeting) about inter-RIR transfers and gaming the system. Even with such policy restrictions as the 3-month window and a 12-month restriction on transfers for allocations/assignments from the ARIN free pool, it is still possible to game the system, where a multinational entity gets addresses from ARIN and takes them to some other region. That's a simple fact and it's due to uneven runout. I don't think there is any combination of policies that we could create that would completely eliminate that gaming of the system potential. So my rationale is, why punish the good guys who have legitimate uses for number resources just because someone is potentially game the system, which they will do regardless of the policy choices we make regarding 4.2.4.4? > I dont understand how you believe simultaneously that the transfer > market causes issues but that a hastier consumption of ARIN resources > would ameliorate them, due to the existence of said market. I don't believe that "the transfer market causes issues," and I never said that. I do believe that uneven runout distorts the transfer market, and my other views are quite consistent with that. I also don't believe in "the consumption of ARIN resources." Last I checked, ARIN doesn't own any number resources, and they aren't "consumed" at any rate. They are used to provide IPv4 services to the Internet community. I do understand how believing they are "consumed" leads to the conclusions you draw, which is precisely why I disagree with them. Nevertheless, in such a situation, having ARIN hoard them is wasting them. > I choose slower ARIN resource utilization by those that got while the > getting was good, enabling those who did not to still obtain them > without subjecting them to the potential intractability of the address > market, fueled by those who did. The current policies do not guarantee that you will get what you want. Indeed, they will make it harder for the have-nots to get the IPv4 resources they need, while the entities with resources to go back every three months will continue to do so with no problem, or they will simply tap the market (as John has noted) further driving up the prices of IPv4 resources, and further driving out the have-nots. > Thats good stewardship. > > IPv6 relevancy to the consumption of IPv4 has been vastly overstated to > date. So your goal is to vastly understate it by assuming it away? From jmaimon at chl.com Sun Jan 29 23:02:28 2012 From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:02:28 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F2612F3.5000109@burnttofu.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F2612F3.5000109@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <4F261654.2070200@chl.com> Michael Sinatra wrote: > On 01/28/12 19:53, Joe Maimon wrote: > > >> Based on John's numbers, a /12 a year is more than enough. I believe >> 8-10 years post IANA runout of guaranteed resources for new entrants >> for the cost of /9 is a quite reasonable and respectable behavior for >> a public resource stewardship entity to be engaged in. > > And based on John's numbers, you'd need to cut off all resource > allocations to existing entities once you get down to that final /9 of > unreserved space, and only allocate to new entities from that /9 from > then on. That sounds like a policy proposal. Why don't you write it > up and submit it? I think it deserves to be discussed, whether or not > I agree with it. > Today marks attempt#2, attempt#1 died on the AC operating table. Thanks for your words of support. Joe From mysidia at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 01:37:20 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:37:20 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 29, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: > >> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > Denying addressees to customers that want to use them today through > existing providers in order to keep them available for possible customers > later who might use them through providers who don't exist yet is not, > IMHO, responsible. > I oppose the policy proposal, both the specific text, and the idea of increasing the supply allowed to be applied for to 12-months or longer without additional constraint. The RIR should deny addresses to customers that want to use them from 4 to 12 months from now every time, if they are wanting more than a /16 right now, they can and should have to wait to apply for that until the need is closer; so that they can be given in preference to those that need the addresses within 3 months, while addresses are scarce. By definition, if the addresses aren't needed within 3 months, then they don't need those addresses yet. It would just be convenient, beneficial, and more profitable for the provider to have them up front. Rapid RIR free pool exhaustion is not in the best interests of the community served by ARIN. With a 12-month supply allowed, it is possible that provider A today receives a 12-month supply, and 5 months from now, this results in provider B being denied an allocation it has immediate need for, long before provider A runs out of supply. We are talking about essentially changing the rule from a 3-month supply to a 12-month supply for new allocations again. ARIN already tried that, we started with that, it brought ARIN to its current state of near exhaustion of its IPv4 free pool. The free pool exhaustion rate was greatly reduced with the move to a 3-month supply. There are good reasons to inconvenience the provider that would like to have more than a 3 month supply of addresses from the ARIN free pool, by maintaining the 3-month supply rule as is: (1) It makes providers do extra work to make sure they really do need these extra addresses before sending in an application - the provider gets reduced returns from each application for addresses, making the costs and efforts to apply stand out, and encouraging investigation into IPv6 and other less inconvenient sources for IPv4 addresses, which reduces exhaustion rate. (2) The cost increases for providers obtaining extra large allocations -- they can no longer just "forecast an entire year" and get a hefty allocation that is probably a large overestimate in the first place; they now get 4 times a year, perhaps, to review their consumption. (3) It encourages the providers to restructure their networks to free addresses or reduce their requirements for addresses, for example utilizing technologies such as NAT /31 P-t-P links, and increase utilization efficiency. Increased efficiency means that fewer addresses are wasted. (4) With the transfer market allowing a 12-month supply and free pool allowing a 6-month supply, this encourages providers to seek addresses on the transfer market. #4 attaches an economic value to IP addresses, which encourages _many_ networks and especially legacy networks to optimize address usage, possibly with a mind for generating revenue through paid transfers to ISPs having a desire for a 12-month supply of addresses. Large providers who desire massive 12-month supply allocations have more resources/are more equipped to negotiate and find sources of IP addresses that can be made through specified transfer, than small organizations. The large providers consume so much IPv4, that if they become much more efficient with their IPv4 utilization, clean house, it is quite possible the IPv4 exhaustion problem could cease to be a problem. Taking that into account... IPv4 address exhaustion any time soon is not necessarily inevitable. It was a trend under the prior conditions of allocation. -- -JH -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Mon Jan 30 11:59:37 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:59:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] =?windows-1252?q?NRPM_2012=2E1_=96_New_Policies_Imple?= =?windows-1252?q?mented?= Message-ID: <4F26CC79.5040909@arin.net> A new version of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website. NRPM version 2012.1 is effective 30 January 2012 and supersedes the previous version. NRPM 2012.1 contains the implementation of the following policies: ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer In September we reported that 2011-3 had been partially implemented to allow IPv6 allocations up to and including /24s. 2011-3 is now fully implemented to allow larger allocations in accordance with the policy. 2011-3 was adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees on 10 June 2011. 2011-8 and 2011-10 were adopted on 16 December 2011. Board minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html The NRPM is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Draft policies and proposals are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From owen at delong.com Mon Jan 30 12:01:04 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:01:04 -0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <4F25FB8B.5010807@chl.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <4F247B52.1060909@burnttofu.net> <4F24C2A4.6060402@chl.com> <4F256982.3050102@chl.com> <96298F56-0AAD-46EB-BD79-D7FED0049504@delong.com> <4F25FB8B.5010807@chl.com> Message-ID: <5AEDC94D-F0F9-4E33-9702-8DEC1F53BDBC@delong.com> On Jan 29, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jan 29, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: >> >>> Why dont we all just turn on the IPv4 evil bit on an agreed upon date then? >> Had we done that 10 years ago, that might have actually been a better idea. It certainly did a better job of facilitating the transition from NCP to TCP/IP than what we have done with the IPv4->IPv6 transition. > > The rationale of your proposal at its most eloquent. > > And my opposition. > > IPv4 is not a sacrificial lamb on the road to IPv6. > > Best, > Joe Of course not. Neither was NCP a sacrificial lamb on the road to IPv4. However, IPv4 is a protocol that has been stretched well beyond its ideal life and which is inevitably becoming less and less functional as the internet continues. Denial of that basic fact has created problems, is creating problems, and will continue to create progressively more problems until such time as our overall dependence on IPv4 is replaced with a dependence on a more scalable protocol such as IPv6. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jan 30 22:50:12 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:50:12 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics on IPv4 space issued and new entrants (was: ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4) In-Reply-To: <1AFEEF5D-02D1-4A16-A3B8-18F0517210F9@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4F22BBCB.3060006@arin.net> <4F22D436.6050100@chl.com> <1AFEEF5D-02D1-4A16-A3B8-18F0517210F9@delong.com> Message-ID: <78DDF471-43FC-4EE7-B52D-9CE7030C25B3@arin.net> On Jan 28, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Actually, can we get a quarterly 5 year perspective on that? > > The reason is I would like to attempt to see what is overall trend, what is > consequence of the 3 month policy shift, and, what, if any, is > ramp-up to runout. Owen - Below is the requested data for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007. General Summary - - Approximately 33% to 40% of all IPv4 requests approved are for first-timers - These first-timers are issued between 1.5% and 4% of the total v4 address space issued I hope this information is helpful in your policy development efforts. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === IPv4 5-year allocation data 2011: Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2011: 318 Total IPv4 space approved for: 2,812 /24s Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2011: 497 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. Total IPv4 space approved for: 70,569 /24s 2010: Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2010: 285 Total IPv4 space approved for: 2,772 /24s Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2010: 574 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. Total IPv4 space approved for: 168,517 /24s 2009: Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2009: 342 Total IPv4 space approved for: 3,632 /24s Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2009: 652 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. Total IPv4 space approved for: 154,054 /24s 2008: Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2008: 368 Total IPv4 space approved for: 3,868 /24s Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2008: 676 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. Total IPv4 space approved for: 210,103 /24s 2007: Total first time IPv4 allocations to ISPs approved in 2007: 385 Total IPv4 space approved for: 4,156 /24s Total additional IPv4 allocations to ISPs in 2007: 572 ISP accounts received at least one additional IPv4 allocation. Total IPv4 space approved for: 190,991 /24s