From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Sep  1 08:44:55 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 12:44:55 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Nominations needed for ARIN Board and ARIN AC
Message-ID: <C898F937-BC0E-4B21-B67C-02470EFE4CAC@corp.arin.net>

Folks - 

Per ARIN Bylaws <https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/bylaws.html> 
regarding Elections for the ARIN Board and ARIN AC, it specifies:

 "The number of qualified Candidates for each body shall exceed the 
  number of open positions. "

It is indeterminate whether we have sufficient nominations at this time 
as necessary for the ballot, and hence all members should consider whether 
they are aware of anyone who could serve ably in these capacities.  Details 
on nominating candidates is attached - Note that the deadline for making 
nominations is 17:00 ET on Tuesday, 4 September 2012.

Thank you!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

> From: ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>>
> Subject: [arin-announce] Seeking Nominations: Board, AC, and NRO NC
> Date: August 28, 2012 11:23:24 AM EDT
> To: <arin-announce at arin.net<mailto:arin-announce at arin.net>>
> 
> General Members in good standing are invited to nominate candidates for two (2) seats on the Board of Trustees (Board), five (5) seats on the Advisory Council (AC), and one (1) seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council that become open when current terms expire on 31 December 2012.
> 
> The Board of Trustees and Advisory Council elections have a Nomination Committee (NomCom) that is responsible for identifying, recruiting, and certifying a properly selected slate of candidates to be placed in nomination before the membership for election. This year's NomCom members are: Board of Trustee members Timothy Denton and Scott Bradner, Advisory Council members Chris Grundemann and Kevin Blumberg, and general member volunteers Stephen Middleton, Justin Clutter, and Peter Rocca. Timothy Denton is serving as NomCom Chair.
> 
> New Board and Advisory Council terms begin 1 January 2013. Board members Paul Andersen and Scott Bradner, and Advisory Council representatives Stacy Hughes, Chris Morrow, Bill Sandiford, Robert Seastrom, and Heather Schiller will conclude their current terms on 31 December 2012. Louie Lee?s seat for the NRO NC also becomes open this year. Incumbents may be re-elected for consecutive terms.
> 
> Please note:
> 
> 1. You must be a Trustee or an ARIN General Member in good standing to make nominations for the Board and AC. However, those nominated do not need to be ARIN members. Self-nominations from General Members in good standing are permitted. Any individual, regardless of ARIN membership status, may nominate one or more candidates for any open NRO Number Council position. Please review the nomination instructions at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/instructions.html#nominate
> 
> 2. All nominees must confirm that they qualify to serve and do not violate the Nomination and Appointment Conflict of Interest List at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/conflicts.html
> 
> 3. Nominations must be received by 17:00 ET on Tuesday, 4 September 2012. In accordance with ARIN's Bylaws, each Trustee or General Member in good standing may make up to three nominations for each open seat for the Board and AC.
> 4.  Each nominee must submit the relevant nominee questionnaire by 6 September in order to run for a position they are available at:
> Board and AC:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/elec_procedures.html#botcv
> NRO NC:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/nronumbercouncil.html#nccv
> If you are interested in nominating yourself or any other individual to become a member of the Board, AC, or NRO NC, visit ARIN Election Headquarters to fill out the nomination form:
> https://www.arin.net/app/election/
> ARIN will contact all nominees via email and/or telephone to verify that they are willing and able to fulfill a three-year term. If ARIN cannot reach the nominee, the nomination will be rejected.
> 
> You may view the initial requirements and responsibilities of Board Members at:
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot_requirements.html
> The Advisory Council requirements and responsibilities are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac_requirements.html
> The NRO NC requirements and responsibilities can be viewed at:
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/nronc_requirements.html
> Visit Election Headquarters to view the qualifications for Board of Trustees and Advisory Council positions and for further information regarding the election process and timeline.
> 
> Now is also a good time for member organizations to check to make certain that they have a Designated Member Representative (DMR) eligible to vote in the upcoming election. Direct any questions to info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




From jmaimon at chl.com  Sat Sep  1 23:44:03 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:44:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5042D603.1020201@chl.com>



Owen DeLong wrote:
> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>
> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.
>
> Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.
>
> If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.
>
> Owen


Demand is flexible. Therefore, so is supply.

Looks like things are working the way they ought to.

We had the chance to throw it all out there. I made sure of it.

What do you think will happen when ARIN free pool dries up? Who will 
have the addresses then? Will we still need them? If we do, how will we 
get them? And will we as a whole be better off then now?

I expect you and I have very different answers to those questions.

Joe


From owen at delong.com  Sun Sep  2 23:06:55 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 20:06:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
Message-ID: <3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>


On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>> 
>> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.
>> 
>> Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.
>> 
>> If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> 
> Demand is flexible. Therefore, so is supply.
> 

To some extent... For a finite resource, such as globally unique IPv4 addresses, eventually you reach a point where demand exceeds supply at any achievable price point and the market effectively terminates.

> Looks like things are working the way they ought to.
> 

We can agree to disagree on this point.

> We had the chance to throw it all out there. I made sure of it.
> 

That's not what I am advocating, either.

> What do you think will happen when ARIN free pool dries up? Who will have the addresses then? Will we still need them? If we do, how will we get them? And will we as a whole be better off then now?

1. A variety of things are likely to happen. Some subset of them will.
2. Mostly the people that have them now, plus a few new entrants.
3. Need is a variable term, but certainly many will still want them.
4. If there is availability in the transfer market, then, that will likely be the main if not the only source. If there is no availability in the transfer market, then, we will either do without or some other less useful solution will be deployed (think squatting, global routing table dichotomy, network partitioning, and cats and dogs sleeping together). This period of abrupt and widespread instability will then be followed by a period of rapid IPv6 deployment and will be least disruptive to those that deployed IPv6 early. Eventually, the network will stabilize on IPv6 and things will begin improving again.
5. When we finally get to IPv6, yes. During the period between IPv4 runout and that time, we will have an unfortunate series of upheavals and disruptions and will likely be worse off than we are now. However, we will be worse off during that period no matter what. The question is how to minimize the duration, extent, and impact of that period of upheaval and disruption.

Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early artificial shortage through policy is antithetical to that goal.

> I expect you and I have very different answers to those questions.

More than likely. But at least I have shared mine. Care to share yours?


Owen



From jmaimon at chl.com  Mon Sep  3 11:24:58 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:24:58 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>


Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>>>
>>> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.

The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation 
pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain 
not to last long enough.
>>>
>>> Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.
>>>
>>> If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.
>>>
>>> Owen

No, it is evidence that the consumption has adapted to the change of 
supply. And in positive ways, for the longevity of Ipv4. So which is it? 
Do you appreciate the benefits of the transfer markets and are happy 
that it is being used or you are unhappy about its use and would like 
for us all to be subjected solely to its mercies ever sooner?

>>
>> Demand is flexible. Therefore, so is supply.
>>
> To some extent...

Apparently to the extent measurable by the ARIN allocation fall-off not 
made up for in transfer market.

> For a finite resource, such as globally unique IPv4 addresses, eventually you reach a point where demand exceeds supply at any achievable price point and the market effectively terminates.

Currently, the evidence suggests we are nowhere near that point.

I doubt either of us have economic bonafides, but markets dont terminate 
due to lack of supply. Only due to lack of demand.

Your hope is that the demand will be satisfied elsewhere, namely IPv6. 
And that it will be a sudden relentless wave.

Do you have reason to be hopeful or is that simply what you have banked 
on and wish to happen?
>
> That's not what I am advocating, either.

A return to the 12 month burn rate, which you advocated for, equated to 
exhaustion within this calendar year, followed by the transfer market 
solely being responsible for efficient utilization.

Same difference.
>
>> What do you think will happen when ARIN free pool dries up? Who will have the addresses then? Will we still need them? If we do, how will we get them? And will we as a whole be better off then now?
The non rose-tinted view is that all those who need addresses will be 
subjected solely to the mercy of the transfer market, largely composed 
of very large players and large legacy holders, a set of entities that 
overlaps to some extent and will have a natural tendency to 
self-organize into a cartel like formation. Their rules and prices will 
be what matters and they will have conflicted interest (at best) at 
moving their customer (victim) base over to v6 where rir policy returns 
to relevancy.

We will not be better off. There is no way to predict how long IPv4 will 
remain relevant and/or necessary.
> Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early 
> artificial shortage through policy
Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool by reducing its burn 
rate is the only sane approach.

Joe


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Sep  4 11:19:23 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:19:23 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220C86D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:09 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that we
>> probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute part
 >> of the ARIN free pool to other registries.
>>

Interestingly, the RIPE region has just received a proposal to eliminate their 3-month needs assessment time horizon. 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 





From farmer at umn.edu  Tue Sep  4 12:02:54 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:02:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220C86D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220C86D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5046262E.6000302@umn.edu>



On 9/4/12 10:19 CDT, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:09 PM
>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>
>>> Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that we
>>> probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute part
>   >> of the ARIN free pool to other registries.
>>>
>
> Interestingly, the RIPE region has just received a proposal to eliminate their 3-month needs assessment time horizon.
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06

If I'm not mistaken the proposal removes the 3 month and returns to a 12 
month needs assessment after the RIPE free pool is exhausted, because of 
various dependencies on that policy, like their transfer policy and LIR 
assignments to end-users.  ARiN's polices are structured differently and 
don't have the same dependencies.  Our equilivant to RIPE's soft landing 
policy originally excluded transfers to begin with, and end user 
assignments have by ISPs have their own separate language.

ARIN has chose a different way to handle run out than APNIC and RIPE, 
they both have fairly equilivant last /8 policies.  We ARIN chose to go 
a different way with we are essentially treating the 3/4 or the last /8 
the same way as the rest of our resources, without something like the 
last /8 policies that APNIC and RIPE have I'm comfortable maintaining 
the 3 month window.  The reality is that APNIC still has a free pool, 
they are just handing it out on completely different rules, we choose 
not to go that route.

Honestly, I think it is to late to change the way we are going to run 
out now, we should stick with the plan, now one know which way is right 
or wrong.  Honestly if it was totally up to me I would have done things 
a little differently.  But, I'm comfortable with the plan as we have it, 
everyone just needs to hold on for the ride.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Sep  4 13:05:54 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:05:54 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DD106@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

For all of the reasons I've stated in the past I believe it is harmful.  I agree with Owen here.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:01 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.

This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.

Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.

If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.

Owen

On Aug 31, 2012, at 14:17 , Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> It's kind of a catch-22. If you lengthen the time horizon for ARIN numbers, they will go out the door faster. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:09 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>> 
>> Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that 
>> we probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute 
>> part of the ARIN free pool to other registries.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 13:50 , Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> This report is probably of interest to this list:
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-
>>> em
>>> erging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/
>>> 
>>> Milton L. Mueller
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies 
>>> Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Sep  4 13:07:20 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:07:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DD130@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I would say that to not allocate is contrary to ARIN's mission statement.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:18 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

It's kind of a catch-22. If you lengthen the time horizon for ARIN numbers, they will go out the door faster. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:09 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> Assuming the numbers are accurate, this, above all else, proves that 
> we probably should reconsider the 3-month policy and/or redistribute 
> part of the ARIN free pool to other registries.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 13:50 , Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> > This report is probably of interest to this list:
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/31/the-first-study-of-the-
> > em
> > erging-market-for-ipv4-numbers/
> >
> > Milton L. Mueller
> > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies 
> > Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
> > ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
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 Sep  4 14:57:24 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:57:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
Message-ID: <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>


On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>>>> 
>>>> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.
> 
> The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain not to last long enough.

This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.

>>>> 
>>>> Keeping addresses in inventory when they are needed in implementations is every bit as counterproductive to that goal as would be eliminating the justified need requirement from allocation or transfer policy.
>>>> 
>>>> If policy is prematurely driving people to the transfer market because of the huge discrepancy in terms we have created with recent policy changes, then, it is evidence that that discrepancy is harmful.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
> 
> No, it is evidence that the consumption has adapted to the change of supply. And in positive ways, for the longevity of Ipv4. So which is it? Do you appreciate the benefits of the transfer markets and are happy that it is being used or you are unhappy about its use and would like for us all to be subjected solely to its mercies ever sooner?
> 

I appreciate the benefits of the transfer market but also recognize its limitations and disadvantages. Inflicting those limitations and disadvantages on some class of users earlier in order to delay it for other classes of users is not good policy and as it does not meet the required fairness test.

>>> 
>>> Demand is flexible. Therefore, so is supply.
>>> 
>> To some extent...
> 
> Apparently to the extent measurable by the ARIN allocation fall-off not made up for in transfer market.
> 

More than likely this is a temporary rather than permanent phenomenon. Most likely many organizations are postponing additional requests due to the increased difficulty of obtaining those addresses which will eventually lead to a greater crush of supply at a later date.

>> For a finite resource, such as globally unique IPv4 addresses, eventually you reach a point where demand exceeds supply at any achievable price point and the market effectively terminates.
> 
> Currently, the evidence suggests we are nowhere near that point.
> 

Does it? I don't know how much supply remains at achievable prices and I'm not sure what you are looking at that tells you it is vast or that more than $15 per address is necessarily an achievable price point.

> Your hope is that the demand will be satisfied elsewhere, namely IPv6. And that it will be a sudden relentless wave.
> 

No, my expectation is that eventually, IPv6 must replace IPv4 as the lingua franca of the global internet because there is currently no other available solution which will allow the internet to continue to grow and provide the same vital functions that it provides today. My hope is that we will do that sooner rather than later because it will be much less traumatic, much less disruptive, and much less expensive.

> Do you have reason to be hopeful or is that simply what you have banked on and wish to happen?

Yes, I have many reasons to be hopeful...
	1.	IPv6 adoption is growing
	2.	Growth in IPv6 adoption is accelerating
	3.	No matter what you do to try and work around it, IPv4 cannot scale to support the internet much beyond its
		current size. Efforts to do otherwise have been degrading the capabilities of the internet for more than a
		decade now and all evidence is that this will continue to get worse and not better going forward. Many
		indications are that it will get rapidly and substantially worse.
	4.	There is strong evidence to suggest that IPv4 is unsustainable and that any of a variety of run-out related
		factors and activities will eventually make IPv4 utterly unusable.


>> 
>> That's not what I am advocating, either.
> 
> A return to the 12 month burn rate, which you advocated for, equated to exhaustion within this calendar year, followed by the transfer market solely being responsible for efficient utilization.

It equates to all of the RIRs being out at similar times. This is actually advantageous as it is less likely to push for asymmetrical deployments of IPv4 continuation technologies creating a more drawn out transition process with greater pain and dysfunction.

> Same difference.

See above... There is a very real and meaningful difference.

>> 
>>> What do you think will happen when ARIN free pool dries up? Who will have the addresses then? Will we still need them? If we do, how will we get them? And will we as a whole be better off then now?
> The non rose-tinted view is that all those who need addresses will be subjected solely to the mercy of the transfer market, largely composed of very large players and large legacy holders, a set of entities that overlaps to some extent and will have a natural tendency to self-organize into a cartel like formation. Their rules and prices will be what matters and they will have conflicted interest (at best) at moving their customer (victim) base over to v6 where rir policy returns to relevancy.
> 

I would call that the ultra-cynical view and also one which ignores the following realities:

	1.	Most growth in the ARIN region is in the mobile market.
	2.	VZW and T-Mobile have put huge effort and investment in moving their mobile
		solutions towards IPv6.
	3.	Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have all put significant investment in making IPv6
		available to their broadband subscriber base and are continuing to expand that
		offering to more of their subscribers.
	4.	Many other broadband providers are engaged in similar efforts.
	5.	The majority of large legacy holders are not ISPs.
	6.	The majority of ISPs that are large legacy holders hold more non-legacy space than
		legacy space at this point.
	7.	Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously wants to run a large-scale
		CGN deployment in a country subject to CALEA or CALEA-like legislation.
	8.	Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously from an operations perspective
		wants to maintain a CGN deployment at any scale.

> We will not be better off. There is no way to predict how long IPv4 will remain relevant and/or necessary.

We will be better off in that we will not extend the duration of IPv4 relevance to cause greater pain and
disruption.

>> Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early artificial shortage through policy
> Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool by reducing its burn rate is the only sane approach.
> 

Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool is impossible. What you are talking about is extending
the duration of the ARIN free pool by reducing its availability and making it asymmetrically and unfairly
unavailable to various classes of users to the benefit of a class of users you happen to advocate.

As a community member, I can somewhat sympathize with your view even though I find it misguided.

While the above thoughts are my own personal opinion and do not represent an official statement of
the AC (or even agree with the official opinion of the AC), my personal thoughts on this matter are
partially shaped by my obligation as an AC member to insist that policy be fair, technically sound,
and useful to the community.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/b758a3f3/attachment.htm>

From paul at redbarn.org  Tue Sep  4 15:35:43 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:35:43 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>

On 9/4/2012 6:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com
> <mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an
>> allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since
>> it is certain not to last long enough.
>
> This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool
> last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the
> address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission
> statement, IMHO.

i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately that
their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in half-decades not
years, and so they were optioning future address space through a grayish
transfer market even before arin went to a three month regime. i say
"grayish" because the option agreements are a private matter not subject
to arin rules, and the space in question will inevitably be transferred
to the recipient upon demonstrable need. i've been told that the
directed transfer rule whereby resources can be transferred between
parties without first returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was
the only instrument they needed.

to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and
that unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all, there
is no way to ensure that addresses are available to those whose real
demonstrated need -- which will be demonstrated in terms of capital for
the network and also capital for the options and ultimately the resources.

this community has reached consensus on three month allocation windows.
that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such debate.

but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's
chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate"
use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any
of us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any
way other than by community consensus.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/5d34b396/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Tue Sep  4 15:55:28 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:55:28 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <F55DED31-65A0-4A49-9742-5826745F2670@delong.com>


On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:35 , Paul Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:

> On 9/4/2012 6:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain not to last long enough.
>> 
>> This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.
> 
> i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately that their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in half-decades not years, and so they were optioning future address space through a grayish transfer market even before arin went to a three month regime. i say "grayish" because the option agreements are a private matter not subject to arin rules, and the space in question will inevitably be transferred to the recipient upon demonstrable need. i've been told that the directed transfer rule whereby resources can be transferred between parties without first returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was the only instrument they needed.
> 
> to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and that unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all, there is no way to ensure that addresses are available to those whose real demonstrated need -- which will be demonstrated in terms of capital for the network and also capital for the options and ultimately the resources.
> 
> this community has reached consensus on three month allocation windows. that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such debate.
> 
> but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate" use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any of us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any way other than by community consensus.
> 

I am confused here, Paul, or perhaps you are.

I was most certainly NOT arguing for eliminating the needs-basis test. I was stating that the current 3-month window does, in fact, disadvantage some classes of ARIN members to the advantage of other classes of members.

For example:

	Members that can afford to purchase through the transfer market today now have the advantage of a 24-month window.
	End-Users still have the advantage of a 12-month assignment window.

The current policy means that only ISPs of limited financial means are limited to a 3-month window.

I did not and would not advocate setting policies through any manner other than community consensus and I am surprised that you interpreted my statement in that direction.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/3bc43630/attachment.htm>

From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Sep  4 16:18:38 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:18:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5046621E.9040404@chl.com>


Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com 
> <mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com 
>>> <mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service 
>>>>> where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ 
>>>>> the transfer policy.
>>
>> The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an 
>> allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since 
>> it is certain not to last long enough.
>
> This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool 
> last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the 
> address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission 
> statement, IMHO.'
Legitimate uses and justified need are equivalent statements that 
describe demand the community can support with supply, which is affected 
by scarcity, and that has always been the case. As such, the ARIN free 
pool is still wholly available to legitimate uses of resources, just 
like always.

The bar has changed, just like it has in the past.

>
>
> I appreciate the benefits of the transfer market but also recognize 
> its limitations and disadvantages. Inflicting those limitations and 
> disadvantages on some class of users earlier in order to delay it for 
> other classes of users is not good policy and as it does not meet the 
> required fairness test.

Yes it is and yes it does. Or do you think the transaction we have seen 
should have been done from the free pool? And if not, does that mean 
that the transfer policy should be the focus of your ire, instead of the 
free pool?
>
>>
>> Apparently to the extent measurable by the ARIN allocation fall-off 
>> not made up for in transfer market.
>>
>
> More than likely this is a temporary rather than permanent phenomenon. 
> Most likely many organizations are postponing additional requests due 
> to the increased difficulty of obtaining those addresses which will 
> eventually lead to a greater crush of supply at a later date.

If it is still occurring, it would be a year long temporary phenomenon.

Postponing requests due to increased difficulty results in negative 
benefit and is irrational behavior, unless you mean increasing 
efficiencies to compensate for the additional difficulties, in which 
case, I say again.

Working as designed.

>
>
> Does it? I don't know how much supply remains at achievable prices and 
> I'm not sure what you are looking at that tells you it is vast or that 
> more than $15 per address is necessarily an achievable price point.

If you assume that even half of the un-routed space is available for the 
market, or that half the legacy is available, or that a third of the 
broadband consumer addresses are re-usable or available for the market, 
you begin to doubt very much that the address market has any short-term 
hard limits.

We do not know how much inefficiency is available to be wrung out, but I 
have no reason to believe it be anything less than 25%.

Under a reduced by scarcity and market pressures utilization rate, that 
can last years.

>
> No, my expectation is that eventually, IPv6 must replace IPv4 as the 
> lingua franca of the global internet because there is currently no 
> other available solution which will allow the internet to continue to 
> grow and provide the same vital functions that it provides today. My 
> hope is that we will do that sooner rather than later because it will 
> be much less traumatic, much less disruptive, and much less expensive.

We are so far beyond that point that it is salt in the wound to hope for it.
>
>> Do you have reason to be hopeful or is that simply what you have 
>> banked on and wish to happen?
>
> Yes, I have many reasons to be hopeful...
> 1.IPv6 adoption is growing
> 2.Growth in IPv6 adoption is accelerating
Project from this growth, rate when the demand for IPv4 addresses will 
die off. Put a number on it. Then let us agree to try to conserve the 
ARIN free pool to last that long.
> 3.No matter what you do to try and work around it, IPv4 cannot scale 
> to support the internet much beyond its
> current size. Efforts to do otherwise have been degrading the 
> capabilities of the internet for more than a
> decade now
Nobody has been switching to IPv6 because of this, so what makes you 
think they will soon?
> and all evidence is that this will continue to get worse and not 
> better going forward. Many
> indications are that it will get rapidly and substantially worse.

This is your best case scenario? That IPv4 will become so untenable that 
it will force IPv6 adoption?

Unfortunately for this scenario, there is still no surety that there 
will exist a first mover advantage, even then.
> 4.There is strong evidence to suggest that IPv4 is unsustainable and 
> that any of a variety of run-out related
> factors and activities will eventually make IPv4 utterly unusable.
>
Eventually the sun will burn out and Earth will be utterly 
uninhabitable. I suspect sometime before that, we will have migrated 
completely off of IPv4.

But I dont know when that will be. Neither do you. And as such, we must 
not treat IPv4 as disposable.
>
>
> It equates to all of the RIRs being out at similar times. This is 
> actually advantageous as it is less likely to push for asymmetrical 
> deployments of IPv4 continuation technologies creating a more drawn 
> out transition process with greater pain and dysfunction.
Horse trade? You support APNIC/RIPE style last /8 conservation policies 
and I will support 12 month free pool allocation.
>
>
> I would call that the ultra-cynical view and also one which ignores 
> the following realities:
>
> 1.Most growth in the ARIN region is in the mobile market.
Which is the most CGN targetable market. The cynical view is that the 
growth serves as a sanctioned form of stockpiling.

> 2.VZW and T-Mobile have put huge effort and investment in moving their 
> mobile
> solutions towards IPv6.
> 3.Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have all put significant investment in 
> making IPv6
> available to their broadband subscriber base and are continuing to 
> expand that
> offering to more of their subscribers.
> 4.Many other broadband providers are engaged in similar efforts.
Do you think the ARIN free pool continuing to be available to their 
competitors may  have something to do with it?

And they can safely plod the course. It will still give them years of 
advantage. From availability, to supported, to desired, to consumed. 
Quite a distance.

> 5.The majority of large legacy holders are not ISPs.
> 6.The majority of ISPs that are large legacy holders hold more 
> non-legacy space than
> legacy space at this point.
> 7.Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously wants to run a 
> large-scale
> CGN deployment in a country subject to CALEA or CALEA-like legislation.
> 8.Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously from an operations 
> perspective
> wants to maintain a CGN deployment at any scale.
>

You are correct. From an ops viewpoint, it sucks. Does it matter? Who 
calls the strategic shots? Ops?

>> We will not be better off. There is no way to predict how long IPv4 
>> will remain relevant and/or necessary.
>
> We will be better off in that we will not extend the duration of IPv4 
> relevance to cause greater pain and
> disruption.

IPv4 relevance is not decreased by the exhaustion of RIR free pool. RIR 
relevance is.
>
>>> Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early 
>>> artificial shortage through policy
>> Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool by reducing its burn 
>> rate is the only sane approach.
>>
>
> Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool is impossible.
It is happening right now. So it is possible.

> What you are talking about is extending
> the duration of the ARIN free pool by reducing its availability and 
> making it asymmetrically and unfairly
> unavailable to various classes of users to the benefit of a class of 
> users you happen to advocate.
Lets not discuss fair. Because then we have to talk about things like 
who has the addresses and who does not. And who pays more and who pays 
less. And on whom the burden of obtaining these addresses is greater. 
And on whom is policy more burdensome. And who tends to find working 
with ARIN to be more difficult, frustrating and mystifying. And whom 
reaped the benefits of rir history that relative to now is increasingly 
more relaxed and informal.

Instead, lets discuss legitimate use. Justified utilization. Documented 
need. All things which ARIN, both operationally and as a matter of 
policy has gradually and ever increasingly been raising the bar on. For 
years. They certainly believe that they are applying policy soundly and 
fairly.

The result is that ARIN still has a free pool to discuss.
>
> As a community member, I can somewhat sympathize with your view even 
> though I find it misguided.

Likewise,  I can sympathize with your desire to decrease IPv4 relevancy. 
However, I find your attempts to do so misguided and coy.
>
> While the above thoughts are my own personal opinion and do not 
> represent an official statement of
> the AC (or even agree with the official opinion of the AC), my 
> personal thoughts on this matter are
> partially shaped by my obligation as an AC member to insist that 
> policy be fair, technically sound,
> and useful to the community.
>
> Owen
>
The AC has no business having an official opinion in this matter (and 
quite a few others) but that does not seem to stop them, so I would not 
worry about that if I were you.

Joe


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Sep  4 16:42:52 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:42:52 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D033@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Like Owen, I found this message from Paul confusing. But very interesting.

Before explaining why, let me dip into the prior controversy raised by Owen and Joe. Note that our study of the IPv4 market identified TWO factors - not one - that stimulated a trading market in the ARIN region prior to the exhaustion of the free pool. Only one factor was the short 3-month time horizon for defining 'need.' The second factor was the stronger property rights that could be obtained via transactions with legacy holders. By itself, this seems to indicate that Owen's desire to lengthen the time horizon for needs assessment would address only part of the problem. (FWIW I tend to agree with Owen's recommendation to lengthen the time beyond the ridiculous 3 month period for the rest of the free pool.)

Now, it seems, Paul has identified a third factor, or more accurately, a variant of the second. If I understand what he is saying correctly (and I may not), there was an options market for future address space conducted privately among address holders in a way "not subject to ARIN rules." Providing more evidence for the conclusions of our study, Paul intimated that this underground options market was driven by the mismatch between the short time horizon of ARIN needs assessments and the longer time frame dictated by business needs (measured in "half-decades").

But then Paul seems to contradict himself by saying that these options are consistent with ARIN rules and could be exercised using the directed transfer rule. My understanding of the directed transfer rule was that it required ARIN to do a needs assessment with a 1-year time horizon (which was recently extended to two years). Paul makes it sound as if the transacting parties themselves decided who needs what. That may just be unclear writing, so correct me if the interpretation is wrong.

Anyway, Paul reaches the conclusion that the existence of this "grayish" market indicates that "ARIN has a workable system even at three months." To me, this is only true if the grayish market of which he speaks basically bypasses ARIN needs assessment, or if two years corresponds through some form of new math to the half-decades to which he refers. Or perhaps what Paul is really saying is that the 3-month time horizon is just a step removed from the dribs and drabs of the "last /8" policy and therefore we should keep it that way, because other needs are being fulfilled in the market. Clarification welcome, if I have misinterpreted your message.

--MM

i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately that their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in half-decades not years, and so they were optioning future address space through a grayish transfer market even before arin went to a three month regime. i say "grayish" because the option agreements are a private matter not subject to arin rules, and the space in question will inevitably be transferred to the recipient upon demonstrable need. i've been told that the directed transfer rule whereby resources can be transferred between parties without first returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was the only instrument they needed.

to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and that unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all, there is no way to ensure that addresses are available to those whose real demonstrated need -- which will be demonstrated in terms of capital for the network and also capital for the options and ultimately the resources.

this community has reached consensus on three month allocation windows. that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such debate.

but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate" use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any of us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any way other than by community consensus.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/3db2e79f/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Sep  4 16:46:08 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:46:08 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D0E9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

I must also permit myself to scoff at the genuflecting before needs-based allocation that is going on here. This discussion reveals just how arbitrary the definition of need is (choose your time horizon!) and the data we uncovered about MSFT's use of its Nortel addresses shows  how, um, flexibly the concept of need is applied in legacy transactions.


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie

but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate" use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any of us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any way other than by community consensus.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/980bf832/attachment.htm>

From jmaimon at chl.com  Tue Sep  4 16:54:13 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:54:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <F55DED31-65A0-4A49-9742-5826745F2670@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<F55DED31-65A0-4A49-9742-5826745F2670@delong.com>
Message-ID: <50466A75.5050202@chl.com>



>
> I am confused here, Paul, or perhaps you are.
>
> I was most certainly NOT arguing for eliminating the needs-basis test. 
> I was stating that the current 3-month window does, in fact, 
> disadvantage some classes of ARIN members to the advantage of other 
> classes of members.
>
> For example:
>
> Members that can afford to purchase through the transfer market today 
> now have the advantage of a 24-month window.
> End-Users still have the advantage of a 12-month assignment window.
>
> The current policy means that only ISPs of limited financial means are 
> limited to a 3-month window.
>
> I did not and would not advocate setting policies through any manner 
> other than community consensus and I am surprised that you interpreted 
> my statement in that direction.
>
> Owen
>
>
Paul can speak for himself. But what I read suggests that if you define 
legitimate in any way other than as defined by policy, you would need to 
consider the members of the community whose need cannot be met in any 
way even now from the free pool.

And that those members have found a satisfactory policy compatible 
solution. And that we should stop worrying about those well able to take 
care of themselves.

Joe



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Sep  4 17:26:07 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:26:07 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I think some of the comments below by Paul Vixie - and the study done by Milton Mueller (and associates) ? clearly point out that the policies that have been put in place to slow the exhaustion of IPv4 are extremely out of synch with general business practices.   No organization - profit or not ? uses a 3 month planning horizon.  Many use 30 year horizons since they purchase real estate and either have a 30 year mortgage or depreciate the property over 30 years.  These horizons have been built into the US & state tax codes for many decades.  This community, it appears in large part because of IPv4 exhaustion ? has decided a 3 month horizon is acceptable in certain cases.  No company big or small is going to risk the significant capital it takes to build a data center or build an ISP if they can only be sure of 90 days? worth of IP addresses that they need to run their business.  In fact, even a year?s worth isn?t enough to take on a big risk either.  Would you spend 400 million dollars or more on a super duper data center if you could only GUARANTEE that you would have 90 days? worth of addresses or even only a years? worth.  No sane person or organization would do that.

In Milton?s study he clearly outlines that Microsoft chose to purchase a large number of addresses thru bankruptcy court, even though ARIN has plenty to allocate.  According to Milton?s numbers, Microsoft made a business decision to pay over seven million dollars when they could have gotten the same number of IPv4 addresses from ARIN for less than a hundred thousand dollars.  Microsoft is not a dumb company and they certainly don?t waste over seven million dollars  for no reason.  It is pretty obvious that Milton is right that they did it because they wanted to secure plenty of addresses so that the capital they are investing in their various businesses isn?t at risk for lack of IPv4 addresses.  They did what any sane organization would do and minimized their risk ? and it was worth it for them to do that even at the cost of seven million dollars more than what ARIN charges.

While I would concur that with the realities of IPv4 exhaustion, the horizon built into various ARIN policies should not be 30 years ? I think a strong case can be made to increase it to at least one and probably two or even five years.  Yes I know that the effect of that might cause IPv4 to be exhausted earlier than with present policies, but I think it is clear from ARIN?s mission statement that ARIN should allocate in conjunction with real world reasonable business practices and not in the make believe world of 90 day or even one year horizons.  If ARIN and this community choose not to align policies with the real world then the real world will just make ARIN mostly irrelevant by creating a separate IPv4 market - which in case you haven?t noticed is already beginning to happen.   I would note here that any organization who has already gone around ARIN, or will choose to in the future, are part of this Community too.  This Community if it wants to stay relevant should take their needs into consideration as well ? even if they never participate directly in this community!  ARIN?s mission is to allocate prudently and I reiterate that it isn?t to NOT allocate.

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

[Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:36 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

On 9/4/2012 6:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com<mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:


...

The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain not to last long enough.

This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.

i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately that their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in half-decades not years, and so they were optioning future address space through a grayish transfer market even before arin went to a three month regime. i say "grayish" because the option agreements are a private matter not subject to arin rules, and the space in question will inevitably be transferred to the recipient upon demonstrable need. i've been told that the directed transfer rule whereby resources can be transferred between parties without first returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was the only instrument they needed.

to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and that unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all, there is no way to ensure that addresses are available to those whose real demonstrated need -- which will be demonstrated in terms of capital for the network and also capital for the options and ultimately the resources.

this community has reached consensus on three month allocation windows. that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such debate.

but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate" use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any of us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any way other than by community consensus.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/c356b862/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/c356b862/attachment.jpg>

From thomas at networkredux.com  Tue Sep  4 17:36:33 2012
From: thomas at networkredux.com (Thomas Brenneke)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:36:33 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAJVyYoE34mgGpFEqCnxA0Gu35yhTemTqyYurJC4bwn5tJkTOKA@mail.gmail.com>

Well said.

Thomas Brenneke
Network Redux, LLC
5200 SW Macadam Ave Ste 450
Portland, Oregon 97239
Desk:  503-274-9905 x501



On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Steven Ryerse
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>wrote:

>  I think some of the comments below by Paul Vixie - and the study done by
> Milton Mueller (and associates) ? clearly point out that the policies that
> have been put in place to slow the exhaustion of IPv4 are extremely out of
> synch with general business practices.   No organization - profit or not ?
> uses a 3 month planning horizon.  Many use 30 year horizons since they
> purchase real estate and either have a 30 year mortgage or depreciate the
> property over 30 years.  These horizons have been built into the US & state
> tax codes for many decades.  This community, it appears in large part
> because of IPv4 exhaustion ? has decided a 3 month horizon is acceptable in
> certain cases.  No company big or small is going to risk the significant
> capital it takes to build a data center or build an ISP if they can only be
> sure of 90 days? worth of IP addresses that they need to run their
> business.  In fact, even a year?s worth isn?t enough to take on a big risk
> either.  Would you spend 400 million dollars or more on a super duper data
> center if you could only GUARANTEE that you would have 90 days? worth of
> addresses or even only a years? worth.  No sane person or organization
> would do that.****
>
> ** **
>
> In Milton?s study he clearly outlines that Microsoft chose to purchase a
> large number of addresses thru bankruptcy court, even though ARIN has
> plenty to allocate.  According to Milton?s numbers, Microsoft made a
> business decision to pay over seven million dollars when they could have
> gotten the same number of IPv4 addresses from ARIN for less than a hundred
> thousand dollars.  Microsoft is not a dumb company and they certainly don?t
> waste over seven million dollars  for no reason.  It is pretty obvious that
> Milton is right that they did it because they wanted to secure plenty of
> addresses so that the capital they are investing in their various
> businesses isn?t at risk for lack of IPv4 addresses.  They did what any
> sane organization would do and minimized their risk ? and it was worth it
> for them to do that even at the cost of seven million dollars more than
> what ARIN charges.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> While I would concur that with the realities of IPv4 exhaustion, the
> horizon built into various ARIN policies should not be 30 years ? I think a
> strong case can be made to increase it to at least one and probably two or
> even five years.  Yes I know that the effect of that might cause IPv4 to be
> exhausted earlier than with present policies, but I think it is clear from
> ARIN?s mission statement that ARIN should allocate in conjunction with real
> world reasonable business practices and not in the make believe world of 90
> day or even one year horizons.  If ARIN and this community choose not to
> align policies with the real world then the real world will just make ARIN
> mostly irrelevant by creating a separate IPv4 market - which in case you
> haven?t noticed is already beginning to happen.   I would note here that
> any organization who has already gone around ARIN, or will choose to in the
> future, are part of this Community too.  This Community if it wants to stay
> relevant should take their needs into consideration as well ? even if they
> never participate directly in this community!  ARIN?s mission is to
> allocate prudently and I reiterate that it isn?t to NOT allocate.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Steven L Ryerse*
>
> *President*
>
> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>
> *770.656.1460 - Cell*
>
> *770.399.9099 - Office*
>
> *770.392-0076 - Fax*
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse
> Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc.****
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Vixie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:36 PM
> *To:* Owen DeLong
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market****
>
> ** **
>
> On 9/4/2012 6:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ...
>
> The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation
> pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain not
> to last long enough.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool
> last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address
> space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.
> ****
>
>
> i've now sat with several arin members who have told me privately that
> their business needs for ipv4 growth are measured in half-decades not
> years, and so they were optioning future address space through a grayish
> transfer market even before arin went to a three month regime. i say
> "grayish" because the option agreements are a private matter not subject to
> arin rules, and the space in question will inevitably be transferred to the
> recipient upon demonstrable need. i've been told that the directed transfer
> rule whereby resources can be transferred between parties without first
> returning it to arin and then reallocating it, was the only instrument they
> needed.
>
> to me this says arin has a workable system even at three months, and that
> unless this community chose to forego any needs basis at all, there is no
> way to ensure that addresses are available to those whose real demonstrated
> need -- which will be demonstrated in terms of capital for the network and
> also capital for the options and ultimately the resources.
>
> this community has reached consensus on three month allocation windows.
> that consensus could be changed by debate. i welcome such debate.
>
> but in no sense is non-needs-based allocation (within the community's
> chosen window, currently of three months) definitionally a "legitimate"
> use, such that "disadvantaging" such use is "not a win". nor would any of
> us enjoy an internet in which policies of this kind are set in any way
> other than by community consensus.
>
> paul****
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/cdd5d8d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/cdd5d8d8/attachment.jpg>

From owen at delong.com  Tue Sep  4 18:03:17 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:03:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046621E.9040404@chl.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046621E.9040404@chl.com>
Message-ID: <5414C28A-DE6B-4654-8A0B-2A539C6CB81D@delong.com>


On Sep 4, 2012, at 13:18 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2012, at 08:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com <mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> On Sep 1, 2012, at 20:44 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com <mailto:jmaimon at chl.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>>> The goal of ARIN address policy is to place addresses in service where they are needed so long as that is possible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is the overarching goal of both the allocation policy _AND_ the transfer policy.
>>> 
>>> The allocation policy is relevant only so long as ARIN has an allocation pool. Which I want to see last as long as possible, since it is certain not to last long enough.
>> 
>> This is where we utterly and completely disagree. Making the free pool last artificially longer by disadvantaging legitimate uses of the address space today is not a win and is contrary to ARIN's mission statement, IMHO.'
> Legitimate uses and justified need are equivalent statements that describe demand the community can support with supply, which is affected by scarcity, and that has always been the case. As such, the ARIN free pool is still wholly available to legitimate uses of resources, just like always.
> 
> The bar has changed, just like it has in the past.
> 

The 3 month policy neither raises or lowers the bar. It merely creates a limitation on one particular class of users.

Alone, i would consider it not terrible, but not particularly desirable, either. I will note that I was among those that didn't think it was such a bad idea when originally considered by the community. We have more information now.

However, when combined with a 24 month window on transfers, it is particularly unfair and counter-productive to ARIN's mission.

>> 
>> 
>> I appreciate the benefits of the transfer market but also recognize its limitations and disadvantages. Inflicting those limitations and disadvantages on some class of users earlier in order to delay it for other classes of users is not good policy and as it does not meet the required fairness test.
> 
> Yes it is and yes it does. Or do you think the transaction we have seen should have been done from the free pool? And if not, does that mean that the transfer policy should be the focus of your ire, instead of the free pool?

There is no particular ire here in any direction, so your statement above does not make sense.

How is it fair to force one subclass of users to the transfer market in order to preserve free pool for another subclass of users? Please explain to me the logic by which you determine that this is fair to both the users denied access to the free pool.

The mere assertion that it is is not sufficient here.

I don't know whether those transactions should have been done from the free pool.

>> 
>>> 
>>> Apparently to the extent measurable by the ARIN allocation fall-off not made up for in transfer market.
>>> 
>> 
>> More than likely this is a temporary rather than permanent phenomenon. Most likely many organizations are postponing additional requests due to the increased difficulty of obtaining those addresses which will eventually lead to a greater crush of supply at a later date.
> 
> If it is still occurring, it would be a year long temporary phenomenon.
> 

Your point being? There are signs that free pool consumption is beginning to ramp back up, by the way.

> Postponing requests due to increased difficulty results in negative benefit and is irrational behavior, unless you mean increasing efficiencies to compensate for the additional difficulties, in which case, I say again.
> 

You say efficiencies, I say network dysfunction.

> Working as designed.

Not at all. Design included end-to-end addressing.

> 
>> 
>> 
>> Does it? I don't know how much supply remains at achievable prices and I'm not sure what you are looking at that tells you it is vast or that more than $15 per address is necessarily an achievable price point.
> 
> If you assume that even half of the un-routed space is available for the market, or that half the legacy is available, or that a third of the broadband consumer addresses are re-usable or available for the market, you begin to doubt very much that the address market has any short-term hard limits.
> 

I do not assume that half of the un-routed space is available for the market. Why would I make such an absurd assumption. The vast majority of un-routed space is used in networks which connect to networks which connect to the internet but which are not connected themselves.

Why would I assume that half of the legacy space is available? I've seen nothing at all to support such a claim.

Why would I assume that 1/3 of the broadband consumer addresses are re-usable or available for the market? I've seen nothing to indicate any truth to such a claim.

> We do not know how much inefficiency is available to be wrung out, but I have no reason to believe it be anything less than 25%.

End-to-end addressing is _NOT_ inefficiency.

> Under a reduced by scarcity and market pressures utilization rate, that can last years.

Let us hope not. Those will be very painful years.

>> No, my expectation is that eventually, IPv6 must replace IPv4 as the lingua franca of the global internet because there is currently no other available solution which will allow the internet to continue to grow and provide the same vital functions that it provides today. My hope is that we will do that sooner rather than later because it will be much less traumatic, much less disruptive, and much less expensive.
> 
> We are so far beyond that point that it is salt in the wound to hope for it.

I completely disagree. The current curves on IPv6 adoption imply that without additional pressure, IPv6 will be close to ubiquitous in 5-10 years. IPv4 runout will provide additional pressures and probably accelerate that timeline somewhat.

>> 
>>> Do you have reason to be hopeful or is that simply what you have banked on and wish to happen?
>> 
>> Yes, I have many reasons to be hopeful...
>> 1.IPv6 adoption is growing
>> 2.Growth in IPv6 adoption is accelerating
> Project from this growth, rate when the demand for IPv4 addresses will die off. Put a number on it. Then let us agree to try to conserve the ARIN free pool to last that long.

That's nonsensical.

What is the point of having a free pool when there is no demand for addresses? By definition, all addresses remaining in the free pool at that time are wasted.

Addresses retained in the free pool are UNUTILIZED addresses. This is the ultimate in inefficient utilization.

The goal of ARIN policy is to make resources available to legitimate uses to the greatest extent possible. This is not achieved by hoarding addresses in the free pool while demand for them exists.

>> 3.No matter what you do to try and work around it, IPv4 cannot scale to support the internet much beyond its
>> current size. Efforts to do otherwise have been degrading the capabilities of the internet for more than a
>> decade now
> Nobody has been switching to IPv6 because of this, so what makes you think they will soon?

What do you mean nobody has been switching to IPv6? Many people have been deploying IPv6 and more are continuing to do so every day.

>> and all evidence is that this will continue to get worse and not better going forward. Many
>> indications are that it will get rapidly and substantially worse.
> 
> This is your best case scenario? That IPv4 will become so untenable that it will force IPv6 adoption?
> 

No, that is my worst case scenario. The best case scenario is that we move towards IPv6 before IPv4 reaches that point.

> Unfortunately for this scenario, there is still no surety that there will exist a first mover advantage, even then.

There already exist first mover advantages. Hurricane Electric is reaping many of those first mover advantages.

However, we are so far past the first-mover stage of IPv6 deployment that looking for first-mover advantages doesn't make much sense.

>> 4.There is strong evidence to suggest that IPv4 is unsustainable and that any of a variety of run-out related
>> factors and activities will eventually make IPv4 utterly unusable.
>> 
> Eventually the sun will burn out and Earth will be utterly uninhabitable. I suspect sometime before that, we will have migrated completely off of IPv4.
> 

The difference here is that the time lines are radically different. IPv4 will become unusable almost certainly in less than 10 years and very likely in less than 5. OTOH, the sun has enough years remaining that the entire IPv4 address space is not enough to assign one to each year. IPv6, OTOH, would last significantly longer. ;-)

> But I dont know when that will be. Neither do you. And as such, we must not treat IPv4 as disposable.

We don't know when it will be, but it is pretty clear that it will be relatively soon. I am not advocating treating IPv4 as disposable. Preserving a free pool while starving valid demand for addresses simply doesn't make sense.

>> 
>> 
>> It equates to all of the RIRs being out at similar times. This is actually advantageous as it is less likely to push for asymmetrical deployments of IPv4 continuation technologies creating a more drawn out transition process with greater pain and dysfunction.
> Horse trade? You support APNIC/RIPE style last /8 conservation policies and I will support 12 month free pool allocation.

While I don't think such a policy is the best policy, that combination would certainly be better than our current policy.

Back in the day, I actually did support something similar. As a result of community pressures, it was reduced from /8 to /10.
Feel free to review the history. It's NRPM section 4.10.

You will notice that it was originally suggested as the full /8.

http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2008-June/010916.html

>> 
>> 
>> I would call that the ultra-cynical view and also one which ignores the following realities:
>> 
>> 1.Most growth in the ARIN region is in the mobile market.
> Which is the most CGN targetable market. The cynical view is that the growth serves as a sanctioned form of stockpiling.
> 

An odd suggestion at best.

>> 2.VZW and T-Mobile have put huge effort and investment in moving their mobile
>> solutions towards IPv6.
>> 3.Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have all put significant investment in making IPv6
>> available to their broadband subscriber base and are continuing to expand that
>> offering to more of their subscribers.
>> 4.Many other broadband providers are engaged in similar efforts.
> Do you think the ARIN free pool continuing to be available to their competitors may  have something to do with it?
> 

I tend to doubt it.

> And they can safely plod the course. It will still give them years of advantage. From availability, to supported, to desired, to consumed. Quite a distance.
> 

Not so long as you seem to think, IMHO.

>> 5.The majority of large legacy holders are not ISPs.
>> 6.The majority of ISPs that are large legacy holders hold more non-legacy space than
>> legacy space at this point.
>> 7.Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously wants to run a large-scale
>> CGN deployment in a country subject to CALEA or CALEA-like legislation.
>> 8.Nobody who has looked at the technology seriously from an operations perspective
>> wants to maintain a CGN deployment at any scale.
>> 
> 
> You are correct. From an ops viewpoint, it sucks. Does it matter? Who calls the strategic shots? Ops?
> 

From any of the following viewpoints:
	1.	Operations
	2.	Support
	3.	User Experience
	4.	Marketing
	5.	Sales
	6.	Legal
	7.	Cost
	8.	Accounting

It pretty much sucks. Surely someone somewhere in that list has at least some significant input into the decisions in each organization.

>>> We will not be better off. There is no way to predict how long IPv4 will remain relevant and/or necessary.
>> 
>> We will be better off in that we will not extend the duration of IPv4 relevance to cause greater pain and
>> disruption.
> 
> IPv4 relevance is not decreased by the exhaustion of RIR free pool. RIR relevance is.

We can agree to disagree about this.

>> 
>>>> Extending the duration of the ARIN free pool by creating an early artificial shortage through policy
>>> Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool by reducing its burn rate is the only sane approach.
>>> 
>> 
>> Extending the availability of the ARIN free pool is impossible.
> It is happening right now. So it is possible.

No, it is not. The availability has been reduced in one direction while extended in another. The total availability, however, continues to shrink.

>> What you are talking about is extending
>> the duration of the ARIN free pool by reducing its availability and making it asymmetrically and unfairly
>> unavailable to various classes of users to the benefit of a class of users you happen to advocate.
> Lets not discuss fair. Because then we have to talk about things like who has the addresses and who does not. And who pays more and who pays less. And on whom the burden of obtaining these addresses is greater. And on whom is policy more burdensome. And who tends to find working with ARIN to be more difficult, frustrating and mystifying. And whom reaped the benefits of rir history that relative to now is increasingly more relaxed and informal.

I understand that you would like to avoid fairness as a topic because it does not support your position. However, it is a primary factor that I am obliged to consider when considering possible ARIN policies.

> Instead, lets discuss legitimate use. Justified utilization. Documented need. All things which ARIN, both operationally and as a matter of policy has gradually and ever increasingly been raising the bar on. For years. They certainly believe that they are applying policy soundly and fairly.

They are we. If you raise the bar for everyone, I'm fine with it. If we went to a universal 3-month supply policy across the board (transfers, ISPs, end-users), I would have no objection. If we went to a universal 12-month supply policy across the board (transfers, ISPs, end-users), I would have no objection. Personally, I think this is probably the best compromise. I'd even be willing to accept a universal 24 month policy.

It is the dichotomy of duration in these different policies that is inherently unfair. That dichotomy is absolutely a new phenomenon that has not been present for years.

> The result is that ARIN still has a free pool to discuss.

That is one of many results. Certainly it is the only one of the list of results one would want to point out if one were attempting to support current policy.

>> 
>> As a community member, I can somewhat sympathize with your view even though I find it misguided.
> 
> Likewise,  I can sympathize with your desire to decrease IPv4 relevancy. However, I find your attempts to do so misguided and coy.

I am not attempting to decrease IPv4 relevancy. I am, however, attempting to decrease the duration of the transition period because the level of pain associated with transition will only increase over time. The longer transition takes from this point, the more painful it will become.

I don't believe I have been coy in any way. I have attempted to make my reasons and my position quite clear. I think you are the first person in the ARIN community to accuse me of shyness or reluctance to express details of my position.

As to misguided... I find your attempts to extend the duration of the free pool by further and asymmetrically reducing its availability to be misguided.

>> 
>> While the above thoughts are my own personal opinion and do not represent an official statement of
>> the AC (or even agree with the official opinion of the AC), my personal thoughts on this matter are
>> partially shaped by my obligation as an AC member to insist that policy be fair, technically sound,
>> and useful to the community.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
> The AC has no business having an official opinion in this matter (and quite a few others) but that does not seem to stop them, so I would not worry about that if I were you.

In any matter of policy, the AC absolutely has business having official opinions. However, it is not my role to speak for them unless asked to do so by the chair and I don't speak for them.

My point was that my personal opinion is, in part, shaped by the fact that as an AC member, I have to seek fairness in policies.

The current policy is, IMHO, unfair and should be corrected.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Sep  4 18:22:12 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:22:12 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <348DEB20-E5A6-4EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:

In Milton?s study he clearly outlines that Microsoft chose to purchase a large number of addresses thru bankruptcy court, even though ARIN has plenty to allocate.  According to Milton?s numbers, Microsoft made a business decision to pay over seven million dollars when they could have gotten the same number of IPv4 addresses from ARIN for less than a hundred thousand dollars.  Microsoft is not a dumb company and they certainly don?t waste over seven million dollars  for no reason.  It is pretty obvious that Milton is right that they did it because they wanted to secure plenty of addresses so that the capital they are investing in their various businesses isn?t at risk for lack of IPv4 addresses.  They did what any sane organization would do and minimized their risk ? and it was worth it for them to do that even at the cost of seven million dollars more than what ARIN charges.

To be clear, Microsoft met the same needs-based criteria as any other
transfer recipient and the resources they hold are subject to number
resource policies in the region.

Since that initial transaction, we've had many others (see below, and you
will find that they have much more explicit language in their approved
transfer documents.  Milton is correct that there is an active transfer
market, but his other assertions (extrapolated from the single Nortel -
Microsoft data point) unfortunately ignore the remainder of the data.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

===

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry
Date: June 22, 2012 6:23:25 PM GMT+01:00
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com<mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com>>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>

On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
... Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test.

Mike -

    If requested resources from the free pool every 90 days, and if the
    pool had held out, then they may have achieved the same goal.

    Many parties seem attracted to the certainty from having a large
    block of number resources to meet their future business needs;
    in addition to Microsoft, the following additional transfers have
    been transferred from bankruptcy estates:

       Borders Group, Inc., et al., (S.D.NY) 12/20/2011 1 /16
       Teknowledge Corporation (N.D.CA) 1/24/2012 1/16
       Northern Telecom Canada, Ltd. (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/24/2012 2/16?s
       Bell-Northern Research (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/29/2012 1/14 2/29/2012 1/14 4/10/2012 2/16?s

   You'd have to ask the recipients why the value receiving number
   resources through transfer; ARIN simply processes the requests
   per policy.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/0234473a/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Tue Sep  4 19:00:16 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:00:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D033@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D033@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <DE5E6FD7-B2D7-4E78-BAA4-7C772E3FD207@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

Now, it seems, Paul has identified a third factor, or more accurately, a variant of the second. If I understand what he is saying correctly (and I may not), there was an options market for future address space conducted privately among address holders in a way "not subject to ARIN rules." Providing more evidence for the conclusions of our study, Paul intimated that this underground options market was driven by the mismatch between the short time horizon of ARIN needs assessments and the longer time frame dictated by business needs (measured in "half-decades").

Milton -

It is quite possible for a party (which may have the ability to free
up address space for transfer) to contract with another party to
submit such requests sometime in the future based on a variety
of conditions.  I am not aware of any specific cases of this, but
then again, there is no reason for ARIN to be aware of any such
agreement, just as there is no reason for the local registry of motor
vehicles to be contacted if you contract to provide someone a right
of first refusal on your automobile.

If an actual transfer request is submitted to ARIN, we will process
it according to the policies set by this community.  At this time,
specified transfers require that the resources go to a party that can
demonstrate need for them within 24-months based on current policies.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120904/f668a9fe/attachment.htm>

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Sep  4 21:37:24 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:37:24 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <50469155.40609@chl.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<F55DED31-65A0-4A49-9742-5826745F2670@delong.com>
	<50466A75.5050202@chl.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDCB3@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<50469155.40609@chl.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DE1D2@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Thank you for your input.  Dialog is helpful.  First of all I did not advocate setting a 30 year timeline but the fact that organizations run that way should not be ignored and should be factored into decision making.  I strongly disagree that there is not enough IP addresses for even a 1 year horizon.  Nobody really knows how many unused and potentially available IPv4 addresses there really are.  Once the price is right many will come out of the closet.  But more important is that it is not ARINs charter to decide NOT to allocate.  It is ARINs charter TO allocate, prudently yes, but ALLOCATE is the primary mission.  That is why ARIN was created.  It certainly was NOT created to solve or at least improve the IPv4 exhaustion problem - and the exhaustion problem needs to be secondary to the primary mission of allocation.  

From everything I see, the Exhaustion problem and attempts to deal with it are being put ahead of the allocate mission, and that is causing smaller organizations like ours to be denied address blocks - even the minimum amount of IP addresses.  I do believe that there needs to be a fair and level playing field and my strong opinion is that some of the policies in place purposely discriminate against smaller organizations in favor of larger ones.  ARINs mission says nothing about discriminating based on size and this needs to be fixed.  Smaller organizations are just as much a part of this community as larger ones.  Thanks!

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 7:40 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

It is not (and has not been for decades) possible to take care of the entire community's needs if you define that to include 30 year projected need.

In fact, at this point, it is not even possible with one year projected need..

If you want to make the 30 year projection case for IPv6, that may make more sense.

However, with IPv4, you need to ensure you can continue to do what is practical, and fair, and that is to at a minimum, preserve your ability to give everybody something for as long as possible.

Best,

Joe

Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I thought this community had the responsibility to take care of the entire community's needs.
>
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                       Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] 
> On Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:54 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
>
>
>> I am confused here, Paul, or perhaps you are.
>>
>> I was most certainly NOT arguing for eliminating the needs-basis test.
>> I was stating that the current 3-month window does, in fact, 
>> disadvantage some classes of ARIN members to the advantage of other 
>> classes of members.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Members that can afford to purchase through the transfer market today 
>> now have the advantage of a 24-month window.
>> End-Users still have the advantage of a 12-month assignment window.
>>
>> The current policy means that only ISPs of limited financial means 
>> are limited to a 3-month window.
>>
>> I did not and would not advocate setting policies through any manner 
>> other than community consensus and I am surprised that you 
>> interpreted my statement in that direction.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
> Paul can speak for himself. But what I read suggests that if you define legitimate in any way other than as defined by policy, you would need to consider the members of the community whose need cannot be met in any way even now from the free pool.
>
> And that those members have found a satisfactory policy compatible solution. And that we should stop worrying about those well able to take care of themselves.
>
> 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.
>
>


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Tue Sep  4 21:53:11 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:53:11 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <348DEB20-E5A6-4EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<348DEB20-E5A6-4EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DE26B@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

John from your point below to Mike, it is obvious that organizations value certainty of having enough IPv4 addresses secured, and it doesn?t matter what the reason is - as I?m sure there are many reasons.  Having any policy with a 90 day horizon or even a 1 year horizon does NOT provide that certainly, and it is clear that the Microsoft?s of this world value that or they would not pay such a large premium for addresses from sources outside ARIN.  Smaller organizations want the same security relative to their size.  ARIN should help meet the needs of all size organizations with a realistic horizon and not an arbitrary one.  Then when the day comes that ARINs current supply is exhausted, ARIN should reasonably turn over every rock to provide more if more are requested.  Once ARIN doesn?t have any more and can?t get enough to meet demand, IPv6 will bloom and that will ultimately solve this problem.


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

[Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks?

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 6:22 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

On Sep 4, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:


In Milton?s study he clearly outlines that Microsoft chose to purchase a large number of addresses thru bankruptcy court, even though ARIN has plenty to allocate.  According to Milton?s numbers, Microsoft made a business decision to pay over seven million dollars when they could have gotten the same number of IPv4 addresses from ARIN for less than a hundred thousand dollars.  Microsoft is not a dumb company and they certainly don?t waste over seven million dollars  for no reason.  It is pretty obvious that Milton is right that they did it because they wanted to secure plenty of addresses so that the capital they are investing in their various businesses isn?t at risk for lack of IPv4 addresses.  They did what any sane organization would do and minimized their risk ? and it was worth it for them to do that even at the cost of seven million dollars more than what ARIN charges.

To be clear, Microsoft met the same needs-based criteria as any other
transfer recipient and the resources they hold are subject to number
resource policies in the region.

Since that initial transaction, we've had many others (see below, and you
will find that they have much more explicit language in their approved
transfer documents.  Milton is correct that there is an active transfer
market, but his other assertions (extrapolated from the single Nortel -
Microsoft data point) unfortunately ignore the remainder of the data.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

===

Begin forwarded message:


From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry
Date: June 22, 2012 6:23:25 PM GMT+01:00
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com<mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com>>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>

On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
... Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test.

Mike -

    If requested resources from the free pool every 90 days, and if the
    pool had held out, then they may have achieved the same goal.

    Many parties seem attracted to the certainty from having a large
    block of number resources to meet their future business needs;
    in addition to Microsoft, the following additional transfers have
    been transferred from bankruptcy estates:

       Borders Group, Inc., et al., (S.D.NY) 12/20/2011 1 /16
       Teknowledge Corporation (N.D.CA) 1/24/2012 1/16
       Northern Telecom Canada, Ltd. (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/24/2012 2/16?s
       Bell-Northern Research (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/29/2012 1/14 2/29/2012 1/14 4/10/2012 2/16?s

   You'd have to ask the recipients why the value receiving number
   resources through transfer; ARIN simply processes the requests
   per policy.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120905/0f7c4fa2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120905/0f7c4fa2/attachment.jpg>

From mysidia at gmail.com  Tue Sep  4 22:21:23 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:21:23 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/4/12, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

Some organizations may like to traditionally plan out very long
periods of time, when possible, but when it comes down to it,  you
can't guarantee there will be gas available to buy for your car next
month,  let alone that you will have secured all the resources
required for 30 years of operation;  I don't hear of organizations
ordering from Cisco/HP/Dell/IBM/Sun, all the routers and servers they
will need for the next 30 years,   i'm not sure where the expectation
came from you should be able to "Order up from ARIN" all the IP
addresses you project that you will ever need.


IP address are allocated based on justified need.  "Planned" future
use is not need; it is prediction that a resource might be needed in
the future. Providing a "guarantee"  that number addresses are
available some time in the years ahead is not a function of the
internet registry;  if  you don't need the number relatively soon,
then wait, and ask for it when you need it,  there are no guarantees
for anyone,  just as there are no real guarantees the free pool won't
be exhausted next month.

90 days is sufficient time to seek number resources on the transfer
market and other sources.


[snip]
> purchase real estate and either have a 30 year mortgage or depreciate the
> property over 30 years.  These horizons have been built into the US & state
> tax codes for many decades.  This community, it appears in large part
> because of IPv4 exhaustion ? has decided a 3 month horizon is acceptable in
> certain cases.  No company big or small is going to risk the significant
> capital it takes to build a data center or build an ISP if they can only be
> sure of 90 days? worth of IP addresses that they need to run their business.
[snip]


--
-JH


From paul at redbarn.org  Tue Sep  4 23:12:05 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 03:12:05 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>

to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized
organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4
exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6
and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is
limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need
one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all,
that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and
then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the
ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to
the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.

i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.

paul


From springer at inlandnet.com  Wed Sep  5 00:00:07 2012
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <20120904204619.W31974@mail.inlandnet.com>



On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Paul Vixie wrote:

> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized
> organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4
> exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6
> and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is
> limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need
> one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all,
> that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and
> then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the
> ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to
> the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>
> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.

And think if we could _MONETIZE_ the ice caps melting, ooh la la! Perhaps 
the we could find someone who would say it would be good for us!

John Springer

> paul
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep  5 00:26:39 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:26:39 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <20120904204619.W31974@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<20120904204619.W31974@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5OGz671U=Obm+1Z0-w1gsUrRXzNpyTOqzQASmwknjX62w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:00 AM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized
>> organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4
>> exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6
>> and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is
>> limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need
>> one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all,
>> that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and
>> then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the
>> ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to
>> the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>
>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>
>
> And think if we could _MONETIZE_ the ice caps melting, ooh la la! Perhaps
> the we could find someone who would say it would be good for us!
>


Carbon credits?

Best,

-M<


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Sep  5 11:39:50 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:39:50 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <348DEB20-E5A6-4EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<348DEB20-E5A6-4EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran

To be clear, Microsoft met the same needs-based criteria as any other
transfer recipient and the resources they hold are subject to number
resource policies in the region.

[Milton L Mueller] John, you probably read an earlier version of the study which did not include our analysis of the use of the number blocks purchased by MSFT. (We wanted to verify certain methodological aspects of that before publishing it.)

We found that since acquiring the addresses, which is now more than a year ago, MSFT has actually _reduced_ the number of blocks being routed. They have only put into service a few /24s and /22s I think, and have actually withdrawn from use a couple of /16s.

Now, I cannot assert that ARIN did not do a needs assessment. Only ARIN staff can verify or refute that. I can, however, assert with confidence that a 1-year time horizon was used at that time (according to your policy in place), and that the entity who claimed need based on that timeline is not, after more than one year, using the vast majority of the addresses; indeed, fewer addresses from the Nortel block are being routed after the transaction than before. Therefore, there are legitimate questions to be raised about what "needs assessment" actually consists of.

[Milton L Mueller] The significance of this fact increases when, as you can see from the comments on our blog, there are complaints that many transactions of entities less powerful than MSFT have been killed by the needs assessment process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120905/ceb40b0d/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 12:08:49 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:08:49 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<348DEB20-E5A6-4EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> [Milton L Mueller] John, you probably read an earlier version of the study which did not include our analysis of the use of the number blocks purchased by MSFT. (We wanted to verify certain methodological aspects of that before publishing it.)
>  
> We found that since acquiring the addresses, which is now more than a year ago, MSFT has actually _reduced_ the number of blocks being routed. They have only put into service a few /24s and /22s I think, and have actually withdrawn from use a couple of /16s.

Milton - 
 
   Use of IP address blocks is independent of routing of address blocks,
   particularly if you operate data centers with numerous servers.  The 
   desire for using globally unique numbering for such devices often does 
   not result in the address blocks being globally routed.

> Now, I cannot assert that ARIN did not do a needs assessment. Only ARIN staff can verify or refute that.


   It was done, and you have been told that by ARIN staff (i.e. myself) on 
   numerous occasions, and yet you continue to publish allusions to the
   contrary.  I understand this as a journalistic technique, but not as any
   form of academic research. 

> I can, however, assert with confidence that a 1-year time horizon was used at that time (according to your policy in place), and that the entity who claimed need based on that timeline is not, after more than one year, using the vast majority of the addresses; indeed, fewer addresses from the Nortel block are being routed after the transaction than before. Therefore, there are legitimate questions to be raised about what ?needs assessment? actually consists of.

   Alas, assuming that address block usage only occurs with the public routing
   of the address block is a flawed methodology.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Sep  5 13:24:39 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:24:39 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <50478AD7.4080004@chl.com>



Paul Vixie wrote:
> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized
> organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4
> exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6
> and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is
> limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need
> one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all,
> that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and
> then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the
> ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to
> the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>
> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>
> paul
> _______________________________________________


Its really difficult to expect large quantities of entities to behave in 
ways immaterial or counter to their immediate self interest.

IPv6 is a nice plan A, but plan B is to make sure you have enough IPv4 
for your needs.

As soon as Plan B is secure, there is much less incentive to focus on 
Plan A. This is not good for those focusing on Plan A and/or with 
limited accessibility to Plan B.

This is why I advocate conserving and preserving ARIN's role in 
providing a Plan B for as much of the community that it can, and in 
particular, the segment of the community likely to be in the most need 
of it.

Otherwise, the inequality will be between those who were able to execute 
their plan B and those who were not.

For most, there is still no first mover advantage to IPv6. Turning it on 
does not enlarge or enhance their audience now or in the near future.

It does not even solve difficulties that some of the audience may be 
having with CGN or what-not, unless they can be convinced to go and get 
themselves v6.

So for most, the thinking seems to be along the lines of, "if everybody 
else can send me email, then it is your problem if you cannot and I 
don't particularly care how you solve it".

Joe


From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Sep  5 13:29:47 2012
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:29:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <E5DE97B0C4244070AE06D8E8218A0DEA@MPC>

I think Milton's analysis was ingenious and the fact that more than a year
out Microsoft is routing less than 9,000 out of the 660,000 addresses
purchased from Nortel all but puts the lie to the idea that an accurate
justification was made.
The idea that Microsoft paid $7.5 million because their need was so acute
that processing successive 3-month justifications from the free pool would
be too risky is ludicrous when viewing the paucity of routed addresses more
than 12 months out.
There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!

Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000
addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
unrouted?

It's laughable.

My interpretation is that ARIN staff knew that with the privacy rights
attending to the LRSA and the needs test, they could bluster their way
through.
I don't think they considered the kind of post-hoc analysis Milton
performed, and are gnashing their teeth at Microsoft for so obviously
showing them up.

Kudos to Prof. Mueller for pulling back the curtain a bit.

Regards,

Mike Burns






-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> [Milton L Mueller] John, you probably read an earlier version of the study
> which did not include our analysis of the use of the number blocks
> purchased by MSFT. (We wanted to verify certain methodological aspects of
> that before publishing it.)
>
> We found that since acquiring the addresses, which is now more than a year
> ago, MSFT has actually _reduced_ the number of blocks being routed. They
> have only put into service a few /24s and /22s I think, and have actually
> withdrawn from use a couple of /16s.

Milton -

   Use of IP address blocks is independent of routing of address blocks,
   particularly if you operate data centers with numerous servers.  The
   desire for using globally unique numbering for such devices often does
   not result in the address blocks being globally routed.

> Now, I cannot assert that ARIN did not do a needs assessment. Only ARIN
> staff can verify or refute that.


   It was done, and you have been told that by ARIN staff (i.e. myself) on
   numerous occasions, and yet you continue to publish allusions to the
   contrary.  I understand this as a journalistic technique, but not as any
   form of academic research.

> I can, however, assert with confidence that a 1-year time horizon was used
> at that time (according to your policy in place), and that the entity who
> claimed need based on that timeline is not, after more than one year,
> using the vast majority of the addresses; indeed, fewer addresses from the
> Nortel block are being routed after the transaction than before.
> Therefore, there are legitimate questions to be raised about what ?needs
> assessment? actually consists of.

   Alas, assuming that address block usage only occurs with the public
routing
   of the address block is a flawed methodology.

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.

-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> [Milton L Mueller] John, you probably read an earlier version of the study 
> which did not include our analysis of the use of the number blocks 
> purchased by MSFT. (We wanted to verify certain methodological aspects of 
> that before publishing it.)
>
> We found that since acquiring the addresses, which is now more than a year 
> ago, MSFT has actually _reduced_ the number of blocks being routed. They 
> have only put into service a few /24s and /22s I think, and have actually 
> withdrawn from use a couple of /16s.

Milton -

   Use of IP address blocks is independent of routing of address blocks,
   particularly if you operate data centers with numerous servers.  The
   desire for using globally unique numbering for such devices often does
   not result in the address blocks being globally routed.

> Now, I cannot assert that ARIN did not do a needs assessment. Only ARIN 
> staff can verify or refute that.


   It was done, and you have been told that by ARIN staff (i.e. myself) on
   numerous occasions, and yet you continue to publish allusions to the
   contrary.  I understand this as a journalistic technique, but not as any
   form of academic research.

> I can, however, assert with confidence that a 1-year time horizon was used 
> at that time (according to your policy in place), and that the entity who 
> claimed need based on that timeline is not, after more than one year, 
> using the vast majority of the addresses; indeed, fewer addresses from the 
> Nortel block are being routed after the transaction than before. 
> Therefore, there are legitimate questions to be raised about what ?needs 
> assessment? actually consists of.

   Alas, assuming that address block usage only occurs with the public 
routing
   of the address block is a flawed methodology.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. 



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 13:36:52 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:36:52 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
Message-ID: <80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>

On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
 wrote:

> There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!

Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
any other organization.

> Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000 addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be unrouted?

Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
unique IP address needs for virtual servers.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
 

From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Sep  5 13:45:34 2012
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:45:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>

I admit to being out of my league here, is there a hosting organization who 
thinks a 2% routed rate is realistic for a block of 660,000 addresses?
And ARIN is OK with handing out addresses with a 2% routed rate, simply to 
prevent problems associated with hypothetical future acquisitions?
And this is so common that the fact that the very first public deal has 
these characteristics, and we are to accept that coincidence?

Regards,
Mike





-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Milton L Mueller ; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
wrote:

> There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!

Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
any other organization.

> Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000 
> addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be 
> unrouted?

Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
unique IP address needs for virtual servers.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
= 



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 13:52:42 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:52:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market - more
In-Reply-To: <E5DE97B0C4244070AE06D8E8218A0DEA@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> <"85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com> <"5042D603.102020
	1"@chl.com> <3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com> <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo>
	<ng.com@mac.com> <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<"348DEB20-E5A6-4 EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
	<E5DE97B0C4244070AE06D8E8218A0DEA@MPC>
Message-ID: <0832F35B-D15D-420E-9811-1BBC1981082A@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000
> addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
> unrouted?

Mike - 

 To get an idea of the scale that some of these organizations 
 (Microsoft, Google, etc.) are working on, you might want to 
 peruse the Internet for relevant articles.  For example, in 
 2008 the following article derives server counts from screen 
 shots out of a Microsoft video -

 <http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/08/14/218000-servers-in-microsoft-data-centers/>

 660,000 IP addresses are actually a very small number for any 
 of larger Internet service providers.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


 
 
 



From cblecker at gmail.com  Wed Sep  5 13:56:07 2012
From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:56:07 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <E5DE97B0C4244070AE06D8E8218A0DEA@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com> <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
	<E5DE97B0C4244070AE06D8E8218A0DEA@MPC>
Message-ID: <CADx2oGHvCKoo4BoAwjZORB=AMSeumVcrJCaoDyLw10K172aE4A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> I think Milton's analysis was ingenious and the fact that more than a year
> out Microsoft is routing less than 9,000 out of the 660,000 addresses
> purchased from Nortel all but puts the lie to the idea that an accurate
> justification was made.
> The idea that Microsoft paid $7.5 million because their need was so acute
> that processing successive 3-month justifications from the free pool would
> be too risky is ludicrous when viewing the paucity of routed addresses more
> than 12 months out.
> There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!
>
> Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000
> addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
> unrouted?
>
> It's laughable.
>
> My interpretation is that ARIN staff knew that with the privacy rights
> attending to the LRSA and the needs test, they could bluster their way
> through.
> I don't think they considered the kind of post-hoc analysis Milton
> performed, and are gnashing their teeth at Microsoft for so obviously
> showing them up.
>
> Kudos to Prof. Mueller for pulling back the curtain a bit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Burns

Using Microsoft as a yard stick to compare other companies to isn't
really a fair assessment. They've actually been fairly open and have
spoken at recent conferences such as NANOG 55 and IETF 84 about how
their re-architecting their massive data centres. They ran out of
private AS numbers, so they have an active Internet-Draft
(draft-mitchell-idr-as-private-reservation-01) to get some more
private ASNs reserved in 4-byte AS space.

I honestly have little doubt that while these blocks may not be
routed, that doesn't mean they are not in use.

Cheers,
Christoph


From ikiris at gmail.com  Wed Sep  5 13:58:02 2012
From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:58:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com> <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
Message-ID: <CAJvB4tnjSXA72pm_CDHfuZ0w0AJM6SHutQJUfuO7Len1A+Fr=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Mike,

I am not trying to say that you are wrong here, but that actually isn't an
unheard of case. There are several large organizations off the top of my
head that exist as such, with the DoD as probably the prime example.

Also, even using RFC 1918 space doesn't mean you have unlimited IPs. You
have to keep in mind scalability of route protocols etc and hierarchical
routing. Even medium size companies have issues with running out of RFC
space, ESPECIALLY if they offer primarily net services like Microsoft
would, and need to interconnect with other organizations.

-Blake


On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> I admit to being out of my league here, is there a hosting organization
> who thinks a 2% routed rate is realistic for a block of 660,000 addresses?
> And ARIN is OK with handing out addresses with a 2% routed rate, simply to
> prevent problems associated with hypothetical future acquisitions?
> And this is so common that the fact that the very first public deal has
> these characteristics, and we are to accept that coincidence?
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:36 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Milton L Mueller ; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> wrote:
>
>  There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!
>>
>
> Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
> any other organization.
>
>  Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of
>> 660,000 addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
>> unrouted?
>>
>
> Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
> unique IP address needs for virtual servers.
>
> 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<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120905/d8bd2950/attachment.htm>

From jmaimon at chl.com  Wed Sep  5 14:02:17 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:02:17 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
Message-ID: <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>



Mike Burns wrote:
> I admit to being out of my league here, is there a hosting organization
> who thinks a 2% routed rate is realistic for a block of 660,000 addresses?
> And ARIN is OK with handing out addresses with a 2% routed rate, simply
> to prevent problems associated with hypothetical future acquisitions?
> And this is so common that the fact that the very first public deal has
> these characteristics, and we are to accept that coincidence?
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>

Just because the easiest way to show utilization to ARIN, and to the 
world, is via SWIP and BGP, that does not mean that ARIN requires 
either, and it never has.

We can (and have done so often) argue about whether and what technical 
parameters should exist for ARIN to consider utilization justified.

Encoding technical paradigms du-jour into policy is not often a good idea.

Joe


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 14:03:39 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:03:39 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> <"85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com> <"5042D603.102020
	1"@chl.com> <3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com> <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo>
	<ng.com@mac.com> <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<"348DEB20-E5A6-4 EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<"BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1 150BAC9DA52"@corp.arin.net>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
Message-ID: <BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> I admit to being out of my league here, is there a hosting organization who thinks a 2% routed rate is realistic for a block of 660,000 addresses?
> And ARIN is OK with handing out addresses with a 2% routed rate, simply to prevent problems associated with hypothetical future acquisitions?

While it has been discussed quite a bit on this list over the years, there 
is no requirement from the community that organizations must the route the
address space registered to them.  If you think this should change, that is 
indeed possible, but would require a policy proposal and ample discussion in 
this community.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From mike at nationwideinc.com  Wed Sep  5 14:20:44 2012
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:20:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<"5042D603.1020201"@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo><ng.com@mac.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><"348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><"BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52"@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC><80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net><66EDEC0E294B49
	4689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
	<BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC>

Hi Blake, Christof, and John,

It is the more than 50:1 unrouted to routed addresses which trouble me.
Obviously the normal pool of (non-legacy) allocated addresses is routed at 
much higher rates.
And given then the oddity of this particular usage rate combined with the 
unique set of facts attending this transfer, color me remain unconvinced.

Not that I am saying that this sort of thing is impossible.
I know RFC 1918 space is not unlimited, that is why I used the 17 million 
number. Obviously you could never have anywhere near 100% efficiency.
I understand why the DoD does not route the majority of their allocation.

Christof, I am unsure how the AS number thing relates, but you have provided 
evidence that Microsoft is, in fact, engaged in a massive renumbering.
Of course that would be the time to organize things to try to fit into a /8 
like 10.0.0.

Thank you all for the info.

John, if I were one of the members on the list who appear to be having 
difficulty with allocations, I would certainly consider a policy proposal to 
consider some limits on the ratio of routed to unrouted addresses in order 
to pressure orgs into best use of RFC1918 space.
It must be galling to be one of those members to know that ARIN has no 
problem making allocations today which can be 98% unrouted.

I suppose we can hope that these will be rare.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message----- 
From: John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:03 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> I admit to being out of my league here, is there a hosting organization 
> who thinks a 2% routed rate is realistic for a block of 660,000 addresses?
> And ARIN is OK with handing out addresses with a 2% routed rate, simply to 
> prevent problems associated with hypothetical future acquisitions?

While it has been discussed quite a bit on this list over the years, there
is no requirement from the community that organizations must the route the
address space registered to them.  If you think this should change, that is
indeed possible, but would require a policy proposal and ample discussion in
this community.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN 



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep  5 15:18:28 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:18:28 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <50478AD7.4080004@chl.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org> <50478AD7.4080004@chl.com>
Message-ID: <728FFCD9-000D-45D0-BB93-D6D143C5FC0A@delong.com>


On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:24 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Paul Vixie wrote:
>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized
>> organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4
>> exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6
>> and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is
>> limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need
>> one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all,
>> that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and
>> then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the
>> ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to
>> the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>> 
>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>> 
>> paul
>> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> Its really difficult to expect large quantities of entities to behave in ways immaterial or counter to their immediate self interest.
> 
> IPv6 is a nice plan A, but plan B is to make sure you have enough IPv4 for your needs.
> 
> As soon as Plan B is secure, there is much less incentive to focus on Plan A. This is not good for those focusing on Plan A and/or with limited accessibility to Plan B.
> 
> This is why I advocate conserving and preserving ARIN's role in providing a Plan B for as much of the community that it can, and in particular, the segment of the community likely to be in the most need of it.
> 

You have zero chance of making a meaningful difference here. Those horses have all left the barn. ARIN's ability to provide small amounts of address space long after effective runout is insured by the policy that prevents ARIN from distributing multiple non-contiguous blocks to satisfy a single request. So we've already got insurance in policy that ARIN will, to the extent possible be able to meet smaller requests for plan B longer than larger ones.

> Otherwise, the inequality will be between those who were able to execute their plan B and those who were not.

This inequality will occur no matter what ARIN does and is already present. Creating more barriers to rational planning and requests will only serve to further fragment the address space accelerating the time when the IPv4 routing table is accessible only to the very organizations you are worried about putting a strangle hold on the transfer market. Once that happens, you end up victimizing not only the very organizations you claim to be trying to help, but the existing small organizations as well.

> For most, there is still no first mover advantage to IPv6. Turning it on does not enlarge or enhance their audience now or in the near future.
> 

Whether there's a first-mover advantage or not, we are so far beyond first-mover that I just can't see how that is relevant. There are way too many IPv6 deployments to call anyone moving now a "first-mover".

Among the notables:
	Google
	Facebook
	YouTube
	Yahoo
	Hurricane Electric
	Verizon
	Comcast
	AT&T
	Shell
	Chevron
	Kaiser Permanente
	US Government (all agencies)
	TIme Warner
	etc.

I'm sure there are more. Those are just the ones I can readily remember off the top of my head right now.

> It does not even solve difficulties that some of the audience may be having with CGN or what-not, unless they can be convinced to go and get themselves v6.
> 

I would think that anyone having difficulty with CGN would be pretty easily convinced to deploy IPv6 if their target web site was accessible via IPv6 as well.

> So for most, the thinking seems to be along the lines of, "if everybody else can send me email, then it is your problem if you cannot and I don't particularly care how you solve it".

I encourage my competitors to treat their customers in this way. It's been a great way for me to get new customers.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep  5 15:24:11 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:24:11 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
Message-ID: <37020DC6-E174-484F-B428-3A0350CADE65@delong.com>

You can obtain ARIN addresses for completely private unrouted networks with a 0% routed rate under ARIN policy.

I could go to ARIN today and justify such a network and receive addresses from the free pool without any form of fraud.

If you don't like that policy, then submit a proposal. However, John is right... It is entirely possible that the convicted company
in Redmond justified their addresses and is using them in accordance with that justification without routing them.

Personally, I'm not wild about this fact, either and I do think something smells rotten in that deal. However, there is no
evidence to support action on any such claim. Milton's analysis is flawed and utterly ignores this reality.

Owen

On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:45 , Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> I admit to being out of my league here, is there a hosting organization who thinks a 2% routed rate is realistic for a block of 660,000 addresses?
> And ARIN is OK with handing out addresses with a 2% routed rate, simply to prevent problems associated with hypothetical future acquisitions?
> And this is so common that the fact that the very first public deal has these characteristics, and we are to accept that coincidence?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: John Curran
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:36 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Milton L Mueller ; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!
> 
> Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
> any other organization.
> 
>> Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000 addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be unrouted?
> 
> Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
> unique IP address needs for virtual servers.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> = 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From info at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 16:51:50 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:51:50 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
Message-ID: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6
Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

On 16 August 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Revising 
Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size" as a  draft policy for adoption 
discussion on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in Dallas in 
October.

The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-177 
Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size." Per the Policy Development 
Process, the AC submitted text to ARIN for a staff and legal assessment 
prior to its selection as a draft policy. Below the draft policy is the 
ARIN staff and legal assessment with the text that was reviewed. The 
text did not change after the assessment.

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_6.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-6 on the PPML prior to 
the October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN 
XXX will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community 
consensus for adopting this as policy.

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6
Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

Date: 5 September 2012

Policy statement:

Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from:

ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
consistent with community expectations.

Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to:

ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.

Rationale:

Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and
in a number greater than anticipated when this proposal was written
and adopted.

The original CI pool was created to serve new IX and new CI 
requirements. The pending need is estimated in the 600 new gTLD range. 
With a /24 assignment from the existing boundary and the likelihood of 
some sharing platforms, assigning a /15 would seem prudent. I have 
removed the limited term. I have proposed implementation to occur at the 
point where there is only an equivalent of a /8 available overall.  The 
process for completing the gTLD additions still has some time to play 
out, but it is likely we will have exhausted by the time that the 
process does fully play out.


##########


ARIN Staff and Legal Assessment

ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

Date of Assessment:  24 July 2012

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This proposal would modify the existing micro-allocation policy and have 
ARIN staff reserve a /15 equivalent for critical infrastructure rather 
than the /16 currently cited in the policy text.  Additionally, it 
removes the clause that would allow ARIN to release any remaining space 
from within the reserved block back into its available pool at the end 
of 2 years.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

  * This proposal will likely benefit organizations who provide critical
    Internet infrastructure, particularly as the new expanded ICANN gTLD
    program rolls out.
  * The following statement needs to be part of the actual policy text
    that gets added to NRPM "Implementation:  When the equivalent of
    less than a /8 is left in all inventory,"    If implemented, ARIN
    staff will prepend that statement to the policy text for
    clarification purposes.

B. ARIN General Counsel

No significant legal issue on this proposal.

3. Resource Impact
This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation 
aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months
after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be
needed in order to implement:

Updated guidelines and procedures


4. Proposal Text

ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
Policy statement:

Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from:

ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
consistent with community expectations.

Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to:

ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.

Rationale:

Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and
in a number greater than anticipated when this proposal was written
and adopted.

The original CI pool was created to serve new IX and new CI requirements.
The pending need is estimated in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24
assignment from the existing boundary and the likelihood of some sharing
platforms, assigning a /15 would seem prudent. I have removed the limited
term. I have proposed implementation to occur at the point where there is
only an equivalent of a /8 available overall.  The process for
completing the
gTLD additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will
have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out.



From info at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 16:52:05 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:52:05 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party
 Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
Message-ID: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

On 16 August 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Reassignments 
for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable" as a  draft policy 
for adoption discussion on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in 
Dallas in October.

The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-179 
Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable." Per 
the Policy Development Process, the AC submitted text to ARIN for a 
staff and legal assessment prior to its selection as a draft policy. 
Below the draft policy is the ARIN staff and legal assessment with the 
text that was reviewed. The text did not change after the assessment.

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_7.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-7 on the PPML prior to 
the October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN 
XXX will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community 
consensus for adopting this as policy.

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

Date: 5 September 2012

Policy statement:

Insert new section to NRPM to read as follows:
4.2.3.8 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
When IP address resources are reassigned by an ISP to an underlying 
cable carrier for use with TPIA, those addresses shall be deemed as 
utilized once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable 
carrier.

Rationale:
A unique situation exists particularly, and perhaps only, in the 
Canadian region that is preventing legitimate ISPs from obtaining 
subsequent allocations of IPv4 addresses for use with the Third Party 
Internet Access (TPIA) framework that has been mandated by the CRTC 
(Canada's version of the FCC).  Adding this section to the NRPM will 
allow ISPs that intend to make use of this CRTC mandated framework to 
obtain the number resources that they require but are currently unable 
to obtain.

Timetable for implementation: immediate


##########


ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

ARIN-prop-179 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over
Cable

Date of Assessment: 3 August 2012

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This draft policy would allow TPIA providers to assign addresses to
incumbent cablecos and have ARIN count individual pools as used for the
purposes of reviewing an additional address space request from the TPIA
provider.

2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

     This policy proposal would solve a problem that the Canadian TPIA
providers are currently facing. There's a math problem they've come up
against which is otherwise unsolvable. Current policy provides no way 
for TPIA providers to put more space where its needed when its needed,
especially when one market area grows disproportionately to other market
areas. If a TPIA deployment goes to 30 market areas, and 7 of those grow
very quickly and use up the space they were assigned, the TPIA provider
has no way of coming back to ARIN successfully to get more space for 
those 7 market areas.  Under the current incumbent cableco rules, they 
cannot re-provision any under-utilized blocks from other market areas.

     The community might also want to examine NRPM 4.2.3.7.3.1 and ask
whether the same principles might be applied to TPIA utilization.  The
required 50% utilization rate serves as a mechanism to ensure ISPs 
achieve a reasonable level of efficiency when provisioning IP addresses 
across their network. Staff would suggest that the following additions 
be considered in order to align this policy proposal with existing 
policy utilization requirements:

         IP addresses reassigned by an ISP to an incumbent cable operator
for use with Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) will be counted as fully
used once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable carrier
provided they meet the following requirements:

    * initial assignments to each piece of hardware represent the
smallest subnet reasonably required to deploy service to the customer 
base served by the hardware

    * additional assignments to each piece of hardware are made
only when all previous assignments to that specific piece of hardware 
are at least 80% used and represent a three month supply.

B. ARIN General Counsel

This policy poses a first of its kind and deserves comment from a legal
perspective-this proposal responds to a single sovereign nation's
regulatory ruling (Canada) and regards only a single named service. It 
is valid for ARIN to make a policy that responds to a single country's
regulatory issues, but the community should take care to consider the
circumstances in general to make policy as widely applicable as 
possible. When doing so the authors, community (and counsel) should 
undertake a heightened duty to examine how the policy will impact ARIN 
members operations in other countries.  Counsel is not aware of any 
significant legal issues posed for ARIN members in other countries at 
this juncture.

3. Resource Impact

This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation
aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months
after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be
needed in order to implement:

Updated guidelines and procedures


4. Proposal Text

ARIN-prop-179 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over
Cable

Date: 27 July 27 2012

Policy statement:

Insert new section to NRPM to read as follows:
4.2.3.8 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
When IP address resources are reassigned by an ISP to an underlying cable
carrier for use with TPIA, those addresses shall be deemed as utilized
once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable carrier.

Rationale:
A unique situation exists particularly, and perhaps only, in the Canadian
region that is preventing legitimate ISPs from obtaining subsequent
allocations of IPv4 addresses for use with the Third Party Internet Access
(TPIA) framework that has been mandated by the CRTC (Canada's version of
the FCC).  Adding this section to the NRPM will allow ISPs that intend to
make use of this CRTC mandated framework to obtain the number resources
that they require but are currently unable to obtain.

Timetable for implementation: immediate



From info at arin.net  Wed Sep  5 16:52:29 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:52:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer
	Policy
Message-ID: <5047BB8D.1060004@arin.net>

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8
Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy

On 16 August 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Aligning 8.2 
and 8.3 Transfer Policy" as a  draft policy for adoption discussion on 
the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in Dallas in October.

The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-175 
Delete Section 8.2." Per the Policy Development Process, the AC 
submitted text to ARIN for a staff and legal assessment prior to its 
selection as a draft policy. Below the draft policy is the ARIN staff 
and legal assessment with the text that was reviewed. The text changed 
after the assessment.

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_8.html

You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-8 on the PPML prior to 
the October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN 
XXX will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community 
consensus for adopting this as policy.

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8
Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy

Date: 5 September 2012

Policy statement:

Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following:

ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in
the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions:

* The source entity must be the current registered holder of the
number resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status
of those resources.
* The new entity (recipient) must provide evidence that they have
acquired assets that use the resources transferred from the current
registrant (source entity) such that their continued need is
justified. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types
of documentation.
* The transferred resources will be subject to current ARIN policies.
* The recipient entity must sign an RSA.
* The minimum IPv4 transfer size is a /24.
* The minimum IPv6 transfer size is a /48.

Rationale:

The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level the 
bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from 
specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many 
can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds requirements 
which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must be the 
undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an RSA (and is 
subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for IPv6.

Timetable for implementation: immediate


##########


ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

ARIN-prop-175 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy

Date of Assessment: 9 August 2012

1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This draft policy attempts to align 8.2 transfers with 8.3 and 8.4 
transfers by adding some additional common criteria to 8.2.  It codifies 
the minimum size of address blocks that can be transferred; it requires 
the recipient of a transfer to sign an RSA; and it codifies the 
requirement that the source entity of the transfer be the current 
registrant and not be engaged in a dispute over the registration rights.

2. Comments
A. ARIN Staff Comments

Currently 8.2 is two paragraphs. This proposal modifies and adds to the 
first paragraph. The second paragraph is unchanged. Staff suggests 
leaving the second paragraph out of the proposal.

In the first bullet, where it says "source entity must be the current 
registered holder of the IPv4 address resources", staff suggests 
changing the words "IPv4 address resources" to number resources so that 
it includes IPv4, IPv6, and ASNs.
This proposal contains terminology that is not consistent with 8.3 and 
8.4.  Since policy alignment is one of the main purposes of this 
proposal, staff would suggest the following text for the second bullet 
for consistency, clarity and simplification:

* The recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired assets 
that used the resources. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of 
acceptable types of documentation.
The fifth bullet should say "minimum IPv4 transfer size."

B. ARIN General Counsel

Any change in NPRM 8.2 requires heightened legal scrutiny because 
literally hundreds of different disparate proposed 8.2 acquisitions may 
be considered within the next several years under the changed language. 
I have these comments.

First, the use of RSA in this case may need to permit issuance of an 
LRSA,  if the resources are legacy addresses that have not previously 
been the subject of an RSA.
Second, the following new language needs careful community review: "The 
new entity (recipient) must provide evidence that they have acquired 
assets that use the resources transferred from the current registrant 
(source entity) such that their continued need is justified. ARIN will 
maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation"
Counsel believes this proposed language requires the 8.2 recipient to 
demonstrate that the number resources are part of an ongoing business 
that is being sold,  and that he number resources are utilized by the 
business. It would be unwise to adopt language in 8.2 that would 
arguably permit an 8.2 transfer where the number resources are the only 
genuinely valuable asset of the business that has any material monetary 
value.

If the number resources are the only genuinely valuable remaining 
material assets of the prior business which is now defunct, the transfer 
has to be considered under NPRM 8.3, not 8.2. If the community agrees 
that is the case, the language does not pose problematic legal issues.

3. Resource Impact

This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation 
aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months 
after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be 
needed in order to implement:
Updated guidelines and procedures

4. Proposal Text

ARIN-prop-175 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy

Date: 31 July 2012

Policy statement:

Update 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions to the following:

ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in the 
case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions:

* 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 new entity (recipient) must provide evidence that they have 
acquired assets that use the resources transferred from the current 
registrant (source entity) such that their continued need is justified. 
ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation.

* The transferred resources will be subject to current ARIN policies.

* The recipient entity must sign an RSA.

* The minimum transfer size is a /24.

* The minimum IPv6 transfer size is a /48.

  In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are 
no longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of 
the transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work 
with the resource holder(s) to return, aggregate, transfer, or reclaim 
resources as needed to restore compliance via the processes outlined in 
current ARIN policy.

Rationale:

The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level the 
bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from 
specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many 
can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds requirements 
which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must be the 
undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an RSA (and is 
subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for IPv6.

Two requirements from 8.3 are intentionally left out:

First, timed restrictions: Since we are talking about selling equipment 
and/or customers here, the fact that you just got addresses shouldn't 
matter. And if your network grows after the sale, there's no reason to 
stop you from getting more addresses soon after the merger or 
acquisition. In fact in many cases, the source entity becomes part of 
the recipient in this type of transfer - and they may well need more 
addresses before 12 months have passed from the M&A activity.

Second, demonstrating a 24 month need is orthogonal in an M&A transfer. 
Either the network purchased is using the addresses or it is not. Future 
need is really not part of the equation.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate








From bill at herrin.us  Wed Sep  5 17:50:06 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:50:06 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Under the current incumbent cableco rules, [ISPs] cannot
> re-provision any under-utilized blocks from other market areas.

This is a problem where incumbent Canadian cable providers demand that
subordinate ISPs assign IP addresses in a manner wholly inconsistent
with ARIN policy and indeed incompatible with good stewardship of the
dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses.

1. This is for the CRTC to solve, not ARIN.

2. If ARIN acts at all, it should punitively restrict or rescind IPv4
addresses available to the incumbent cable providers acting in such a
repugnant manner.

I OPPOSE the proposal as written.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Wed Sep  5 18:14:58 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:14:58 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.

i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.

paul

From owen at delong.com  Wed Sep  5 19:37:36 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:37:36 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>

Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.

Owen

On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.  
> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
> To: Jimmy Hess
> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
> 
> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
> 
> paul
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Sep  6 08:59:42 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:59:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Like Mike, I find it extraordinary that MSFT would devote 98% of its purchased numbers to these non publicly-routed uses. Maybe 10%, maybe even 20%, but virtually all of them? Strains plausibility. Incidentally, speaking of hosting companies, we found that Amazon immediately put into public routing all the address space they acquired from Merck, and so did all the other hosting companies, in both ARIN and APNIC regions, that we studied. So the MSFT case stands out. I understand why John has to say what he says, of course. 

Another interesting question: if they were really internal, non public uses, could they not be put on IPv6? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!
> 
> Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
> any other organization.
> 
> > Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000
> addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
> unrouted?
> 
> Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
> unique IP address needs for virtual servers.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Sep  6 09:11:36 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:11:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC> <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> We can (and have done so often) argue about whether and what technical
> parameters should exist for ARIN to consider utilization justified.
> 
> Encoding technical paradigms du-jour into policy is not often a good idea.
> 
> Joe

Exactly. The concept of need depends on a technical configuration as well as a business planning horizon, both of which are highly variable. Technical configurations and architectures are subject to human creativity and economic incentives, which is why the whole concept of needs assessment is now being exposed as a non-scientific, "flexible" process. Note, I did not say "completely arbitrary," but I would say "not objective and standardized." 

This makes it increasingly puzzling to me why certain people insist on retention of traditional needs assessments as a matter of religion. I fully understand their desire to discourage unproductive hoarding, but that is an economic problem, not a technical one, and is best addressed through economically oriented policies. Nearly all entities who spend real money to acquire addresses are either going to use them or find a way to lease them to people who will use them. Rather than continue to bicker about the MSFT case, this community should try to move toward a new consensus regarding the role of light-handed, market-friendly policy measures to discourage unproductive use of available blocks.

--MM



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep  6 09:33:46 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:33:46 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com> <"85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com> <"5042D603.102020
	1"@chl.com> <3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com> <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo>
	<ng.com@mac.com> <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<"348DEB20-E5A6-4 EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<"BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1 150BAC9DA52"@corp.arin.net>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC> <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <53F0E44A-61B2-48EA-A4FC-298526EF38CD@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Exactly. The concept of need depends on a technical configuration as well as a business planning horizon, both of which are highly variable. Technical configurations and architectures are subject to human creativity and economic incentives, which is why the whole concept of needs assessment is now being exposed as a non-scientific, "flexible" process. Note, I did not say "completely arbitrary," but I would say "not objective and standardized." 

Milton - 

I believe that needs-assessment as implemented is quite flexible 
(accommodating a variety of network technologies and architectures),
and as objective as the constraints provided in the policy language 
developed by this community. 

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Sep  6 09:37:10 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:37:10 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EB2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Should you be appalled by what seems to be perfectly rational behavior -- or by the dual stack migration strategy?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> 
> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well capitalized
> organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was an impending ipv4
> exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by and large not treating
> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6
> and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is
> limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need
> one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all,
> that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and
> then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the
> ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to
> the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
> 
> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
> 
> paul


From Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 12:00:15 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:00:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] RE Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
Message-ID: <OFA78178C0.D0EE3905-ON85257A71.00542489-85257A71.0057EA1F@videotron.com>

> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
> Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

Oppose as written.

There is indeed an issue with justification for allocations that 
have to be split in very small prefixes, such as those of TPIAs. 

However the proposal, as written, would completely remove utilization 
requirements. Including the staff comments in the proposal text would
be an improvement, but they are probably too vague to be acceptable 
criteria (more below). 

> Insert new section to NRPM to read as follows:
> 4.2.3.8 Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
> When IP address resources are reassigned by an ISP to an underlying 
> cable carrier for use with TPIA, those addresses shall be deemed as 
> utilized once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable 
> carrier.

This proposal, as written, would allow a TPIA to request new space as
soon as its last allocation is assigned to hardware without justifying 
utilization at all. 

>          IP addresses reassigned by an ISP to an incumbent cable 
operator
> for use with Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) will be counted as fully
> used once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable carrier
> provided they meet the following requirements:
> 
>     * initial assignments to each piece of hardware represent the
> smallest subnet reasonably required to deploy service to the customer 
> base served by the hardware

What is a reasonably smallest subnet? TPIA clients are typically 
spread geographically and represent very few addresses per device. 
Initial assignment could therefore be as small as a /29 per device. 

This also does not cover devices serving multiple IP domains, which 
further dilutes the size of the prefixes. (one proprietary term for 
this "CMTS bundles" and their number vary by operator)

>     * additional assignments to each piece of hardware are made
> only when all previous assignments to that specific piece of hardware 
> are at least 80% used and represent a three month supply.

This is criteria is better, but remains fairly vague. Adding 3 customers 
out of a /29 is 100% utilization (the device counts as one). It can happen 

in a week and make the utilisation rate jump suddenly. On the other hand, 
2 customers are only 75% and would not meet the criteria. I'm not sure 
this wording, if included, would actually solve the problem. 

/JF Tremblay
Videotron

Full disclosure: Videotron is a Canadian cable operator used by 
several TPIAs. 




From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 12:13:04 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:13:04 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC> <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289534A3@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Amen!  I strongly second that!

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 9:12 AM
To: 'Joe Maimon'
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> We can (and have done so often) argue about whether and what technical 
> parameters should exist for ARIN to consider utilization justified.
> 
> Encoding technical paradigms du-jour into policy is not often a good idea.
> 
> Joe

Exactly. The concept of need depends on a technical configuration as well as a business planning horizon, both of which are highly variable. Technical configurations and architectures are subject to human creativity and economic incentives, which is why the whole concept of needs assessment is now being exposed as a non-scientific, "flexible" process. Note, I did not say "completely arbitrary," but I would say "not objective and standardized." 

This makes it increasingly puzzling to me why certain people insist on retention of traditional needs assessments as a matter of religion. I fully understand their desire to discourage unproductive hoarding, but that is an economic problem, not a technical one, and is best addressed through economically oriented policies. Nearly all entities who spend real money to acquire addresses are either going to use them or find a way to lease them to people who will use them. Rather than continue to bicker about the MSFT case, this community should try to move toward a new consensus regarding the role of light-handed, market-friendly policy measures to discourage unproductive use of available blocks.

--MM

_______________________________________________
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 Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 12:13:24 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:13:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>

> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> 
> 
> This is a problem where incumbent Canadian cable providers demand that
> subordinate ISPs assign IP addresses in a manner wholly inconsistent
> with ARIN policy and indeed incompatible with good stewardship of the
> dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses.
> ...
> 2. If ARIN acts at all, it should punitively restrict or rescind IPv4
> addresses available to the incumbent cable providers acting in such a
> repugnant manner.

This strong wording is wholly unwarranted. 

There are strong operational and technological requirements that prevent 
cable providers to act otherwise. Cable technology demands for subnets 
to be assigned in large numbers and with a small number of fixed 
prefix lengths. 

ARIN policies may not be aligned with technological realities here, but
by no means morally discutable intentions can be infered from this 
situation. If the policies do not align with reality, fix the policies, 
you'll find them to be much easier to change than the other way around. 

/JFT
Videotron




From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 12:37:40 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:37:40 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

The requirements that the Canadian cable providers are being asked to meet are non-sensical just like many other government requirements.  Still governmental requirements have to be met whether we like them or not.  Refusing to change the policy to allow Canadian cable providers to serve their customers is opposite of ARIN's mission to facilitate the advancement of the Internet.  

Therefore I agree with the proposal as written and recommend that it be approved.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:13 PM
To: bill at herrin.us
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> 
> This is a problem where incumbent Canadian cable providers demand that 
> subordinate ISPs assign IP addresses in a manner wholly inconsistent 
> with ARIN policy and indeed incompatible with good stewardship of the 
> dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses.
> ...
> 2. If ARIN acts at all, it should punitively restrict or rescind IPv4 
> addresses available to the incumbent cable providers acting in such a 
> repugnant manner.

This strong wording is wholly unwarranted. 

There are strong operational and technological requirements that prevent cable providers to act otherwise. Cable technology demands for subnets to be assigned in large numbers and with a small number of fixed prefix lengths. 

ARIN policies may not be aligned with technological realities here, but by no means morally discutable intentions can be infered from this situation. If the policies do not align with reality, fix the policies, you'll find them to be much easier to change than the other way around. 

/JFT
Videotron


_______________________________________________
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 Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 12:51:35 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:51:35 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <OF23A64B9C.C3D26837-ON85257A71.005BBCCE-85257A71.005C9D39@videotron.com>

Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> a ?crit sur 06/09/2012 
12:37:40 PM :
> Refusing to change the policy to allow
> Canadian cable providers to serve their customers is opposite of 
> ARIN's mission to facilitate the advancement of the Internet. 

Let me clarify my position here. I am not opposed to the policy to 
be changed, quite the opposite. There is definitly a problem to be
addressed here that makes the current policies not entirely appropriate.

However, this proposal as written is : 
1. Way too permissive, as it seems to remove utilization justification
2. Contains vague undefined terms such as "reasonably required" (in the 
staff comments) 
3. May not entirely solve the issue, as the 80% threshold mentioned will 
not reach the intended goal for very small subnets

/JFT




From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep  6 13:26:41 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:26:41 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWpb2LOnUvQe2iAEbuV6WH=odg5zzqcRUzrJt5yRPQy5g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Steven Ryerse
<SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> The requirements that the Canadian cable providers are
> being asked to meet are non-sensical just like many other
> government requirements.

Steven,

My understanding of the issue from the prior discussion is that the
CRTC (government) requirements DO NOT drive this issue. The cable
companies are permitted (NOT required) to make competitive ISPs
provision every cable node in the system with IP addresses regardless
of whether any customers connect to those nodes. The requirement that
each competitive ISP provision *every* node is 100% driven by the
cable companies' network management choices. NOT the government.

If I am mistaken, point me to the relevant government document and
quote me the paragraph. I will re-evaluate my viewpoint. Until then my
assessment stands: this is a set of fights between companies not a
regulatory-driven requirement. It is inappropriate for ARIN to enable
bad behavior on the part of any of those companies.


On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM,
<Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
> This strong wording is wholly unwarranted.

If my understanding of the situation (see above) is correct then my
choice of words is, if anything, understated. If I have misunderstood
then please correct me (also see above) and I'll be sure to apologize
as I reassess.

If this issue really were driven by government regulation (which it
DOES NOT appear to be) it still wouldn't call for the proposed,
wasteful solution. But it would certainly call for a more caution,
tact and generosity from ARIN than my words would recommend. Perhaps
something like a 24 month reprieve while ARIN reaches out to the CRTC
and tries to help them understand why the regulation mismatches
international standards for IPv4 address management.

If it were a CRTC regulation at fault. Which as near as I can
determine, it isn't. It's pure bad behavior on the part of the
incumbent cable companies with lying fingers pointed at the CRTC.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From sethm at rollernet.us  Thu Sep  6 13:37:39 2012
From: sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:37:39 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>

On 9/6/12 9:37 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> The requirements that the Canadian cable providers are being asked to meet are non-sensical just like many other government requirements.  Still governmental requirements have to be met whether we like them or not.  Refusing to change the policy to allow Canadian cable providers to serve their customers is opposite of ARIN's mission to facilitate the advancement of the Internet.  
> 

Some say it's government some say it's the cable companies; can anyone
clearly cite the relevant regulation? If not, this doesn't need to be
policy.

I would oppose the proposal if it's just the cable company trying to be
difficult when competitors want to use their infrastructure.

~Seth


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 13:53:08 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:53:08 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289547DF@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

When this issue was first brought to this community two or three weeks ago there was quite a bit of explanation and discussion as this community tried to bore down to the issues and possible solutions.  There might be some tweaking to the technical portion of this proposal that would improve it and if so I would definitely support that.  BUT, competitors will always be competitors and it isn't this communities business to take one side or the other.  This community should facilitate BOTH sides and make sure BOTH sides can adequately conduct their business as this is the only course that "facilitates the advancement of the Internet", which after all is the prime directive.  This community certainly should not want to get in the middle of any competitive squabble.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:38 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

On 9/6/12 9:37 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> The requirements that the Canadian cable providers are being asked to meet are non-sensical just like many other government requirements.  Still governmental requirements have to be met whether we like them or not.  Refusing to change the policy to allow Canadian cable providers to serve their customers is opposite of ARIN's mission to facilitate the advancement of the Internet.  
> 

Some say it's government some say it's the cable companies; can anyone clearly cite the relevant regulation? If not, this doesn't need to be policy.

I would oppose the proposal if it's just the cable company trying to be difficult when competitors want to use their infrastructure.

~Seth
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From lar at mwtcorp.net  Thu Sep  6 13:36:24 2012
From: lar at mwtcorp.net (Larry Ash)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:36:24 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
Message-ID: <web-3235756@be1.mail.trib.com>

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:11:36 +0000
  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> We can (and have done so often) argue about whether and what technical
>> parameters should exist for ARIN to consider utilization justified.
>> 
>> Encoding technical paradigms du-jour into policy is not often a good idea.
>> 
>> Joe
> 
> Exactly. The concept of need depends on a technical configuration as well as 
>a business planning horizon, both of which are highly variable. Technical 
>configurations and architectures are subject to human creativity and economic 
>incentives, which is why the whole concept of needs assessment is now being 
>exposed as a non-scientific, "flexible" process. Note, I did not say 
>"completely arbitrary," but I would say "not objective and standardized." 
> 
> This makes it increasingly puzzling to me why certain people insist on 
>retention of traditional needs assessments as a matter of religion. I fully 
>understand their desire to discourage unproductive hoarding, but that is an 
>economic problem, not a technical one, and is best addressed through 
>economically oriented policies. Nearly all entities who spend real money to 
>acquire addresses are either going to use them or find a way to lease them to 
>people who will use them. 

I think there is ample evidence to the contrary when you look at radio 
spectrum.

The real or perceived economics of removing competitors from the market place
are powerful and complex.

Large entities have bid up and secured spectrum they never used and they
have been mostly unwilling to allow smaller entities to purchase or lease it. 
The
frequencies have, at times, not been well suited for the purchaser but it was
purchased at auction anyway. Frequently at costs of millions or tens of 
millions
of dollars and then never deployed. One can only speculate as to the 
motivations
of the Companies involved but the effect has been to limit or eliminate 
potentially
disruptive competition. It has been particularly effective against the 
smallest companies
that can not afford even a modest cost in lightly populated areas.

Making sure that the same kind of thing does not occur in IP should be easier
(technical requirements are admittedly quite different) but still needs to be
in our minds. I don't see this as a religious or philosophical issue but a 
very
practical one. (Actually my philosophy prefers market-based solutions.)


>Rather than continue to bicker about the MSFT case, 
>this community should try to move toward a new consensus regarding the role 
>of light-handed, market-friendly policy measures to discourage unproductive 
>use of available blocks.

I would assert that your study indicates that to some degree current policy is
accomplishing the tasks at hand. IMO the market and decision makers need time 
to
adapt to the current situation before we change anything unless a glaring
problem that stops all or most progress. If there was no activity in the V4
market I would be concerned. If there was no continued activity in assignments
from the Free Pool I'd be concerned. Your study shows that both are 
shouldering
a portion of the load. I think that is better than many would have expected.


> 
> --MM
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Larry Ash
Network Administrator
Mountain West Telephone
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387


From jmaimon at chl.com  Thu Sep  6 14:01:03 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:01:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>
Message-ID: <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>



Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/6/12 9:37 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> The requirements that the Canadian cable providers are being asked to meet are non-sensical just like many other government requirements.  Still governmental requirements have to be met whether we like them or not.  Refusing to change the policy to allow Canadian cable providers to serve their customers is opposite of ARIN's mission to facilitate the advancement of the Internet.
>>
>
> Some say it's government some say it's the cable companies; can anyone
> clearly cite the relevant regulation? If not, this doesn't need to be
> policy.
>
> I would oppose the proposal if it's just the cable company trying to be
> difficult when competitors want to use their infrastructure.
>
> ~Seth

I would hope that I would be opposed to any proposal that enabled bad 
behavior, wherever the source.

Does the technology inherently require this sort of unaccountability and 
is there any way to change that and is it worth accommodating and enabling?

Unconvinced on all counts.

Opposed.

Joe


From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep  6 14:18:06 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:18:06 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC> <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <454626AA-882C-4FA3-80FC-09FC0BB25396@delong.com>

> This makes it increasingly puzzling to me why certain people insist on retention of traditional needs assessments as a matter of religion. I fully understand their desire to discourage unproductive hoarding, but that is an economic problem, not a technical one, and is best addressed through economically oriented policies. Nearly all entities who spend real money to acquire addresses are either going to use them or find a way to lease them to people who will use them. Rather than continue to bicker about the MSFT case, this community should try to move toward a new consensus regarding the role of light-handed, market-friendly policy measures to discourage unproductive use of available blocks.
> 

Continuing to repeat the fallacy that economics prevents hoarding still doesn't make it true.

In many cases in history, economics have, in fact, caused and/or contributed to hoarding of resources perceived as scarce.

Surely as an economist the term "tulip famine" cannot be unfamiliar to you?

If you would like a more recent example, let's consider the "food shortages" in Russia towards the end of Gorbachev's time there (July, 1989 IIRC). I was actually there and visited several homes in Moscow and Irkutsk at the time. There were no perceived shortages in Irkutsk at all and most people wondered what all the hubbub was about. OTOH, in Moscow, everyone was talking about the food shortages and sure enough, any visit to any form of store (meat market, produce store, dairy store, etc.) after about 9:30 AM would be a vast display of empty shelves. However, if you got there before 9:00, you'd see a fully stocked store not yet open and large groups of people waiting to get in.

At peoples homes where these discussions of shortages were going on, they were often having trouble figuring out where to put all of the food supplies they had purchased that morning in an effort to make sure they had as much as they could to survive the shortages. Of course, it was this hoarding behavior that was creating the shortages and when people finally ran out of places to put things, the stocking levels on the shelves slowly returned to normal.

Claims that economics prevent hoarding depend on a number of inherent assumptions:

	1.	The people with the most means will do what is in their rational self-interest.
	2.	The rational self-interest of the wealthiest members of any group will also serve the
		best interests of the group overall.
	3.	Monetary value is a true reflection of societal value.

Each of these assumptions is provably incorrect.

Owen



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 14:56:20 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:56:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I think most organizations hope that they can replace their non-IPv6 equipment at the normal time and cycle that they normally replace their equipment.  As an example, most of my customers replace their servers in 3 or 4 or 5 year cycles.  Certainly they would prefer not to have to pay out money to replace a server before the normal cycles that they budget for.  This is not only human nature but normal business planning.  

The bigger question I have here though, is what business is it of mine or yours or this community to try and dictate by policy when these cycles should occur?  With all due respect, it appears to me that this community is actually trying to hoard the remaining IPv4 addresses that are left.  That is as much of a problem for getting IPv6 moving forward as whatever any legacy holder or fortune 500 company may be doing.  It is time to stop the madness of trying to make IPv4 last forever.  It is time to reasonably and prudently allocate IPv4 addresses and when they are gone they are gone.  Then a combination of - some of the unused legacy addresses becoming available, and IPv6 migration will solve the exhaustion problem forthwith.  

We've already replaced all of our non IPv6 equipment and already have our IPv6 address block.  We are trying to implement IPv6 now but one of our upstream providers isn't ready for it yet.  We are trying to convince them to work with us to get this working and will probably succeed at some point.  These are the real world problems that we all are facing and will all have to solve.  Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.  Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when the mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet and not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do slow it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in this community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over but I plan on doing so until some reason prevails.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.

It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.

It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.

In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.

Owen

On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.  
>> 
>> Steven Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099- Office
>> 
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>> 
>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>> 
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>> 
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>> 
>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.  
>>>> 
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>> 
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>> 
>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well 
>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was 
>>>> an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by 
>>>> and large not treating
>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>> 
>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>> 
>>>> paul
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 15:27:54 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:27:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
Message-ID: <OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>

arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net a ?crit sur 06/09/2012 02:01:03 PM :

> Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> 
>
> Does the technology inherently require this sort of unaccountability and 

> is there any way to change that and is it worth accommodating and 
enabling?

As someone familiar with this environment, let me try to shed some light 
on 
the issue. I'm afraid it's not a short and simple explanation. 

Canadian cable operators do indeed require third parties to provision all 
the access equipment (CTMSes) in a given "region" with subnets roughly 
equal
in size to the largest number of clients on any equipment. The reason 
behind 
this is quite simple, the third party does not have a vision of which 
equipment correspond to the street address of a specific potential client. 

By the nature of the cable technology, such street address <-> equipement 
relationship changes in the network almost on a daily basis. The IP 
provisioning must therefore be blanketed across the region because a 
specific equipment may see the clients moving at any time. 

The alternate approach to this would be to 
1) have the TPIA notify the operator each time a new client must be turned 

on. The operator would then reprovision the CMTS IP ranges accordingly. 
We're talking of a 7 to 10 days process here at least. Not acceptable. 
2) The TPIA would run the risk of running out of addresses each time 
the operator transfers Docsis domains between equipment, as there's 
practically no way to predict how many TPIA clients are in a specific
docsis/geographic domain. 

Both of the above being undesirable, the CRTC introduced the concept
of TPIA "region" to limit the problem. A TPIA may choose to be deployed
only in specific pre-defined geographic regions, limiting the need to 
provision equipement where no clients will ever be present. 

Even with the regionalization, most TPIAs still end up with very small 
numbers of clients spread across many equipments. Meeting ARIN's 
utilization constraints is therefore very difficult for any TPIA, 
especially when starting, because the distribution of clients over 
the different IP domains tends to be fairly uneven.

Here's a fictious example: a TPIA starts with a region containing 256
IP domains. The largest number of clients in a single domain is 35, 
but the average is only 18, for a total of 4600 clients. 
It requires 256 /26 to put in the network. This is a /18 with an 
utilization ratio of only 4600/65536 = 28%. 

If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve 
extensive operational subnet swapping, let's hear it! Otherwise, 
a change in policy is probably required. 

/JF




From bokhari at cronomagic.com  Thu Sep  6 15:51:27 2012
From: bokhari at cronomagic.com (Hayee Bokhari)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:51:27 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
	ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>, <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
Message-ID: <201209061551269817023@cronomagic.com>

Being a TPIA in Quebec and have presence in most regions we are exactly facing the issue which Jean-Francois pointed out, A TPIA cannot suggest an Engineering change unless a complete flowchart of Network and IP assignment knowledge is provided to TPIA, in most cases TPIA works in dark, 

The issue is serious because at one point it will bring the TPIA expansion to a halt, while Jean-Francois has a valid point ARIN refuses to accept it as a valid, while assigning new IP's and the reason is that Cable operator is able to move IP blocks from low customer base area to high customer base area and ARIN knows this and TPIA is asked to first request the unusable blocked to be moved around and get used, which becomes catch 22 

Cogeco is holding back the TPIA expansion because of the same issue

Here is a solution or Gene in a box, cable operator should start using IPV6 across their Network, Is it possible, Yes. Can cable Operator do it????

Any comments Jean-Francois?

>arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net a ?crit sur 06/09/2012 02:01:03 PM :
>
>> Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> 
>>
>> Does the technology inherently require this sort of unaccountability and 
>
>> is there any way to change that and is it worth accommodating and 
>enabling?
>
>As someone familiar with this environment, let me try to shed some light 
>on 
>the issue. I'm afraid it's not a short and simple explanation. 
>
>Canadian cable operators do indeed require third parties to provision all 
>the access equipment (CTMSes) in a given "region" with subnets roughly 
>equal
>in size to the largest number of clients on any equipment. The reason 
>behind 
>this is quite simple, the third party does not have a vision of which 
>equipment correspond to the street address of a specific potential client. 
>
>By the nature of the cable technology, such street address <-> equipement 
>relationship changes in the network almost on a daily basis. The IP 
>provisioning must therefore be blanketed across the region because a 
>specific equipment may see the clients moving at any time. 
>
>The alternate approach to this would be to 
>1) have the TPIA notify the operator each time a new client must be turned 
>
>on. The operator would then reprovision the CMTS IP ranges accordingly. 
>We're talking of a 7 to 10 days process here at least. Not acceptable. 
>2) The TPIA would run the risk of running out of addresses each time 
>the operator transfers Docsis domains between equipment, as there's 
>practically no way to predict how many TPIA clients are in a specific
>docsis/geographic domain. 
>
>Both of the above being undesirable, the CRTC introduced the concept
>of TPIA "region" to limit the problem. A TPIA may choose to be deployed
>only in specific pre-defined geographic regions, limiting the need to 
>provision equipement where no clients will ever be present. 
>
>Even with the regionalization, most TPIAs still end up with very small 
>numbers of clients spread across many equipments. Meeting ARIN's 
>utilization constraints is therefore very difficult for any TPIA, 
>especially when starting, because the distribution of clients over 
>the different IP domains tends to be fairly uneven.
>
>Here's a fictious example: a TPIA starts with a region containing 256
>IP domains. The largest number of clients in a single domain is 35, 
>but the average is only 18, for a total of 4600 clients. 
>It requires 256 /26 to put in the network. This is a /18 with an 
>utilization ratio of only 4600/65536 = 28%. 
>
>If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve 
>extensive operational subnet swapping, let's hear it! Otherwise, 
>a change in policy is probably required. 
>
>/JF
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>

From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep  6 17:03:52 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:03:52 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM,
<Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
> Canadian cable operators do indeed require third parties to provision all
> the access equipment (CTMSes) in a given "region" with subnets roughly
> equal in size to the largest number of clients on any equipment. The reason
> behind this is quite simple, the third party does not have a vision of which
> equipment correspond to the street address of a specific potential client.

Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
dynamic IP address?

This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 17:10:47 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:10:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
 ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <201209061551269817023@cronomagic.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>,
	<5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com> <201209061551269817023@cronomagic.com>
Message-ID: <OFA5A900F3.D211FDBD-ON85257A71.0072C203-85257A71.00745840@videotron.com>

> "Hayee Bokhari" <bokhari at cronomagic.com> 
> 
> Here is a solution or Gene in a box, cable operator should start 
> using IPV6 across their Network, Is it possible, Yes. Can cable 
> Operator do it????
> 
> Any comments Jean-Francois?
> 

I can't speak for other operators, but on our side, we are 
unfortunately waiting for some critical pieces of software 
to be available to make IPv6 available. Comments such as 
this one might give you a hint on what's missing (second paragraph): 
http://blog.comcast.com/2012/06/world-ipv6-launch.html

However IPv6 alone is not a solution to IPv4 exhaustion. 
There's actually a technology that would provides nice 
IPv4 aggregation for TPIAs, but it comes at a price. 

<flame-retardant-bullet-proof-suit-on>
CGN
</running away as fast as possible with nose pinched>

/JF




From bill at telnetcommunications.com  Thu Sep  6 17:15:31 2012
From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:15:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FE7D4327AABC0448A6281C0AC4445C7CE26D79D7FF@Exchange2007.HostedMail.local>

Bill,

There are many other costs and technical requirements to be a TPIA provider.  The scenario that you have given, although entirely possible, is highly unlikely and would be extremely cost prohibitive on the provider.

It isn't likely to happen.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: September-06-12 5:04 PM
To: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM,
<Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
> Canadian cable operators do indeed require third parties to provision 
> all the access equipment (CTMSes) in a given "region" with subnets 
> roughly equal in size to the largest number of clients on any 
> equipment. The reason behind this is quite simple, the third party 
> does not have a vision of which equipment correspond to the street address of a specific potential client.

Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single dynamic IP address?

This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> 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 Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 17:17:44 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:17:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>

> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> 
> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
> dynamic IP address?

Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router. 
 
> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?

This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work. 

Feel free to start your own cable standard that won't have this 
limitation, implement it and sell it. We'll be waiting. 

/JF



From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Sep  6 17:20:09 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:20:09 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <454626AA-882C-4FA3-80FC-09FC0BB25396@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC> <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<454626AA-882C-4FA3-80FC-09FC0BB25396@delong.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220F9FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> 
> Surely as an economist the term "tulip famine" cannot be unfamiliar to you?

It is unfamiliar to me. I have never heard of the great Tulip Famine. But my heart bleeds for all those hungry tulips - I wish I could feed them. 

I have, however, heard of the Dutch tulip bubble of 1637. But this is a _bubble_ story, it is not a hoarding story. Like the real estate bubble we just went through, it is about people bidding up the price of a resource (neither of which was in fixed supply) in the errant belief that its value would keep going up indefinitely. 

I don't think anyone has ever said "economics prevent hoarding." I think I was calling for policies that provide appropriate incentives not to hoard that is less arbitrary and hard to administer than traditional needs assessment
 


From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep  6 17:33:13 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:33:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220F9FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC> <504793A9.3080800@chl.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAFD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<454626AA-882C-4FA3-80FC-09FC0BB25396@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220F9FE@SUEX10-mbx-1! 0.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <852B30C6-4AB0-4F95-B9E3-CFF596C044D1@delong.com>


On Sep 6, 2012, at 14:20 , Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> 
>> Surely as an economist the term "tulip famine" cannot be unfamiliar to you?
> 
> It is unfamiliar to me. I have never heard of the great Tulip Famine. But my heart bleeds for all those hungry tulips - I wish I could feed them. 
> 
> I have, however, heard of the Dutch tulip bubble of 1637. But this is a _bubble_ story, it is not a hoarding story. Like the real estate bubble we just went through, it is about people bidding up the price of a resource (neither of which was in fixed supply) in the errant belief that its value would keep going up indefinitely. 
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever said "economics prevent hoarding." I think I was calling for policies that provide appropriate incentives not to hoard that is less arbitrary and hard to administer than traditional needs assessment
> 

Propose one, I will probably support it.

So far, you have only proposed market value (economics) as the alternative mechanism. That mechanism demonstrably doesn't work (and you now say you never claimed it would), so...


Owen



From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep  6 17:30:57 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:30:57 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
	ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <OFA5A900F3.D211FDBD-ON85257A71.0072C203-85257A71.00745840@videotron.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>,
	<5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com> <201209061551269817023@cronomagic.com>
	<OFA5A900F3.D211FDBD-ON85257A71.0072C203-85257A71.00745840@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <E99CB5FE-964B-4BCC-88EC-DF26A2D88B7D@delong.com>


On Sep 6, 2012, at 14:10 , Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com wrote:

>> "Hayee Bokhari" <bokhari at cronomagic.com> 
>> 
>> Here is a solution or Gene in a box, cable operator should start 
>> using IPV6 across their Network, Is it possible, Yes. Can cable 
>> Operator do it????
>> 
>> Any comments Jean-Francois?
>> 
> 
> I can't speak for other operators, but on our side, we are 
> unfortunately waiting for some critical pieces of software 
> to be available to make IPv6 available. Comments such as 
> this one might give you a hint on what's missing (second paragraph): 
> http://blog.comcast.com/2012/06/world-ipv6-launch.html
> 
> However IPv6 alone is not a solution to IPv4 exhaustion. 
> There's actually a technology that would provides nice 
> IPv4 aggregation for TPIAs, but it comes at a price. 
> 
> <flame-retardant-bullet-proof-suit-on>
> CGN
> </running away as fast as possible with nose pinched>
> 

If you could deploy IPv6, you could use IPv4 over GRE-IPv6
to provide IPv4 access without having to allocate excessive
addresses beyond current ARIN policy in the IPv4 realm as
you would not need to involve the incumbent MSO in the
IPv4 addressing process.

However, since that is not immediately practical, I recognize the
need for this policy and fully support the latest draft.

Owen



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep  6 17:37:03 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:37:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:17 PM,
<Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
>> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
>> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
>> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
>> dynamic IP address?
>
> Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router.
>
>> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?
>
> This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work.

Then how are you justifying your own IP addresses to ARIN? The delta
between customer count on your peak node and your average node should
be too high to let you meet ARIN's utilization requirements. Is it
audit time?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From matthew at matthew.at  Thu Sep  6 17:40:21 2012
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:40:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <50491845.6030100@matthew.at>

On 9/6/2012 2:17 PM, Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com wrote:
>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
>> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
>> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
>> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
>> dynamic IP address?
> Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router.
>   
>> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?
> This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work.
>
> Feel free to start your own cable standard that won't have this
> limitation, implement it and sell it. We'll be waiting.
>

How about I instead start my own <whatever> standard that suddenly 
requires all of the remaining ARIN space in order to possibly work. Do 
you think ARIN would give me that many addresses just because the 
standard was technically deficient?

Matthew Kaufman


From matthew at matthew.at  Thu Sep  6 17:42:50 2012
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:42:50 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <504918DA.5060209@matthew.at>

On 9/6/2012 12:27 PM, Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com wrote:
> If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve 
> extensive operational subnet swapping, let's hear it!

Sure: "Don't do that!"

Matthew Kaufman


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep  6 17:43:21 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:21 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU8HsFwAKDjMzaEpAPjt5UzHPg32AJQh+KDKQ5hZvd2EA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:17 PM,
> <Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
>>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>>> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
>>> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
>>> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
>>> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
>>> dynamic IP address?
>>
>> Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router.
>>
>>> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?
>>
>> This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work.
>
> Then how are you justifying your own IP addresses to ARIN? The delta
> between customer count on your peak node and your average node should
> be too high to let you meet ARIN's utilization requirements.

To clarify, I mean you the incumbent cable provider, not you the third
party ISP. How is the incumbent meeting his own direct obligations
trying to match ARIN policy against this alleged DOCSIS/CMTS
limitation.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From bokhari at cronomagic.com  Thu Sep  6 17:46:26 2012
From: bokhari at cronomagic.com (Hayee Bokhari)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:46:26 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
	ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>, <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>,
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201209061746259241006@cronomagic.com>

>On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:17 PM,
><Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
>>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>>> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
>>> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
>>> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
>>> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
>>> dynamic IP address?
>>
>> Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router.
>>
>>> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?
>>
>> This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work.
>
>Then how are you justifying your own IP addresses to ARIN? The delta
>between customer count on your peak node and your average node should
>be too high to let you meet ARIN's utilization requirements. Is it
>audit time?
>
>Regards,
>Bill Herrin

Well said bill,

However point to note that major cable and telecom providers are sitting on tons of IP's which they got in golden days when ARIN was distributing them dime a dozen, it?s not a secret that there are individuals and companies who are sitting on millions of unused IP's just waiting for a Gold rush to start once ARIN is drained.

I wonder if there is a way to force these companies and individuals to cough these IP's out for public.??


Regards
Hayee Bokhari

From george.herbert at gmail.com  Thu Sep  6 17:50:01 2012
From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:50:01 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU8HsFwAKDjMzaEpAPjt5UzHPg32AJQh+KDKQ5hZvd2EA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGU8HsFwAKDjMzaEpAPjt5UzHPg32AJQh+KDKQ5hZvd2EA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK__KzsYJ91CNVTLrDj84FNe1GSwL+intiwfaHRiWS+7pxE2rA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:17 PM,
>> <Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com> wrote:
>>>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
>>>> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
>>>> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
>>>> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
>>>> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
>>>> dynamic IP address?
>>>
>>> Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router.
>>>
>>>> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?
>>>
>>> This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work.
>>
>> Then how are you justifying your own IP addresses to ARIN? The delta
>> between customer count on your peak node and your average node should
>> be too high to let you meet ARIN's utilization requirements.
>
> To clarify, I mean you the incumbent cable provider, not you the third
> party ISP. How is the incumbent meeting his own direct obligations
> trying to match ARIN policy against this alleged DOCSIS/CMTS
> limitation.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin


Without any particular insight into the details...

1918 space in the various dispersed routers, and 1:1 NAT to public
space from a central concentrator?  Some protocols object to NAT
but...


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


From Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep  6 17:57:28 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:57:28 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
	<CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <OF0022BF9E.D274D46B-ON85257A71.0077DD94-85257A71.00789E61@videotron.com>

wherrin at gmail.com a ?crit sur 06/09/2012 05:37:03 PM :

> Then how are you justifying your own IP addresses to ARIN? The delta
> between customer count on your peak node and your average node should
> be too high to let you meet ARIN's utilization requirements. 

Wrong. The average IP domain for us is 4000 to 10 000 clients. Because
of the volume, they are adjusted to the nearest /24, so no more than
6% extra provisioning at any time. 

A TPIA has between 5 and 200 clients on a domain. The margin is much 
bigger. 

> Is it audit time?

I welcome an audit any time, we've had some in the past and passed
with flying colors. The reports are running every day, my boss 
won't even allow me overtime (damn!). 

/JF



From matthew at matthew.at  Thu Sep  6 17:59:32 2012
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:59:32 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
 ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <201209061746259241006@cronomagic.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>, <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>,
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201209061746259241006@cronomagic.com>
Message-ID: <50491CC4.2090608@matthew.at>

On 9/6/2012 2:46 PM, Hayee Bokhari wrote:
> However point to note that major cable and telecom providers are sitting on tons of IP's which they got in golden days when ARIN was distributing them dime a dozen, it?s not a secret that there are individuals and companies who are sitting on millions of unused IP's just waiting for a Gold rush to start once ARIN is drained.
>
> I wonder if there is a way to force these companies and individuals to cough these IP's out for public.??
>

Sure there is. Make it more attractive financially for these companies 
and individuals to release the IP space to others, and set policy that 
allows the potential recipients to actually engage in these transactions 
(rather than, for instance, being unable to justify the transaction cost 
given the needs justification requirements).

Matthew Kaufman


From springer at inlandnet.com  Thu Sep  6 18:16:42 2012
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com>

Hi Steven

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:

>
> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.

They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we 
are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing 
the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to
the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell 
there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.

> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when the 
> mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet and not 
> to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do slow it 
> down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in this 
> community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over but I plan 
> on doing so until some reason prevails.

You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But consider 
this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied 
in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community 
to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to 
some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to 
provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good 
effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find 
less support in the data.

John Springer

> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>
> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>
> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>
> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>
>>> Steven Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>
>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>
>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>
>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>
>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well
>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was
>>>>> an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are by
>>>>> and large not treating
>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>
>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>
>>>>> paul
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 18:36:15 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:36:15 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I very much appreciate your reasoned response.  I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4.  Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each.  An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6.  If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other.  This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance.  IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

Hi Steven

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:

>
> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.

They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.

> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when the 
> mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet and 
> not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do slow 
> it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in this 
> community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over but I 
> plan on doing so until some reason prevails.

You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But consider
this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.

John Springer

> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>
> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>
> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>
> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>
>>> Steven Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>
>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>
>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>
>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>
>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well 
>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was 
>>>>> an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are 
>>>>> by and large not treating
>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>
>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>
>>>>> paul
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 18:38:02 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:38:02 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
 ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <50491CC4.2090608@matthew.at>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>, <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>,
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGUPM5CVdyTFU6Se161MuLRWv4YAAerM6M94=nO-hGwbdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201209061746259241006@cronomagic.com> <50491CC4.2090608@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AD88F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I couldn't agree more with your statement!

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:00 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

On 9/6/2012 2:46 PM, Hayee Bokhari wrote:
> However point to note that major cable and telecom providers are sitting on tons of IP's which they got in golden days when ARIN was distributing them dime a dozen, it?s not a secret that there are individuals and companies who are sitting on millions of unused IP's just waiting for a Gold rush to start once ARIN is drained.
>
> I wonder if there is a way to force these companies and individuals to cough these IP's out for public.??
>

Sure there is. Make it more attractive financially for these companies and individuals to release the IP space to others, and set policy that allows the potential recipients to actually engage in these transactions (rather than, for instance, being unable to justify the transaction cost given the needs justification requirements).

Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep  6 18:40:22 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:40:22 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com> <5B9E907!
	47FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <89C5E209-D4FA-484E-8A89-32DD058ED68A@delong.com>

The IPv6 policy already specifies that anyone who qualifies for an IPv4 block automatically qualifies for IPv6.

Owen

On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:36 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> I very much appreciate your reasoned response.  I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4.  Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each.  An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6.  If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other.  This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance.  IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.  
> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> Hi Steven
> 
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.
> 
> They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.
> 
>> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when the 
>> mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet and 
>> not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do slow 
>> it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in this 
>> community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over but I 
>> plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
> 
> You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But consider
> this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.
> 
> John Springer
> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>> 
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>> 
>> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>> 
>> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>> 
>> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>> 
>> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>> 
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>> 
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>> 
>>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>> 
>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>> 
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>> 
>>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>> 
>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>> 
>>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>                 Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well 
>>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was 
>>>>>> an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are 
>>>>>> by and large not treating
>>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> paul
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PPML
>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 18:55:56 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 22:55:56 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <89C5E209-D4FA-484E-8A89-32DD058ED68A@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com> <5B9E907!
	47FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<89C5E209-D4FA-484E-8A89-32DD058ED68A@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AD9F6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

That is great and I know some won't agree, but I think it should be the other way around too.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:40 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: John Springer; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

The IPv6 policy already specifies that anyone who qualifies for an IPv4 block automatically qualifies for IPv6.

Owen

On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:36 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> I very much appreciate your reasoned response.  I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4.  Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each.  An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6.  If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other.  This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance.  IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.  
> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> Hi Steven
> 
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.
> 
> They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.
> 
>> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when the 
>> mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet and 
>> not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do slow 
>> it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in this 
>> community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over but I 
>> plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
> 
> You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But 
> consider
> this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.
> 
> John Springer
> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>> 
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>> 
>> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>> 
>> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>> 
>> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>> 
>> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>> 
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>> 
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>> 
>>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>> 
>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>> 
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>> 
>>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>> 
>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>> 
>>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>                 Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address 
>>>>>> market
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well 
>>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there was 
>>>>>> an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they are 
>>>>>> by and large not treating
>>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> paul
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PPML
>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep  6 19:02:09 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:02:09 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>

Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0

    Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
    Proposal Originator
        name: William Herrin
        email: bill at herrin.us
        telephone: 703-534-2652
        organization: Self
    Proposal Version: 1
    Date: 9/6/2012
    Proposal type: new
    Policy term: temporary, 2 years
    Policy statement:

Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
hold ARIN number resources.

If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
policy, this policy shall not apply.

    Rationale:

It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have
attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a
manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization,
thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet
infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding
technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly
behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.

While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN
should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory
agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.

It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long
before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders
finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right
thing.

    Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption

END OF TEMPLATE

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


From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 19:21:31 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:21:31 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5FED7AA6-B76D-4D2C-9A63-1E4E8357FC18@delong.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com> <5B9E907! !
	47FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<89C5E209-D4FA-484E-8A89-32DD058ED68A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AD9F6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5FED7AA6-B76D-4D2C-9A63-1E4E8357FC18@delong.com>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AFB72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

Yes I understand why you would think that.  But if you could look at a policy or policy proposal and apply the question "Does this 'Advance the Internet and provide good stewardship' for both IPv4 & IPv6 worlds", then it is likely to be as balanced as possible for both - and then the policy or proposal is probably balanced right where it really needs to be.  

I don't want to re-argue the case here but we were approved for an appropriate sized IPv6 block and denied for an appropriate sized IPv4 block - and that makes no sense when you really think about it.    Either our Organization should qualify to participate based on our need - or - it should not qualify based on our need.  It should not be able to qualify sometimes and not qualify other times for the same need.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
             ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 7:00 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market

You're right... I don't agree. I'd hate to roll the IPv6 limitations back to only allowing people who qualify for IPv4.

Owen

On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:55 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> That is great and I know some won't agree, but I think it should be the other way around too.  
> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:40 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: John Springer; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net)
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> The IPv6 policy already specifies that anyone who qualifies for an IPv4 block automatically qualifies for IPv6.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:36 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
>> I very much appreciate your reasoned response.  I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4.  Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each.  An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6.  If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other.  This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance.  IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.  
>> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>> 
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>> 
>> Hi Steven
>> 
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.
>> 
>> They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.
>> 
>>> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when 
>>> the mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet 
>>> and not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do 
>>> slow it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in 
>>> this community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over 
>>> but I plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
>> 
>> You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But 
>> consider
>> this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.
>> 
>> John Springer
>> 
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>> 
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>> 
>>> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>>> 
>>> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>>> 
>>> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>>> 
>>> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>>> 
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>> 
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>> 
>>>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>>> 
>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>                 Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address 
>>>>>> market
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>>                Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address 
>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well 
>>>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there 
>>>>>>> was an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they 
>>>>>>> are by and large not treating
>>>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> paul
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PPML
>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>>>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 


From springer at inlandnet.com  Thu Sep  6 19:56:36 2012
From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AFB72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com> <5B9E907! !
	47FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<89C5E209-D4FA-484E-8A89-32DD058ED68A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AD9F6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5FED7AA6-B76D-4D2C-9A63-1E4E8357FC18@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AFB72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <20120906162601.C68998@mail.inlandnet.com>

Hi Steven,

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:


>
> I don't want to re-argue the case here but we were approved for an 
> appropriate sized IPv6 block and denied for an appropriate sized IPv4 
> block - and that makes no sense when you really think about it.

I feel almost sure that you know that it is not particularly how much 
sense it makes, but rather what the policy stipulates. So WRT the above 
comment, I can say: Maybe what you say has some philosophical rectitude, 
but it almost doesn't matter in this, non-policy context. It is arguement 
that needs to take place in support of specific, proposed, under 
discussion policy for it to have the impact I am sure you want it to have.

> Either our Organization should qualify to participate based on our need 
> - or - it should not qualify based on our need.  It should not be able 
> to qualify sometimes and not qualify other times for the same need.

See above, but in this case I do not agree that need for IPV6 resources 
should automatically result in IPV4 resource allocation in excess of what 
policy provides for. I find it entirely believable and rational that you 
may be able to demonstrate a level of need for IPV6 resources, and get 
them and unable to demonstrate another level of need for IPV4 resources, 
and not get them. In my only medium level of observation of goings on, 
this seems to conform to what I have seen of community intent.

John Springer

> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA?? 30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>             ?????????????? Conquering Complex Networks???
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 7:00 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>
> You're right... I don't agree. I'd hate to roll the IPv6 limitations back to only allowing people who qualify for IPv4.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:55 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
>> That is great and I know some won't agree, but I think it should be the other way around too.
>>
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>
>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                     Conquering Complex Networks???
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:40 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: John Springer; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net)
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> The IPv6 policy already specifies that anyone who qualifies for an IPv4 block automatically qualifies for IPv6.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:36 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I very much appreciate your reasoned response.  I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4.  Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each.  An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6.  If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other.  This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance.  IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.
>>>
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>
>>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                    Conquering Complex Networks???
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>
>>> Hi Steven
>>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.
>>>
>>> They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.
>>>
>>>> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when
>>>> the mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet
>>>> and not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do
>>>> slow it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in
>>>> this community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over
>>>> but I plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
>>>
>>> You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But
>>> consider
>>> this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.
>>>
>>> John Springer
>>>
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>
>>>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>>>>
>>>> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>>>>
>>>> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>>>>
>>>> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>
>>>>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>>                 Conquering Complex Networks???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address
>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ??? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>>>                Conquering Complex Networks???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address
>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well
>>>>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there
>>>>>>>> was an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they
>>>>>>>> are by and large not treating
>>>>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> paul
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
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 paul at redbarn.org  Thu Sep  6 20:40:51 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:40:51 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <50494293.3070702@redbarn.org>

On 9/6/2012 6:56 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I think most organizations hope that they can replace their non-IPv6 equipment at the normal time and cycle that they normally replace their equipment.  As an example, most of my customers replace their servers in 3 or 4 or 5 year cycles.  Certainly they would prefer not to have to pay out money to replace a server before the normal cycles that they budget for.  This is not only human nature but normal business planning. 

you have hit upon the arin board's motives for the following
declaration, which was also sent by registered mail to every arin member:

https://www.arin.net/announcements/2007/20070521.html

and you have understood precisely why it was issued five years or so
ago, rather than waiting for exhaustion.

paul


From paul at redbarn.org  Thu Sep  6 20:44:54 2012
From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:44:54 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EB2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EB2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <50494386.40705@redbarn.org>

On 9/6/2012 1:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Should you be appalled by what seems to be perfectly rational behavior -- or by the dual stack migration strategy?

melting the ice caps, or a digital equivilent, is rational in the short
term but fatal in the long term. as to which piper one dances to, it's a
matter of experience and character.

paul


From bensons at queuefull.net  Thu Sep  6 20:51:28 2012
From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:51:28 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50494510.8010309@queuefull.net>

Assuming it's meant seriously, I'm opposed to this proposal. ARIN isn't 
above the law, has no statutory power, is not a regulator. For many 
reasons, ARIN should not be in the business of second-guessing members' 
business plans, legal advice, regulatory frameworks, etc.

But I also confess that I don't have much context for the "Rationale" 
discussion. Can you (or anybody here) provide more details and 
references to what is motivating this?

Thanks,
-Benson


On 9/6/12 4:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>      Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
>      Proposal Originator
>          name: William Herrin
>          email: bill at herrin.us
>          telephone: 703-534-2652
>          organization: Self
>      Proposal Version: 1
>      Date: 9/6/2012
>      Proposal type: new
>      Policy term: temporary, 2 years
>      Policy statement:
>
> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
> hold ARIN number resources.
>
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>
>      Rationale:
>
> It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have
> attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
> Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a
> manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization,
> thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet
> infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding
> technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly
> behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.
>
> While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN
> should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory
> agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.
>
> It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long
> before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders
> finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right
> thing.
>
>      Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption
>
> END OF TEMPLATE
>



From bensons at queuefull.net  Thu Sep  6 22:09:23 2012
From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:09:23 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><85
	5077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><5042D603.102020
	1@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com><FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo
	ng.com><5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1150BAC9DA52@corp.arin.net>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220EAE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <50495753.9020903@queuefull.net>

Hi, Milton.

I cannot speak about MSFT's specific situation. But I'm familiar with 
several networks that require globally-unique addresses and are not 
routed on the public Internet. In general, these are networks that 
interconnect with multiple organizations but not with the "Internet" 
at-large. (I.e. as *an* internet rather than *the* Internet) Their 
non-public nature doesn't necessarily make them any more able to use 
IPv6, if the networks, applications, etc, of these internets are not 
IPv6 capable.

In the context of datacenter networks, some modern technology 
architectures involve numbering server infrastructure with non-Internet 
routed addresses. (See e.g. the work of the IETF NVO3 working group, 
Microsoft's recent SDN announcements, etc.) If that infrastructure is to 
be interconnected with other organizations' infrastructure, then it 
makes sense to use globally-unique addresses even if they're not routed 
due to security concerns, etc.

Cheers,
-Benson


On 9/6/12 5:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Like Mike, I find it extraordinary that MSFT would devote 98% of its purchased numbers to these non publicly-routed uses. Maybe 10%, maybe even 20%, but virtually all of them? Strains plausibility. Incidentally, speaking of hosting companies, we found that Amazon immediately put into public routing all the address space they acquired from Merck, and so did all the other hosting companies, in both ARIN and APNIC regions, that we studied. So the MSFT case stands out. I understand why John has to say what he says, of course.
>
> Another interesting question: if they were really internal, non public uses, could they not be put on IPv6?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: Mike Burns
>> Cc: Milton L Mueller; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>>   wrote:
>>
>>> There are over 17 million RFC 1918 addresses that can be privately used!
>> Not if you don't want horrible conflicts when you acquire or merge in
>> any other organization.
>>
>>> Can anybody speculate on a valid justification for the delivery of 660,000
>> addresses required to be used within a year, with 98% of them to be
>> unrouted?
>>
>> Speak with nearly any hosting organization, particularly given today's
>> unique IP address needs for virtual servers.
>>
>> FYI,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com  Thu Sep  6 22:28:54 2012
From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:28:54 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <50494510.8010309@queuefull.net>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<50494510.8010309@queuefull.net>
Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AFD8D@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>

I agree and Canadian cable operators should be fully supported by ARIN like anyone else committed to advancing the Internet.  I think the old adage of you can't fight city hall applies even though they should continue to try.  If this is meant seriously I would oppose.  

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Benson Schliesser
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:51 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors

Assuming it's meant seriously, I'm opposed to this proposal. ARIN isn't above the law, has no statutory power, is not a regulator. For many reasons, ARIN should not be in the business of second-guessing members' 
business plans, legal advice, regulatory frameworks, etc.

But I also confess that I don't have much context for the "Rationale" 
discussion. Can you (or anybody here) provide more details and references to what is motivating this?

Thanks,
-Benson


On 9/6/12 4:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>      Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
>      Proposal Originator
>          name: William Herrin
>          email: bill at herrin.us
>          telephone: 703-534-2652
>          organization: Self
>      Proposal Version: 1
>      Date: 9/6/2012
>      Proposal type: new
>      Policy term: temporary, 2 years
>      Policy statement:
>
> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under 
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses 
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to 
> hold ARIN number resources.
>
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet 
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address 
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>
>      Rationale:
>
> It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have 
> attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications 
> Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a 
> manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization, 
> thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet 
> infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding 
> technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly 
> behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.
>
> While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN 
> should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory 
> agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.
>
> It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long 
> before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders 
> finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right 
> thing.
>
>      Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption
>
> 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 narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Sep  7 00:53:04 2012
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:53:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201209070453.q874r48W028076@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 100 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Sep  7 00:53:04 EDT 2012
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 15.00% |   15 | 21.45% |   203617 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com
 14.00% |   14 | 16.44% |   156019 | owen at delong.com
 10.00% |   10 |  9.15% |    86833 | mueller at syr.edu
  9.00% |    9 |  8.12% |    77090 | jcurran at arin.net
  7.00% |    7 |  5.61% |    53199 | jmaimon at chl.com
  7.00% |    7 |  4.45% |    42247 | jean-francois.tremblaying at videotron.com
  6.00% |    6 |  4.28% |    40654 | bill at herrin.us
  3.00% |    3 |  4.40% |    41771 | springer at inlandnet.com
  4.00% |    4 |  2.98% |    28239 | paul at redbarn.org
  3.00% |    3 |  3.52% |    33375 | info at arin.net
  3.00% |    3 |  2.71% |    25726 | mike at nationwideinc.com
  3.00% |    3 |  1.78% |    16850 | matthew at matthew.at
  1.00% |    1 |  2.94% |    27927 | thomas at networkredux.com
  2.00% |    2 |  1.78% |    16917 | bensons at queuefull.net
  2.00% |    2 |  1.67% |    15894 | bokhari at cronomagic.com
  1.00% |    1 |  1.25% |    11898 | ikiris at gmail.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.91% |     8606 | farmer at umn.edu
  1.00% |    1 |  0.88% |     8389 | lar at mwtcorp.net
  1.00% |    1 |  0.79% |     7460 | mysidia at gmail.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.77% |     7270 | cblecker at gmail.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.76% |     7182 | george.herbert at gmail.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.75% |     7128 | bill at telnetcommunications.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.72% |     6872 | hannigan at gmail.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.65% |     6133 | narten at us.ibm.com
  1.00% |    1 |  0.63% |     5942 | timothy.s.morizot at irs.gov
  1.00% |    1 |  0.61% |     5824 | sethm at rollernet.us
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  100 |100.00% |   949062 | Total



From mysidia at gmail.com  Fri Sep  7 01:34:49 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 00:34:49 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbX6DWmjdTnak5w3adQQnf95zi+FQCuHN3AROUwkyCvZ9w@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/6/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>     Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors

I  like the Idea.   I don't care for the wording.   ARIN shouldn't
call  resource holders "bad actors";   that aren't violating policies.
   It's an opinion that they are "bad";  they may have
perfectly legitimate reasons for making the choices that they make

Instead of...

"Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
hold ARIN number resources."


I would suggest

"Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
in an inefficient manner or assign IP resources that are not used by
active hosts,
will be required to show that all the third party ISP networks meet utilization
criteria,  as well as their own network, before they are allowed to
receive additional
number resources through allocation or transfer."



--
-JH


From cblecker at gmail.com  Fri Sep  7 02:16:58 2012
From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:16:58 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADx2oGEz6-Yx0d=R_UyB6FcS1c99LC8+zzvpaMmjGDfTqVyt_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>     Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
>     Proposal Originator
>         name: William Herrin
>         email: bill at herrin.us
>         telephone: 703-534-2652
>         organization: Self
>     Proposal Version: 1
>     Date: 9/6/2012
>     Proposal type: new
>     Policy term: temporary, 2 years
>     Policy statement:
>
> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
> hold ARIN number resources.
>
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>
>     Rationale:
>
> It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have
> attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
> Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a
> manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization,
> thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet
> infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding
> technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly
> behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.
>
> While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN
> should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory
> agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.
>
> It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long
> before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders
> finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right
> thing.
>
>     Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption
>
> END OF TEMPLATE

I'm going to assume that this is a serious proposal, and comment as such.

It's my belief that ARIN should not put it self in the position of
penalizing resource holders based on their political or business
decisions (other than those that directly impact the resources that
the organization itself holds).

The way I see this whole issue being resolved is in one of two ways:
- The ARIN community adopts ARIN-2012-7 and in doing so provides a
policy-based solution for TPIA operators to architect their network
while still being in compliance with utilization requirements.
- The ARIN community choses not to adopt ARIN-2012-7. Without this
policy, number resources become an effective roadblock to progressing
with TPIA expansions. The issue is then out of ARIN's hands, and will
likely be solved either technologically by the TPIA operators (through
use of CGN, IPv6 GRE, etc) or it will be solved by the CRTC
policy-wise to force incumbent operators to architect their own
networks differently or provide more details to TPIA operators so that
they can plan better.

However, for ARIN to effectively take a side in this dispute and try
to force the hand of incumbent operators or the CRTC is both dangerous
ground to trend, and bad precedent to set. If this community truly
disagrees with having to modify it's policy in the way described in
ARIN-2012-7, then the draft policy should be defeated, and we move on.

I opposed this proposal both in concept, and as written.

Cheers,
Christoph


From owen at delong.com  Fri Sep  7 02:20:24 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:20:24 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AFB72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delong.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<CAAAwwbVukaWF0bDHoKSuFhPd0BtGVAURh_BPwrq=h2ijLM9_3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5046C305.2070909@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E2764@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<F3A85178-5B31-4E19-B984-6C10C01A65E1@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287E28D7@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<A96E03E1-E5ED-483C-B86D-ACB24E757CEA@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12012894FD10@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<3DD7489B-4627-43D1-93F3-5C394BDA0522@delong.com> <5B9E90747!
	FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD120128953455@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<D05DDB2F-368B-436B-8509-F07F8CD61E5A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289549EB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<20120906142242.I68998@mail.inlandnet.com> <5B9E907!
	! ! 47FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AB85E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<89C5E209-D4FA-484E-8A89-32DD058ED68A@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AD9F6@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5FED7AA6-B76D-4D2C-9A63-1E4E8357FC18@delong.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201291AFB72@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
Message-ID: <F394E8A0-51F4-4C4F-89E3-8B537A527363@delong.com>


On Sep 6, 2012, at 16:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> Yes I understand why you would think that.  But if you could look at a policy or policy proposal and apply the question "Does this 'Advance the Internet and provide good stewardship' for both IPv4 & IPv6 worlds", then it is likely to be as balanced as possible for both - and then the policy or proposal is probably balanced right where it really needs to be.  
> 

It's more about the art of the possible. There's far too much community support for limiting IPv4 allocations and assignments regardless of what I want to have happen for me to be able to achieve rational policy that is fair and balanced for IPv6 in the IPv4 realm.

As such, I'd rather not place the community's limitations on IPv4 on IPv6 at the same time.

> I don't want to re-argue the case here but we were approved for an appropriate sized IPv6 block and denied for an appropriate sized IPv4 block - and that makes no sense when you really think about it.    Either our Organization should qualify to participate based on our need - or - it should not qualify based on our need.  It should not be able to qualify sometimes and not qualify other times for the same need.  

I don't disagree with you, BUT, the only direction in which I would be able to get community support for making the policies equivalent would not get you the IPv4 block, it would prevent you from getting the IPv6 block.

Now, would you prefer IPv6 without IPv4, or, would you prefer nothing at all?

Owen

> 
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
> 
> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                     Conquering Complex Networks?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 7:00 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
> 
> You're right... I don't agree. I'd hate to roll the IPv6 limitations back to only allowing people who qualify for IPv4.
> 
> Owen
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:55 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
>> That is great and I know some won't agree, but I think it should be the other way around too.  
>> 
>> Steven L Ryerse
>> President
>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>> 
>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>                    Conquering Complex Networks?
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:40 PM
>> To: Steven Ryerse
>> Cc: John Springer; ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) (ppml at arin.net)
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>> 
>> The IPv6 policy already specifies that anyone who qualifies for an IPv4 block automatically qualifies for IPv6.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 15:36 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I very much appreciate your reasoned response.  I don't advocate taking all controls off IPv4.  Actually I think IPv6 requirements should be exactly the same as IPv4 requirements, with the obvious change that the quantities should be adjusted for each.  An organization that can qualify to get a size appropriate block should be able to get both an IPv4 & an IPv6.  If the organization cannot qualify to get one then they shouldn't get the other.  This would have the effect of this community quickly modifying the existing policies to make sure allocations are given to orgs that do need them and bring the policies into balance.  IMHO they are way out of balance right now because folks are so worried about IPv4 exhaustion - that they are not fulfilling the primary charter of ARIN which is to allocate resources and of course do it prudently.  
>>> 
>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>> President
>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>> 
>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>                   Conquering Complex Networks?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:17 PM
>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>> Cc: Owen DeLong; ARIN PPML \(ppml at arin.net\) \(ppml at arin.net\)
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>> 
>>> Hi Steven
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Until then IPv4 addresses should be allocated and not withheld by ARIN.
>>> 
>>> They are being allocated. To take Lord Beaverbrook out of context, "now we are trying to determine the degree". Support may be growing for increasing the degree. I feel that adjusting the degree will be more acceptable to the community than removing the needs basis. _AND_ as near as I can tell there is  a process here that is _going_ to be followed.
>>> 
>>>> Your economic history lesson is interesting but not relevant when 
>>>> the mission of ARIN is to facilitate the advancement of the Internet 
>>>> and not to somehow slow its growth down by creating policies that do 
>>>> slow it down in favor of somehow saving IPv4.  I know some folks in 
>>>> this community will get tired of me reiterating this over and over 
>>>> but I plan on doing so until some reason prevails.
>>> 
>>> You are clearly welcome to reassert your opinion, at will. But 
>>> consider
>>> this: to eliminate the needs basis, enough persuasion needs to be applied in support of a policy proposal to that effect, to convince the community to agree to it. A lot of persuasion is going to be required in addition to some facts. Professor Mueller, et al, supplied some data that seem to provide an indication that the needs horizon may be extended to good effect. He and others make a number of other assertions for which I find less support in the data.
>>> 
>>> John Springer
>>> 
>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>> President
>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>> 
>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:22 PM
>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, but in this case, it's equivalent to not only failing to pay $1 now to avoid paying $1,000 later, but also allowing the problem you could easily have addressed for $1 to grow to the point where it will also cost all of your neighbors $1,000 each as well.
>>>> 
>>>> It's literally the network equivalent of deciding not to address a backed-up septic tank, but you keep right on adding to said septic tank until it floods your neighborhood in a layer of... well, septic tank contents.
>>>> 
>>>> It's a whole lot cheaper to clean out a septic tank early than it is to repair the aftermath of a septic flood.
>>>> 
>>>> In the septic flood case, we actually have laws that provide liability and penalties for people that fail to clean out their septic system in time. In the IPv6 migration, we have people arguing that ARIN shouldn't even be characterizing those failing to clean their septic systems as a problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 6, 2012, at 09:08 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I think it is just delaying paying the cost to do and everyone delays paying costs when they can.  Human nature.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>> President
>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>> 
>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>                  Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 12:41 AM
>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I said previously... Failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community. Failing to get that failing to deploy IPv6 _IS_ doing something technical that does hurt this community leads to failing to deploy IPv6 and thus doing something technical that does hurt this community. Q.E.D.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:32 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> With all due respect, how they decide to run their organizations is not any of his or our business.  I believe that is the definition of liberty and freedom.  As long as they don't do anything technical to hurt this community then it is none of his or this communities concern.  This community should only concern itself with ARINs mission and not side issues.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>> 770.399.9099- Office
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>                 Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:59 PM
>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Paul's point was about the large number of well capitalized organizations he is observing that don't seem to get it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 16:44 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree we do need to do IPv6.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>>                Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 7:38 PM
>>>>>>> To: Steven Ryerse
>>>>>>> Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address 
>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Failing to deploy IPv6 will cause serious technical problems for everyone, so, seems to me Paul's comments in this regard are spot on.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 15:14 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is it this community's charter to pass judgment on how any organization chooses to run their business - if they don't cause technical problems for the rest of this community?   Seems to me Microsoft or whoever is "facilitating the advancement of the Internet", even if they choose to be greedy for their owners or shareholders in the process.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Steven L Ryerse
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>>>>>>>> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>>>>>>> 770.399.9099 - Office
>>>>>>>> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>>>>>>>               Conquering Complex Networks?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:12 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Jimmy Hess
>>>>>>>> Cc: Steven Ryerse; Owen DeLong; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address 
>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> to me the most significant fact in all of this is that well 
>>>>>>>> capitalized organizations do not act as if, in any way, there 
>>>>>>>> was an impending ipv4 exhaustion event, or even a shortage. they 
>>>>>>>> are by and large not treating
>>>>>>>> ipv6 as though it was an imminent necessity. they know they can get ipv6 and run dual stack or translators for it at any time. their panic is limited to laying in a long term supply of ipv4 because they will need one or more half-decades to turn ship. they imagine, dimly if at all, that less well capitalized enterprises will move first their growth and then eventually their installed base to ipv6 but will not lose the ability to reach ipv4 -- ever. in this view, 2**32 addresses will go to the highest bidder, except for the dribs and drabs needed for "the 99%"
>>>>>>>> to use various kinds of NAT or address translation.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> i am appalled. this is the same attitude that melts polar ice caps.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> paul
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PPML
>>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>>>>>>>> ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
>>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 
> 



From info at arin.net  Fri Sep  7 10:40:45 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:40:45 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-181 Penalize IPv4 bad actors (was: Re: Policy
 proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <504A076D.2060104@arin.net>

ARIN-prop-181 Penalize IPv4 bad actors

ARIN received the following policy proposal.

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.

The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Mailing list subscription information can be found
at:https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


On 9/6/12 7:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>      Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
>      Proposal Originator
>          name: William Herrin
>          email: bill at herrin.us
>          telephone: 703-534-2652
>          organization: Self
>      Proposal Version: 1
>      Date: 9/6/2012
>      Proposal type: new
>      Policy term: temporary, 2 years
>      Policy statement:
>
> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
> hold ARIN number resources.
>
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>
>      Rationale:
>
> It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have
> attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
> Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a
> manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization,
> thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet
> infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding
> technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly
> behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.
>
> While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN
> should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory
> agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.
>
> It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long
> before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders
> finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right
> thing.
>
>      Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption
>
> END OF TEMPLATE
>



From bill at herrin.us  Fri Sep  7 10:46:49 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:46:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbX6DWmjdTnak5w3adQQnf95zi+FQCuHN3AROUwkyCvZ9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAAwwbX6DWmjdTnak5w3adQQnf95zi+FQCuHN3AROUwkyCvZ9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGUDtRiUGespvMgwWnJJHo_kssxJVasftpcSs7LWv_juVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in an inefficient manner or assign IP resources that are not used by
> active hosts,
> will be required to show that all the third party ISP networks meet utilization
> criteria,  as well as their own network, before they are allowed to
> receive additional
> number resources through allocation or transfer."

Hi Jimmy,

Fate sharing for folks who demand improper behavior of their
associates is, at least on a philosophical level, a better way to
handle things. But the mechanics of the approach look to be much
harder. For example, with the text above Verizon Business now has to
show that all of the thousands of ISPs which connect to it comply with
ARIN policy each time VB wants more addresses. On a purely practical
level, that's not workable.

Start with the assumption that before any penalty or fate sharing can
be applied to a bad actor, ARIN has to refuse addresses to the third
party and the third party has to register a complaint that they can't
meet ARIN policy due to the bad actor. Then write a policy that ARIN
could reasonably implement with that process at the head end.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From jmaimon at chl.com  Fri Sep  7 10:59:31 2012
From: jmaimon at chl.com (Joe Maimon)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:59:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <504A0BD3.6050501@chl.com>



William Herrin wrote:

> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
> hold ARIN number resources.
>
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>
>      Rationale:


If you expect ARIN policy to be malleable to support your technological 
choices, then it is only fair if the community expects the reverse.

As others have pointed out this stick is to big to take seriously, but 
other wording that made the underlying carrier responsible for the 
(under)utilization of the third parties while interacting with ARIN may 
actually work.

Team the two concepts/proposals together and I could support both.

Joe



From bill at herrin.us  Fri Sep  7 11:55:04 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:55:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
In-Reply-To: <504A0BD3.6050501@chl.com>
References: <CAP-guGVjfyefqM4niRNsqAiz6GPqWLzvQGD-=yyR4c36u7CY=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<504A0BD3.6050501@chl.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWcGFCc0-3ivB7n2aLZAaZMgcsZ83L-dd0b-PhX7DcBYw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
>
>
> William Herrin wrote:
>
>> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
>> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
>> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
>> hold ARIN number resources.
>>
>> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
>> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
>> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>>
>>      Rationale:
>
>
>
> If you expect ARIN policy to be malleable to support your technological
> choices, then it is only fair if the community expects the reverse.
>
> As others have pointed out this stick is to big to take seriously, but other
> wording that made the underlying carrier responsible for the
> (under)utilization of the third parties while interacting with ARIN may
> actually work.
>
> Team the two concepts/proposals together and I could support both.

"Where a registrant fails to qualify for addresses due to a third
party requirement and where the third party's requirement demands
behavior contrary to ARIN policy, the third party shall share the
first registrant's fate with regards to qualification for ARIN number
resources even if the third party would otherwise qualify."

Better?


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


From bokhari at cronomagic.com  Fri Sep  7 11:59:27 2012
From: bokhari at cronomagic.com (Hayee Bokhari)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:59:27 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
	ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>, <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>,
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
Message-ID: <201209071159270085893@cronomagic.com>


>> William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> 
>> Wait, let me do the math. So if I have 50 customers in one
>> neighborhood (one node) and -nothing- anywhere else in the cable
>> operator's 1000 node region, I have to provision a /16 so that each
>> node can have a /26 and each of my 50 customers can use a single
>> dynamic IP address?
>
>Yes. Because the next day, these 50 customers are on a different router. 
> 
>> This is the behavior ARIN is asked to facilitate?
>
>This is not a behavior. This how DOCSIS and CMTSes work. 
>
>Feel free to start your own cable standard that won't have this 
>limitation, implement it and sell it. We'll be waiting. 
>
>/JF

Jean-Fancois,

Any comments on the following document

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/8740/2012/v3/1730750.pdf

Just read Para # 14 to 19

Is this something Videotron looking into?

Regards
Hayee Bokhari



From Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Fri Sep  7 13:36:04 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:36:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for
 ThirdParty Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <201209071159270085893@cronomagic.com>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>,
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>,
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us>, <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>,
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>,
	<CAP-guGXeywH2Ss4DNST2ayGnVgVs4hwdjjm86=-Q-VsZYVMxGg@mail.gmail.com>,
	<OF639416A8.F4EF8A54-ON85257A71.007471C5-85257A71.0074FB19@videotron.com>
	<201209071159270085893@cronomagic.com>
Message-ID: <OFCAE037D2.240A33CF-ON85257A72.005F82C0-85257A72.0060AFC4@videotron.com>

"Hayee Bokhari" <bokhari at cronomagic.com> a ?crit sur 07/09/2012 11:59:27 
AM :

> "Hayee Bokhari" <bokhari at cronomagic.com> 
>
> http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/8740/2012/v3/1730750.pdf
> Is this something Videotron looking into?

Hayee, 
As this list is about ARIN policy development and not about Canadian 
regulatory requirements, I won't answer here. 

I will mention though that it is refreshing to see industry actors 
suggesting concrete ways to improve the situation rather than pushing 
laughable conspiracy-theory policy proposals. 

/JF




From ppml at rs.seastrom.com  Fri Sep  7 15:28:25 2012
From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:28:25 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC> (Mike Burns's message of
	"Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:20:44 -0400")
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<"5042D603.1020201"@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com> <FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo>
	<ng.com@mac.com> <5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<"348DEB20-E5A6-4 EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<"BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1 150BAC9DA52"@corp.arin.net>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net> <66EDEC0E294B49
	4689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
	<BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net>
	<F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC>
Message-ID: <86oblhljja.fsf@seastrom.com>


"Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> writes:

> John, if I were one of the members on the list who appear to be having
> difficulty with allocations, I would certainly consider a policy
> proposal to consider some limits on the ratio of routed to unrouted
> addresses in order to pressure orgs into best use of RFC1918 space.
> It must be galling to be one of those members to know that ARIN has no
> problem making allocations today which can be 98% unrouted.

Would it make you feel better if MS (and DoD for that matter) were to
inject routes for these networks into the DFZ that went either to a
firewall with a "deny ip any any" policy or to null0 on a router with
no internal connection to that organization's network?

I'm not suggesting gratuitous abuse of DFZ slots, only illustrating
(using the converse of the illustrations that JC and Owen have used)
that a routing table entry in the public Internet and value as
globally unique addresses as something that you can not see from your
particular vantage point...  have nothing to do with each other.

Cheers,

-r




From mike at nationwideinc.com  Fri Sep  7 16:09:24 2012
From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Michael Burns)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:09:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <86oblhljja.fsf@seastrom.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><"5042D603.1020201"@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo><ng.com@mac.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><"348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><"BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52"@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC><80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC><BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net><F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC>
	<86oblhljja.fsf@seastrom.com>
Message-ID: <3A4DCC173B2D47E083C4F24F3583165A@MPC>



>Would it make you feel better if MS (and DoD for that matter) were to
inject routes for these networks into the DFZ that went either to a
firewall with a "deny ip any any" policy or to null0 on a router with
no internal connection to that organization's network?

>I'm not suggesting gratuitous abuse of DFZ slots, only illustrating
(using the converse of the illustrations that JC and Owen have used)
that a routing table entry in the public Internet and value as
globally unique addresses as something that you can not see from your
particular vantage point...  have nothing to do with each other.

>Cheers,

>r


Hi Robert,

Yes, I am keenly aware that ARIN does not require allocations to be routed.
I was pointing out the oddity of a nearly 99% unrouted ratio in combination
with the other oddities of the transaction as potential evidence of an
invalid justification test.
Sure there are edge cases, but a simple glance at the ratio of advertised to
allocated address for the total pool of allocations indicates that
allocations are as a whole routed at 90% since 1997, per the somewhat dated
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2004-02/2004-02-isp.htm.
I'm sure the intricate MS network was able to be demonstrated to ARIN in
such a way that ARIN decided that a mix of 16 /24s, 4 /23s, a /22, 2 /21s, 4
/20s, a /18, a /17, and 9 /16s was exactly what was required for the MS
internal non-connected infrastructure needs which could not be carved out of
10.0.0.0/8.
And that demonstration happened in the matter of time between ARIN becoming
aware of the deal and the 30 days after that the Motion to Approve was being
heard by the judge.
And that turned out to be the exact distribution of address space already in
place in the negotiated deal between MS and Nortel that was being sent to
the judge for approval.

Removing the needs test for transfers and having ARIN simply book legal
transfers would eliminate the need for any more fishy justifications in the
future.


Regards,
Mike








-r 



From matthew at matthew.at  Fri Sep  7 20:40:16 2012
From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:40:16 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <3A4DCC173B2D47E083C4F24F3583165A@MPC>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com><"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com><"5042D603.1020201"@chl.com><3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com><5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo><ng.com@mac.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org><5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com><"348DEB20-E5A6-4
	EC3-8D29-C550AD228D91"@corp.arin.net><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><"BDF18DFE-5B97-47EE-9558-1
	150BAC9DA52"@corp.arin.net><95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC><80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC><BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net><F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC>
	<86oblhljja.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<3A4DCC173B2D47E083C4F24F3583165A@MPC>
Message-ID: <504A93F0.8000806@matthew.at>

On 9/7/2012 1:09 PM, Michael Burns wrote:
>
> Removing the needs test for transfers and having ARIN simply book legal
> transfers would eliminate the need for any more fishy justifications 
> in the
> future.

Yes, but then what would we talk about here on the list?

Matthew Kaufman


From george.herbert at gmail.com  Fri Sep  7 21:26:14 2012
From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:26:14 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <504A93F0.8000806@matthew.at>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>
	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>
	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo> <ng.com@mac.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
	<BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net>
	<F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC>
	<86oblhljja.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<3A4DCC173B2D47E083C4F24F3583165A@MPC>
	<504A93F0.8000806@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <CAK__KzsNrSrBZcVsgG6emcfAwQyKjUih9keaBA_YW9qOSnJzjA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 1:09 PM, Michael Burns wrote:
>>
>>
>> Removing the needs test for transfers and having ARIN simply book legal
>> transfers would eliminate the need for any more fishy justifications in
>> the
>> future.
>
>
> Yes, but then what would we talk about here on the list?
>
> Matthew Kaufman

The impending exhaustion of IPv6, and lack of planning for future
protocols.  I mean, really, look how long it's taken to get IPv6 up
and running... er, sort of running.  Based on that example, we're
doomed when we run out of v6 space.  We needed to have started
protocol work last decade to get things moving....

Alternately, allocation policies in a post-Moore's-Law era, where CPU
and storage growth plateaus to the point that arbitrary routing table
growth is actually fatal as opposed to eventually maybe perhaps
outstripping routers that people lazily leave in service for 6, 7, 10+
years fatal.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


From hannigan at gmail.com  Sat Sep  8 15:29:31 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 15:29:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable
In-Reply-To: <504918DA.5060209@matthew.at>
References: <5047BB75.9060602@arin.net>
	<CAP-guGWqFmkLHoUcVtZuCh-YiNqd5d3zRv5ePrnHiJ_38pOwMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<OFA3FE2971.9D7474C1-ON85257A71.0057EBD2-85257A71.00591E3D@videotron.com>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201289535EC@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<5048DF63.3050003@rollernet.us> <5048E4DF.3070607@chl.com>
	<OF858568D2.F30421CC-ON85257A71.006323C4-85257A71.006AED0E@videotron.com>
	<504918DA.5060209@matthew.at>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5MUc=-3JcapOdgD-arX7QjLOAzHvdmhm8rEMpeCDS=5LQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 12:27 PM, Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com wrote:
>>
>> If anyone has a solution to this problem that doesn't involve extensive
>> operational subnet swapping, let's hear it!
>
>

Why not? If it's automated...it almost sounds like this is a problem
for CableLabs and its vendors.

> Sure: "Don't do that!"

I'm definitely not in favor of this proposal.

Mostly related to the competitive and other inequities that it
creates. The free pool is almost gone and by the time this goes to
another meeting, and it certainly seems like it should at this point,
the free pool will be exhausted and this is moot.

Remove need, a roadblock to a healthy after market, and problem solved.


Best,

-M<


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Sep  9 11:53:37 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 15:53:37 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] quantitative study of IPv4 address market
In-Reply-To: <CAK__KzsNrSrBZcVsgG6emcfAwQyKjUih9keaBA_YW9qOSnJzjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B4FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F86E44A-3AFE-4E4A-BFD3-DE21C7BA5B8B@delong.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B59F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<7AC25AE1-71FD-404C-9CA4-9B1E9109730C@delong.com>	<5042D603.1020201@chl.com>
	<3E940DD1-7E4F-41D6-865A-ACB2EC4CA067@delong.com>	<5044CBCA.7000504@chl.com>
	<FB29547A-D09E-46AC-9500-8D29D5AD0F5A@delo> <ng.com@mac.com>
	<5046580F.7050901@redbarn.org>
	<5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201287DDC58@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220D82E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<95FBEAB7DCCF427ABDD53080CFFCD15E@MPC>
	<80C6040F-D159-4FD7-96F6-28386E3149F0@arin.net>
	<66EDEC0E294B494689FE1AE3851D1B64@MPC>
	<BC8072A6-5A7F-4FE8-B041-5FC2D7BB35C4@corp.arin.net>
	<F30EBC20C86E4D76BA84EE0EE074B2BC@MPC>	<86oblhljja.fsf@seastrom.com>
	<3A4DCC173B2D47E083C4F24F3583165A@MPC>	<504A93F0.8000806@matthew.at>
	<CAK__KzsNrSrBZcVsgG6emcfAwQyKjUih9keaBA_YW9qOSnJzjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2210943@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> The impending exhaustion of IPv6, and lack of planning for future

[Milton L Mueller] Yikes! IPv6 exhaustion! tulip famines! The apocalypse is nigh...


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Sep 14 00:53:03 2012
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:53:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201209140453.q8E4r3Io021396@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 16 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Sep 14 00:53:03 EDT 2012
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 12.50% |    2 | 11.22% |    13301 | bill at herrin.us
  6.25% |    1 | 17.19% |    20381 | owen at delong.com
  6.25% |    1 |  7.17% |     8505 | cblecker at gmail.com
  6.25% |    1 |  6.33% |     7503 | mike at nationwideinc.com
  6.25% |    1 |  6.29% |     7459 | narten at us.ibm.com
  6.25% |    1 |  6.23% |     7383 | info at arin.net
  6.25% |    1 |  5.80% |     6872 | george.herbert at gmail.com
  6.25% |    1 |  5.31% |     6291 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com
  6.25% |    1 |  5.22% |     6184 | mysidia at gmail.com
  6.25% |    1 |  5.20% |     6159 | hannigan at gmail.com
  6.25% |    1 |  5.10% |     6045 | mueller at syr.edu
  6.25% |    1 |  5.07% |     6014 | bokhari at cronomagic.com
  6.25% |    1 |  4.72% |     5596 | jean-francois.tremblaying at videotron.com
  6.25% |    1 |  4.67% |     5542 | matthew at matthew.at
  6.25% |    1 |  4.48% |     5314 | jmaimon at chl.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   16 |100.00% |   118549 | Total



From bill at telnetcommunications.com  Mon Sep 17 15:17:38 2012
From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:17:38 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] Initial Slate of Candidates
 Announced for ARIN Board of Trustees and Advisory Council - Candidate
 affiliation corrected
In-Reply-To: <505770D7.6050604@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CC7CEF2F.3D4EB%bill@telnetcommunications.com>

Good Day,

I can see from the announcement below that Chris Morrow is not seeking
re-election to the ARIN Advisory Council.

As a colleague, I wish to thank Chris for the work he has done on the
Advisory Council.  It has been a pleasure working with him and he will be
sorely missed.

Regards,
Bill Sandiford






On 2012-09-17 2:49 PM, "ARIN" <info at arin.net> wrote:

>Apologies - please note that the affiliation for Stacy Hughes has been
>corrected below.
>
>#######
>
>Elections for two seats on the ARIN Board of Trustees and five seats on
>the ARIN Advisory Council will be held online 24 October ? 3 November
>2012.

 The following candidates have agreed to run for office: 

>
>Board of Trustees:
>
>
* Paul Andersen of Egate
>* Ron da Silva of Time Warner Cable
>* William Herrin of ITT Exelis
>* Aaron Hughes of 6Connect Inc.
>* Martin Levy of Hurricane Electric
>* Dave Siegel of Level 3
>* Josh Snowhorn of Cyrus One
>
>

Advisory Council:
>
>* Jesse Geddis of LA Broadband LLC
>* Frank Hoonhout of State of Oregon
>* Stacy Hughes of tw telecom
>* George Morton of Madisol
>* Milton Mueller of Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>* Brandon Ross of Network Utility Force
>* Bill Sandiford of TELNET
>* Heather Schiller of Verizon Business
>* Rob Seastrom of Time Warner Cable
>* John Springer of Inland Telephone
>
>Many of the candidates will address the membership on 24 October during
>the ARIN XXX Public Policy and Members Meeting in Dallas. These
>speeches, brief biographies and a form to voice support for candidates
>can be found online at ARIN Election Headquarters:
>
>https://www.arin.net/app/election/
>
>You can read election system instructions at:
>
>https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/instructions.html#bios
>
>A compilation of Candidate questionnaire responses in PDF is available at:
>
>https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/candidate_bios.pdf
>
>
Designated Member Representatives (DMRs) from ARIN's general members in
>good standing as of 25 August 2012 will be asked to vote for two
>candidates in the Board election and five candidates in the Advisory
>Council election. ARIN requires a name and personalized email address
>for the DMR; role accounts are not accepted. Voter eligibility must be
>established by 10 October. Member organizations that are not in good
>standing or do not have a valid DMR on file as of 10 October 2012 will
>not be eligible to vote. You can learn more about DMR role including
>instructions on how to update at:
>
>https://www.arin.net/about_us/membership/dmr.html
>
>Please contact ARIN's Communications and Member Services Department at
>info at arin.net to ensure you have a properly registered DMR.
>

Congratulations and good luck to all of the candidates. Your
>willingness to take an active role in guiding the future of the Internet
>is appreciated. 


>
>Regards,
>
>

John Curran
>
President and CEO 

>American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>_______________________________________________
>ARIN-Announce
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Wed Sep 19 17:01:30 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:01:30 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
Message-ID: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>


Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?

   https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html

I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentence.

I am also curious to know if there have ever been any actual instances of
prosecution of parties responsible for "unauthorized changes to the ARIN
database", either criminal or civil.


From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Wed Sep 19 17:12:21 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:12:21 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
<rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>
> Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?
>
>    https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html
>
> I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentence.
>
> I am also curious to know if there have ever been any actual instances of
> prosecution of parties responsible for "unauthorized changes to the ARIN
> database", either criminal or civil.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


There certainly have. We had one about a month ago on a /22 we
acquired in an acquisition and ARIN's official response (from their
legal department) was too bad, get a lawyer. So right now we're
wasting 5 figures to get a court order for something they could have
easily fixed.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From snoble at sonn.com  Wed Sep 19 17:28:49 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:28:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJjtGxnvEM+y31JOMvEa36aQ1fr4XMCyy8bEakqAN8NHGAk8ew@mail.gmail.com>

It's an interesting subject.  It must rely on what ARIN defines authorized as.

If the object is protected by an email address, the person with the
email address would be assumed to be authorized.  If protected by PGP,
MD5 or CRYPT-PW, then the same thing would apply.  If someone steals
or fakes one of those objects, then that would be an issue between the
company it was stolen from and the person who stole it (i.e. the
authorized person would just ask ARIN to reverse the change).

If ARIN means by hacking the database (literally), then that would
certainly be a issue that they would deal with but that would not
affect a company who is authorized to modify the object.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?
>>
>>    https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html
>>
>> I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentence.
>>
>> I am also curious to know if there have ever been any actual instances of
>> prosecution of parties responsible for "unauthorized changes to the ARIN
>> database", either criminal or civil.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>
> There certainly have. We had one about a month ago on a /22 we
> acquired in an acquisition and ARIN's official response (from their
> legal department) was too bad, get a lawyer. So right now we're
> wasting 5 figures to get a court order for something they could have
> easily fixed.
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> President, Black Lotus Communications
> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep 19 17:55:53 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:55:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Pbsh8xNDn7VdUFoOFB0+-STqSgXUcFXo4-1ozBvhSJSg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
<rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>
> Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?
>
>    https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html
>
> I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentence.
>
> I am also curious to know if there have ever been any actual instances of
> prosecution of parties responsible for "unauthorized changes to the ARIN
> database", either criminal or civil.


Doesn't this apply?

    https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/index.html

That would counter the "get a lawyer" argument with "fix the
unauthorized changes". Unless they determined that the changes were
not unauthorized or fraudulent.

Hard enough to determine what ARIN considers fraud:

    https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/results/

YMMV, of course.

Best,

-M<


From mysidia at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 00:31:18 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:31:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <CAJjtGxnvEM+y31JOMvEa36aQ1fr4XMCyy8bEakqAN8NHGAk8ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJjtGxnvEM+y31JOMvEa36aQ1fr4XMCyy8bEakqAN8NHGAk8ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbWW65gk7m8eYOwdFd1G5k+NYcPqCFN3vW0_Yf+cE324GQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/19/12, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> It's an interesting subject.  It must rely on what ARIN defines authorized

> If the object is protected by an email address, the person with the
> email address would be assumed to be authorized.  If protected by PGP,
> MD5 or CRYPT-PW, then the same thing would apply.  If someone steals

ARIN doesn't allow you to register a PGP key with them anymore, to
sign templates with, MD5 and CRYPT-PW are also not options,  so only
relatively insecure means are available to authenticate requests:
namely, an   API  key, a static token which must be generated once,
and then sent in plaintext over e-mail with each request,  which could
be subject to abuse if mail was intercepted by an attacker,  but that
is the only method of authentication for e-mail templates that I am
aware of.


It is possible that someone unauthorized to make a change to an entry,
could gain control of the e-mail address,  then they could review old
mail in the "Sent Items" folder to collect the API key, and would
"appear authorized"  to send new templates,  and initiate an
unauthorized request to allocate, transfer, or change contact info on
address resources,  as far as the automated system is concerned it
would validate as "authorized", but

actually, it would be an unauthorized change,   hopefully subject to
policy such as that.

> If ARIN means by hacking the database (literally), then that would
> certainly be a issue that they would deal with but that would not
> affect a company who is authorized to modify the object.

--
-JH


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 09:27:28 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:27:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re:  Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:

> There certainly have. We had one about a month ago on a /22 we
> acquired in an acquisition and ARIN's official response (from their
> legal department) was too bad, get a lawyer. So right now we're
> wasting 5 figures to get a court order for something they could have
> easily fixed.

To be clear, ARIN's response is that we cannot proceed when the current POC 
for an address block denies the transfer request, but we would follow any 
legal order you obtain to clarify the situation (i.e. the adjudication of 
contractual documents in contested circumstances is best done by judges.)

Maintaining the status quo in such circumstances is actually a protection 
against unauthorized changes.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 09:29:53 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:29:53 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
Message-ID: <15F13B26-6157-4086-99DF-BFAE2E0B6CAB@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

> Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?
> 
>   https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html
> 
> I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentence.

Yes.

Thanks for your question!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 09:46:56 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:46:56 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Enters Phase Two of the IPv4 Countdown Plan
Message-ID: <0812E023-3C03-4245-BA36-665E7F4F00E5@corp.arin.net>

Folks -

   Please note that ARIN presently has the equivalent of 2.89 /8's of IPv4
   address space in available inventory, and has thus moved into Phase Two
   of the IPv4 Countdown Plan.   This plan provides for administrative changes
   to how requests are processed, including timestamping and serialization of
   incoming requests.   Please see the attached announcement and referenced
   online web pages for additional information.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Begin forwarded message:

From: ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>>
Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN Enters Phase Two of the IPv4 Countdown Plan
Date: September 18, 2012 4:54:30 PM EDT
To: arin-announce at arin.net<mailto:arin-announce at arin.net>

ARIN now has 3 /8s of available space in its inventory and has moved
into Phase Two of its IPv4 Countdown Plan.

There are three key changes that are triggered in this phase.

1. All /16 and larger IPv4 requests will be placed in the IPv4 Review
Team queue, and will be reviewed in the order they were received
according to their timestamp. Because each correspondence will be
processed in sequence, it is possible that response times may exceed the
usual two-day turnaround.

2. Once a request is approved, the requestor will have 60 days to
complete payment and return a signed RSA (if applicable). If payment and
signed RSA have not been received by the 61st day, the ticket will
automatically close, the address space will be released back into the
available IPv4 pool, and a new request will need to be submitted.

NOTE: This change to the approval window from 90 days to 60 days will
apply to all IPv4 requests, but not to IPv6 and ASN requests.

3. The hold time for all returned, reclaimed and revoked IPv4 resources
will be reduced from six to three months.

Phase 2 will provide ARIN staff operational experience using the team
review approach to ensure that these processes and procedures are
effective for managing the distribution of the last of its IPv4 address
pool.

We encourage you to visit the IPv4 Countdown Phase Two page at:
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/countdown_phase2.html

Please contact hostmaster at arin.net or our Help Desk +1.703.227.0660 if
you have questions about these procedural changes.

Regards,

Leslie Nobile
Director, Registration Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Announce
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/b6857b29/attachment.htm>

From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Thu Sep 20 10:50:23 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:50:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>

John,

The unauthorized change preceded the failure of ARIN to assist in reverting
the errorneous record. You're protecting the wrong party.

Jeff
On Sep 20, 2012 9:28 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
> wrote:
>
> > There certainly have. We had one about a month ago on a /22 we
> > acquired in an acquisition and ARIN's official response (from their
> > legal department) was too bad, get a lawyer. So right now we're
> > wasting 5 figures to get a court order for something they could have
> > easily fixed.
>
> To be clear, ARIN's response is that we cannot proceed when the current POC
> for an address block denies the transfer request, but we would follow any
> legal order you obtain to clarify the situation (i.e. the adjudication of
> contractual documents in contested circumstances is best done by judges.)
>
> Maintaining the status quo in such circumstances is actually a protection
> against unauthorized changes.
>
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/22267368/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 11:01:11 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:01:11 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net<mailto:jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>> wrote:

John,

The unauthorized change preceded the failure of ARIN to assist in reverting the errorneous record. You're protecting the wrong party.

Jeffrey -

   We've made to resource records from the authorized point-of-contact on the address block
   each time.  Changes based  instead on interpretation of contested legal documents requires
   some form of legal adjudication first.

Thank you,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/5a664d0b/attachment.htm>

From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Thu Sep 20 11:04:41 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:04:41 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>

John,

You did not become involved until after our records were illegally changed,
so you're regarding the wrong POC as owner of these resources. We continue
to route them, and the POC listed does not operate a network so they cannot
legally hold these resources.

Thanks, Jeff
On Sep 20, 2012 11:01 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> The unauthorized change preceded the failure of ARIN to assist in
> reverting the errorneous record. You're protecting the wrong party.
>
> Jeffrey -
>
>    We've made to resource records from the authorized point-of-contact on
> the address block
>    each time.  Changes based  instead on interpretation of contested
> legal documents requires
>    some form of legal adjudication first.
>
>  Thank you,
> /John
>
>  John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/5d8c58b5/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 11:35:42 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:35:42 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:04 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net<mailto:jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>> wrote:

John,

You did not become involved until after our records were illegally changed, so you're regarding the wrong POC as owner of these resources.

Jeffrey -

    Please provide the number resources in question and the changes to
    them that you believe were incorrect.  If a change was made incorrectly
    (e.g. not by the listed point of contact or made to the wrong resource
    record), we will promptly rectify it.   You may provide the list here or
    privately as you prefer.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/ad6dc8aa/attachment.htm>

From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 15:08:13 2012
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:08:13 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
somewhere?

~Chris


On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6
> Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
>
> On 16 August 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Revising Section
> 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size" as a  draft policy for adoption discussion on
> the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in Dallas in October.
>
> The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-177
> Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size." Per the Policy Development
> Process, the AC submitted text to ARIN for a staff and legal assessment
> prior to its selection as a draft policy. Below the draft policy is the ARIN
> staff and legal assessment with the text that was reviewed. The text did not
> change after the assessment.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_6.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-6 on the PPML prior to the
> October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN XXX will
> be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community consensus for
> adopting this as policy.
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6
> Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
>
> Date: 5 September 2012
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
> consistent with community expectations.
>
> Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>
> Rationale:
>
> Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and
> in a number greater than anticipated when this proposal was written
> and adopted.
>
> The original CI pool was created to serve new IX and new CI requirements.
> The pending need is estimated in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24
> assignment from the existing boundary and the likelihood of some sharing
> platforms, assigning a /15 would seem prudent. I have removed the limited
> term. I have proposed implementation to occur at the point where there is
> only an equivalent of a /8 available overall.  The process for completing
> the gTLD additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will
> have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out.
>
>
> ##########
>
>
> ARIN Staff and Legal Assessment
>
> ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT
>
> Date of Assessment:  24 July 2012
>
> 1. Summary (Staff Understanding)
>
> This proposal would modify the existing micro-allocation policy and have
> ARIN staff reserve a /15 equivalent for critical infrastructure rather than
> the /16 currently cited in the policy text.  Additionally, it removes the
> clause that would allow ARIN to release any remaining space from within the
> reserved block back into its available pool at the end of 2 years.
>
> 2. Comments
>
> A. ARIN Staff Comments
>
>  * This proposal will likely benefit organizations who provide critical
>    Internet infrastructure, particularly as the new expanded ICANN gTLD
>    program rolls out.
>  * The following statement needs to be part of the actual policy text
>    that gets added to NRPM "Implementation:  When the equivalent of
>    less than a /8 is left in all inventory,"    If implemented, ARIN
>    staff will prepend that statement to the policy text for
>    clarification purposes.
>
> B. ARIN General Counsel
>
> No significant legal issue on this proposal.
>
> 3. Resource Impact
> This policy would have minimal resource impact from an implementation
> aspect.  It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months
> after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be
> needed in order to implement:
>
> Updated guidelines and procedures
>
>
> 4. Proposal Text
>
> ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
> Policy statement:
>
> Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at
> the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in
> this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner
> consistent with community expectations.
>
> Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to:
>
> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a
> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4.
>
> Rationale:
>
> Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and
> in a number greater than anticipated when this proposal was written
> and adopted.
>
> The original CI pool was created to serve new IX and new CI requirements.
> The pending need is estimated in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24
> assignment from the existing boundary and the likelihood of some sharing
> platforms, assigning a /15 would seem prudent. I have removed the limited
> term. I have proposed implementation to occur at the point where there is
> only an equivalent of a /8 available overall.  The process for
> completing the
> gTLD additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will
> have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
http://chrisgrundemann.com


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 15:19:43 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:19:43 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
> assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
> somewhere?

The raw data on the assignments made is available here:

 <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html>

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 15:37:37 2012
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:37:37 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC1-dt=X+=RzO-go3ZOZYojnB17Z_Yv-nMLudCpjkL12kh3qZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
>> assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
>> somewhere?
>
> The raw data on the assignments made is available here:
>
>  <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html>

Thanks John, not sure why I couldn't find that myself.

~Chris

>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com


From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 15:42:52 2012
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:42:52 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC1-dtnuN4qB=PLLauev5XTOPxncMNFe7U_oOK22q2cJ=6fnYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
>> assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
>> somewhere?
>
> The raw data on the assignments made is available here:
>
>  <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html>

Is there data on _when_ they were handed out? E.g. How many
assignments were made each month, and each year, for the past 12-18
months and 3-5 years?

~Chris

>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 16:18:36 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:18:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dtnuN4qB=PLLauev5XTOPxncMNFe7U_oOK22q2cJ=6fnYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtnuN4qB=PLLauev5XTOPxncMNFe7U_oOK22q2cJ=6fnYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8DD64AB3-73E9-4674-B630-0D007D5E57A1@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
>>> assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
>>> somewhere?
>> 
>> The raw data on the assignments made is available here:
>> 
>> <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html>
> 
> Is there data on _when_ they were handed out? E.g. How many
> assignments were made each month, and each year, for the past 12-18
> months and 3-5 years?

We haven't traditionally produced summary statistics for the critical infrastructure 
assignments, but they do appear both in Whois as well as the "Raw Historical Delegation" 
files <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/rir.html> with the date of assignment.

Do you want ARIN to produce a historic summary of these assignments?

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From george.herbert at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 16:34:25 2012
From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:34:25 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>

Jeffrey -

With all due respect; 3 issues.

1, This is not appropriate on-list.

2, Presumably, ARIN received evidence that the change was proper prior
to making it.  That evidence could have been wrong, forged,
fraudulent.  But a random person on the net asserting that a change is
wrong, forged, or fraudulent does not mean that it is wrong, forged,
or fraudulent.  If the process is that anyone can make an assertion
like that and the net is suspended, the possible damage is immense -
anyone could procedurally disrupt huge parts of the net by making
false claims of improper transfers.

You are not personally "random person on the net" and I assume you
haven't changed from an honorable networking professional to a malign
saboteur overnight, so I would guess you've got a good case here.  But
you're putting ARIN in the job of being a private detective and
judicial authority.  That's wrong.  They're a resources management
cooperative.  Them insisting that you convince a judge (who deals, by
profession, in wrongs, forgeries, and fraud) that something was wrong
with the other guy and it should be yours, is proper.

3, You said (I think) that you acquired these from a bankruptcy.  One
of the expected costs of acquiring assets that way is that sometimes
there are legal challenges.  If you aren't willing to deal with the
occasional legal challenge you should not procure assets that way.  If
your expectations were that that never happens, you were wrong in
those assumptions to start with, and need to reconsider your business
process.


-george

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> John,
>
> You did not become involved until after our records were illegally changed,
> so you're regarding the wrong POC as owner of these resources. We continue
> to route them, and the POC listed does not operate a network so they cannot
> legally hold these resources.
>
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> On Sep 20, 2012 11:01 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> The unauthorized change preceded the failure of ARIN to assist in
>> reverting the errorneous record. You're protecting the wrong party.
>>
>> Jeffrey -
>>
>>    We've made to resource records from the authorized point-of-contact on
>> the address block
>>    each time.  Changes based  instead on interpretation of contested legal
>> documents requires
>>    some form of legal adjudication first.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> /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.



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Thu Sep 20 16:53:02 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:53:02 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>

I was merely answering the OPs question. Naturally, ARIN management became
defensive with the dirty laundry partially aired

Thanks, Jeff
On Sep 20, 2012 4:34 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeffrey -
>
> With all due respect; 3 issues.
>
> 1, This is not appropriate on-list.
>
> 2, Presumably, ARIN received evidence that the change was proper prior
> to making it.  That evidence could have been wrong, forged,
> fraudulent.  But a random person on the net asserting that a change is
> wrong, forged, or fraudulent does not mean that it is wrong, forged,
> or fraudulent.  If the process is that anyone can make an assertion
> like that and the net is suspended, the possible damage is immense -
> anyone could procedurally disrupt huge parts of the net by making
> false claims of improper transfers.
>
> You are not personally "random person on the net" and I assume you
> haven't changed from an honorable networking professional to a malign
> saboteur overnight, so I would guess you've got a good case here.  But
> you're putting ARIN in the job of being a private detective and
> judicial authority.  That's wrong.  They're a resources management
> cooperative.  Them insisting that you convince a judge (who deals, by
> profession, in wrongs, forgeries, and fraud) that something was wrong
> with the other guy and it should be yours, is proper.
>
> 3, You said (I think) that you acquired these from a bankruptcy.  One
> of the expected costs of acquiring assets that way is that sometimes
> there are legal challenges.  If you aren't willing to deal with the
> occasional legal challenge you should not procure assets that way.  If
> your expectations were that that never happens, you were wrong in
> those assumptions to start with, and need to reconsider your business
> process.
>
>
> -george
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > You did not become involved until after our records were illegally
> changed,
> > so you're regarding the wrong POC as owner of these resources. We
> continue
> > to route them, and the POC listed does not operate a network so they
> cannot
> > legally hold these resources.
> >
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
> > On Sep 20, 2012 11:01 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> John,
> >>
> >> The unauthorized change preceded the failure of ARIN to assist in
> >> reverting the errorneous record. You're protecting the wrong party.
> >>
> >> Jeffrey -
> >>
> >>    We've made to resource records from the authorized point-of-contact
> on
> >> the address block
> >>    each time.  Changes based  instead on interpretation of contested
> legal
> >> documents requires
> >>    some form of legal adjudication first.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> /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.
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/e59668c4/attachment.htm>

From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 17:19:24 2012
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:19:24 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <8DD64AB3-73E9-4674-B630-0D007D5E57A1@corp.arin.net>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtnuN4qB=PLLauev5XTOPxncMNFe7U_oOK22q2cJ=6fnYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8DD64AB3-73E9-4674-B630-0D007D5E57A1@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC1-dtnZbwZKGOt4gjQ2sAVGWqPhF04ejUJ622CT1066zef48A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
>>>> assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
>>>> somewhere?
>>>
>>> The raw data on the assignments made is available here:
>>>
>>> <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html>
>>
>> Is there data on _when_ they were handed out? E.g. How many
>> assignments were made each month, and each year, for the past 12-18
>> months and 3-5 years?
>
> We haven't traditionally produced summary statistics for the critical infrastructure
> assignments, but they do appear both in Whois as well as the "Raw Historical Delegation"
> files <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/rir.html> with the date of assignment.
>
> Do you want ARIN to produce a historic summary of these assignments?

Not on my account. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't already
producing them before I built my own.

Thanks again,
~Chris

> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com


From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Thu Sep 20 17:53:10 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:53:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5Pbsh8xNDn7VdUFoOFB0+-STqSgXUcFXo4-1ozBvhSJSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34682.1348177990@tristatelogic.com>


In message <CAMDXq5Pbsh8xNDn7VdUFoOFB0+-STqSgXUcFXo4-1ozBvhSJSg at mail.gmail.com>,
Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

>Hard enough to determine what ARIN considers fraud:
>
>    https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/results/

These quarterly summaries are very interesting documents, if for no other
reason, then at least for the creative way in which they have been surgically
neutered of essentially all actual information content.



From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 17:53:20 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:53:20 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>

Jeffrey -

   I think it is indeed useful for the question to be be answered (as you did), but
   your assertion that ARIN "could have easily fixed" the situation was incorrect
   as far as we can determine and highly misleading.  I have twice now reviewed
   the changes to the records, and the changes were all made by authorized
   contacts for the resources and the registry was updated correctly.  Note also
   this matter has not involved a question of judgement by ARIN, but simply that
   an ARIN Online account for the party holding the resources made the change
   in every case and the resources remain assigned to the party originally issued.
   To the extent that you believe that it should be otherwise due to legal documents
   which are contested between you and the current resource holder, I do strongly
   encourage you to seek appropriate adjudication of the matter.  ARIN will very
   promptly update records based the results, but clearly cannot do so beforehand
   for the very reasons that George Herbert outlines below.

Thank you,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net<mailto:jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>> wrote:


I was merely answering the OPs question. Naturally, ARIN management became defensive with the dirty laundry partially aired

Thanks, Jeff

On Sep 20, 2012 4:34 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com<mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com>> wrote:
Jeffrey -

With all due respect; 3 issues.

1, This is not appropriate on-list.

2, Presumably, ARIN received evidence that the change was proper prior
to making it.  That evidence could have been wrong, forged,
fraudulent.  But a random person on the net asserting that a change is
wrong, forged, or fraudulent does not mean that it is wrong, forged,
or fraudulent.  If the process is that anyone can make an assertion
like that and the net is suspended, the possible damage is immense -
anyone could procedurally disrupt huge parts of the net by making
false claims of improper transfers.

You are not personally "random person on the net" and I assume you
haven't changed from an honorable networking professional to a malign
saboteur overnight, so I would guess you've got a good case here.  But
you're putting ARIN in the job of being a private detective and
judicial authority.  That's wrong.  They're a resources management
cooperative.  Them insisting that you convince a judge (who deals, by
profession, in wrongs, forgeries, and fraud) that something was wrong
with the other guy and it should be yours, is proper.

3, You said (I think) that you acquired these from a bankruptcy.  One
of the expected costs of acquiring assets that way is that sometimes
there are legal challenges.  If you aren't willing to deal with the
occasional legal challenge you should not procure assets that way.  If
your expectations were that that never happens, you were wrong in
those assumptions to start with, and need to reconsider your business
process.


-george
...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/316f5560/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 18:03:38 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:03:38 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting results (was :Re:  Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <34682.1348177990@tristatelogic.com>
References: <34682.1348177990@tristatelogic.com>
Message-ID: <EB1C1711-0FAC-4655-9468-D0E4D5E75EF4@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> 
>>   https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/results/
> 
> These quarterly summaries are very interesting documents, if for no other
> reason, then at least for the creative way in which they have been surgically
> neutered of essentially all actual information content.

That's to be expected, as they usually contain information that is sensitive 
in nature. The vast majority of reports are regarding acts unrelated to number
resource fraud (e.g. spam, claims of copyright infringement, etc.) but there 
are occasional instances where we see a need to contact an upstream ISP, or
another RIR, or to review our request processing for accuracy. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Thu Sep 20 18:09:27 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:09:27 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <15F13B26-6157-4086-99DF-BFAE2E0B6CAB@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <34900.1348178967@tristatelogic.com>


In message <15F13B26-6157-4086-99DF-BFAE2E0B6CAB at corp.arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wr=
>ote:
>
>> Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?
>>=20
>>   https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html
>>=20
>> I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentenc=
>e.
>
>Yes.
>
>Thanks for your question!

And likewise, thanks for your timely response John.

I look forward to providing you with any and all information and or
assistance I can, as you may request, in support of any reports you/ARIN
may in future elect to make to LE relating to unauthorized changes to
the database.


Regards,
rfg


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep 20 18:12:32 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:12:32 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>     Please provide the number resources in question and the changes to
>     them that you believe were incorrect.  If a change was made incorrectly
>     (e.g. not by the listed point of contact or made to the wrong resource
>     record), we will promptly rectify it.   You may provide the list here or
>     privately as you prefer.

Hi John,

I don't pretend familiarity with the current situation, but in the
abstract case I will say this:

When a registration change is promptly challenged, especially if the
challenge is issued by someone who could reasonably be the registrant,
it's the epitome of wisdom to err on the side of reverting the change
pending adjudication.

Network Solutions refuses out-transfers of DNS registrations for a
period of time following a POC change. If the change is challenged,
they generally revert it. Then there's some work proving that you're
the real you and should have access but in the mean time the
registration is safe. But for these anti-fraud measures, I'd have lost
whitehouse.net a few years ago when someone guessed my colleague's
damnable "security question" for password resets. You can bet I
wouldn't have accepted "tough luck" for an answer or have failed to
name them in a suit.

If ARIN doesn't yet have a strong process for reverting illicit
changes that arise from the registrant's security carelessness, it's
time to get cracking. IP addresses just got valuable. It is
politically unwise to facilitate ongoing fraud merely because the
customer's carelessness allowed it to start. Too many organizations
figure that out the hard way. Don't let ARIN become the latest.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From snoble at sonn.com  Thu Sep 20 18:15:42 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:15:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <73676DD6-C567-49BF-B13A-2101898290F5@sonn.com>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> 
> I was merely answering the OPs question. Naturally, ARIN management became defensive with the dirty laundry partially aired
> 
> Thanks, Jeff
> 

Having dealt with ARIN since their inception, and had many disagreements with them, the one thing I can say is that they are being truthful when it comes to what they can and cannot do.  Some of the rules and restrictions seem illogical, or even detrimental but ARIN only goes by the policies as set by us, the members.

ARIN has a database, some providers require you to have certain information in the database, some do not.  Some entries in the ARIN database will always be wrong, yet things seem to work just fine.

It took me 8 years to get something updated in the ARIN database. During those 8 years I used the resource as I would normally, no one cared.

As you stated previously, you are announcing and routing the network/objects in question.  So there is no real issue here except wrt what ARINs database says.  If you want the ARIN database to say something else, you just need to follow the instructions as given and they will update it.








From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 18:18:40 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:18:40 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>,
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>

Bill -

   What you suggest is quite reasonable when a transfer is performed, and ARIN is vigilant for potential fraud in such cases.  

    That does not apply when no transfer was ever performed with a resource.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> When a registration change is promptly challenged, especially if the
> challenge is issued by someone who could reasonably be the registrant,
> it's the epitome of wisdom to err on the side of reverting the change
> pending adjudication.


From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Thu Sep 20 18:50:47 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:50:47 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting results (was :Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <EB1C1711-0FAC-4655-9468-D0E4D5E75EF4@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <35214.1348181447@tristatelogic.com>


In message <EB1C1711-0FAC-4655-9468-D0E4D5E75EF4 at corp.arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wr
>ote:
>>
>>>   https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/results/
>>
>> These quarterly summaries are very interesting documents, if for no other
>> reason, then at least for the creative way in which they have been surgic
>> ally neutered of essentially all actual information content.
>
>That's to be expected, as they usually contain information that is sensitive
>in nature.

Yes.

I do well and truly understand John.  Certainly a number of kind and patient
people, including yourself, have explained to me be about the sensitive
nature of much of the data that ARIN processes or comes into contact with.

Still, as I think you know, the abundant secrecy which attaches to so much
of what ARIN does chafes at me, even when & if there are good reasons and
arguments to support it.  I understand and accept that I won't be changing
any of the relevant procedures or policies anytime soon.   I only hope
that you will accept, with the same equanimity, my occasional off-the-cuff
observations regading the sometimes absurd (to my eyes anyway) outcome of
ARIN's need and desire to be at once both open and secretive.

Nowhere is that inherent and unavoidable contradiction in your mission more
immediately or obviously evident than in these quarterly fraud report
handling summaries.  As I'm sure you know, I applaud ARIN's clear desire
to be as open and forthcoming about these things as possible,  but it does
nontheless seem just slightly silly to publish the fact that ARIN
handled a report on such-and-such a date, assigned it such-and-such
internal tracking/ticket number, and then go on to say (in effect) we
(ARIN) can't actually tell the public at large any more of the particulars.

One can't help but wonder what possibly could have motivated ARIN to attempt
to publically document things about which it (ARIN) cannot actually talk about.
(My sincere apologies if you don't see the humor in this.  For me at least,
it is actually rather droll.  I do however understand that the humor may
perhaps be much easier to appreciate from the outside than from the inside.)


Regards,
rfg


From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep 20 19:49:37 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:49:37 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGX0pBnMDaN37zTv2h1Z0Nk0oSakjfrwEDuPTjXaCz=L3w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>    What you suggest is quite reasonable when a transfer is performed,
> and ARIN is vigilant for potential fraud in such cases.
>
>     That does not apply when no transfer was ever performed with a resource.

Hi John,

With respect, changing POCs and postal addresses changes an ISP's view
of who is allowed to announce addresses while changing the RDNS
delegation wreaks all manner of immediate operational havoc.

Again, no knowledge of Jeffrey's situation but reading what you wrote
it doesn't sound like you have a process in place that's suitably
cognizant of the harm ARIN can contribute to. In particular, I think I
understand you to take the position that a change by a then-authorized
POC is authorized, even in the face of a challenge, until declared
otherwise by a court. That is an extraordinary and rigid view that may
not be justifiable by the effectiveness of the technical apparatus you
have for determining that a POC is authorized.

Belligerence towards someone defrauded will always come back to haunt
and nothing says belligerence like the bureaucratic blind eye that
refuses to see what's in front of it because some potentially
inadequate procedure was or wasn't followed.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 20:10:48 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:10:48 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGX0pBnMDaN37zTv2h1Z0Nk0oSakjfrwEDuPTjXaCz=L3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX0pBnMDaN37zTv2h1Z0Nk0oSakjfrwEDuPTjXaCz=L3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DFB93D8E-BD4A-46C1-92F5-C039FA0C4FE2@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:49 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> In particular, I think I
> understand you to take the position that a change by a then-authorized
> POC is authorized, even in the face of a challenge, until declared
> otherwise by a court.

Bill -

That is not the case; I have noted that ARIN is quite 
willing to review a change to insure that it was indeed 
valid.  It is possible that it was from a stolen account, 
an inadvertent keystroke or a variety of other issues
which might require correction after the fact.

What we are not willing to do is process an asserted 
transfer when the present resource holder does not 
agree and disputes the transfer documentation.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Sep 20 20:33:23 2012
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:33:23 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD223484D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> If ARIN doesn't yet have a strong process for reverting illicit changes
> that arise from the registrant's security carelessness, it's time to get
> cracking. IP addresses just got valuable. It is politically unwise to

[Milton L Mueller] what he said.



From bill at herrin.us  Thu Sep 20 20:45:34 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:45:34 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <DFB93D8E-BD4A-46C1-92F5-C039FA0C4FE2@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGX0pBnMDaN37zTv2h1Z0Nk0oSakjfrwEDuPTjXaCz=L3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<DFB93D8E-BD4A-46C1-92F5-C039FA0C4FE2@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGV=h+5q+9brCBYM0TXNrCXy0XF8FVHJpiWRFLR-E-WQeQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> I have noted that ARIN is quite
> willing to review a change to insure that it was indeed
> valid.  It is possible that it was from a stolen account,
> an inadvertent keystroke or a variety of other issues
> which might require correction after the fact.

Well good. That wasn't clear from what you said before.


> What we are not willing to do is process an asserted
> transfer when the present resource holder does not
> agree and disputes the transfer documentation.

I should hope not!

Regards,
Bill Herrin



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


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Thu Sep 20 20:39:20 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:39:20 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
	unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD223484D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD223484D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AE353861-58ED-4538-83F7-3688E76FCD5C@netconsonance.com>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> If ARIN doesn't yet have a strong process for reverting illicit changes
>> that arise from the registrant's security carelessness, it's time to get
>> cracking. IP addresses just got valuable. It is politically unwise to
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] what he said.


I disagree with the statement that ARIN is responsible for people who fail to lock their doors.

People who haven't locked their doors need to get cracking.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120920/6f400b2a/attachment.htm>

From heather.skanks at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 21:50:21 2012
From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:50:21 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records (was: Regarding
 unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question))
In-Reply-To: <290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Bill -
>
>    What you suggest is quite reasonable when a transfer is performed, and ARIN is vigilant for potential fraud in such cases.
>
>     That does not apply when no transfer was ever performed with a resource.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>

Precisely the point.  Why bother with a transfer if it's cheaper and
easier to hack the POC and make a change?  Stronger Auth is needed
because you don't have to effect a transfer in ARIN in order to change
registration details (address and POC) to something convincing enough
to get an ISP to route it.   The long list of legacy holders that
won't update their records proves that there are folks that don't care
what's listed in whois, as long as their ISP routes it.  Does ARIN
compare POC changes against routing changes?  or monitor all unrouted
address space in the region and look for POC changes if it suddenly
becomes routed?  Probably not - you just rely on someone to complain,
but what happens when there is no one left to complain?  (when a tree
falls..)   Stronger auth for changes, better tools for ISP's to
validate, maybe better monitoring .. or you know we could just do this
v6 thing with some RPKI and bgpsec.

>
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>
>> When a registration change is promptly challenged, especially if the
>> challenge is issued by someone who could reasonably be the registrant,
>> it's the epitome of wisdom to err on the side of reverting the change
>> pending adjudication.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From farmer at umn.edu  Thu Sep 20 22:18:12 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:18:12 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I
 Reserved Pool Size
In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dtnZbwZKGOt4gjQ2sAVGWqPhF04ejUJ622CT1066zef48A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5047BB66.3000406@arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtkxvTWHviAApEiv4f_xCYxh6Hgi1V9EAbRaN9-JnH=QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<F966EEA7-69D0-4A8F-8BA3-BF492EC4591B@corp.arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtnuN4qB=PLLauev5XTOPxncMNFe7U_oOK22q2cJ=6fnYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8DD64AB3-73E9-4674-B630-0D007D5E57A1@corp.arin.net>
	<CAC1-dtnZbwZKGOt4gjQ2sAVGWqPhF04ejUJ622CT1066zef48A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505BCE64.10004@umn.edu>



On 9/20/12 16:19 CDT, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:18 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are statistics for the number of Critical Infrastructure requests and
>>>>> assignments over the past year (or longer) easily accessible
>>>>> somewhere?
>>>>
>>>> The raw data on the assignments made is available here:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html>
>>>
>>> Is there data on _when_ they were handed out? E.g. How many
>>> assignments were made each month, and each year, for the past 12-18
>>> months and 3-5 years?
>>
>> We haven't traditionally produced summary statistics for the critical infrastructure
>> assignments, but they do appear both in Whois as well as the "Raw Historical Delegation"
>> files <https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/rir.html> with the date of assignment.
>>
>> Do you want ARIN to produce a historic summary of these assignments?
>
> Not on my account. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't already
> producing them before I built my own.

I think I agree with Chris on this, I'm not sure it is worth going back 
and producing new data.  The crux of the argument to expand the 
reservation isn't that we think the current /16 reservation wasn't large 
enough based on historical usage.  Between EPs and DNS there is less 
that 1.5 /16s of CI allocated currently.  So from a historical point of 
view a /16 seems like plenty.

However, the crux of the argument to expand the reservation is that the 
potential new TLDs ICANN is talking about could create unprecedented 
demand for CI allocations right at the time we may be out of IPv4.  So, 
while such data probably would be nice, it would neither support or 
refute the crux of the argument regarding this policy, in my opinion.

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From mysidia at gmail.com  Thu Sep 20 22:39:08 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:39:08 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/20/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

Number resources are assigned to the organization that own the
newtork(s) resources are assigned to;  the resources don't belong to
the authorized POCs,  whether ARIN thinks a person or their "Arin
Online account" are an authorized contact or not...  that is an
expediency.

Contacts have no right to request changes on their organization's
behalf, and represent that they are authorized,   if  their role
within the organization no longer exists and  has changed in such a
manner,  as they would not be authorized to make the change, so in
theory... there should be little possibility at all whatsoever of a
"dispute of authorized status",   ARIN should listen to  whatever
organization  signed the RSA, actually contracted for the resources,
and can prove that with suitable notarized documents.


For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
make changes.

If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
authorized.....


Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
organization?


If not, perhaps the policy in place is  not really adequate....


>    the changes to the records, and the changes were all made by authorized
>    contacts for the resources and the registry was updated correctly.  Note
> also
>    this matter has not involved a question of judgement by ARIN, but simply
> that
>    an ARIN Online account for the party holding the resources made the
> change
[snip]


--
-JH


From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Sep 20 22:46:46 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:46:46 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A21B74D1-B085-46B1-8D05-523854CF2F69@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> ... ARIN should listen to  whatever
> organization  signed the RSA, actually contracted for the resources,
> and can prove that with suitable notarized documents.

Agreed - that matches our current processes in organizational
authorization, point-of-contact recover, etc.

> For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
> Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
> administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
> make changes.
> 
> If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
> ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
> address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
> because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
> authorized.....
> 
> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
> organization?

Yes, we will do so (although I must note that it is equally incumbent 
for organizations to take reasonable measures to protect their login 
accounts, and not solely rely upon ARIN's ability to untangle such 
situations after the fact.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Thu Sep 20 23:25:16 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:25:16 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8D4F5595-60D2-41B0-A2A3-24598DA8B429@delong.com>


On Sep 20, 2012, at 19:39 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/20/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> Number resources are assigned to the organization that own the
> newtork(s) resources are assigned to;  the resources don't belong to
> the authorized POCs,  whether ARIN thinks a person or their "Arin
> Online account" are an authorized contact or not...  that is an
> expediency.
> 
> Contacts have no right to request changes on their organization's
> behalf, and represent that they are authorized,   if  their role
> within the organization no longer exists and  has changed in such a
> manner,  as they would not be authorized to make the change, so in
> theory... there should be little possibility at all whatsoever of a
> "dispute of authorized status",   ARIN should listen to  whatever
> organization  signed the RSA, actually contracted for the resources,
> and can prove that with suitable notarized documents.

While what you say is true, ARIN has no way to make that determination
and without some documentation to prove such an assertion validated
by a court order, expecting them to do so is fraught with peril.

How does ARIN distinguish "the organization" from "An authorized POC
for the organization"? How does ARIN determine that this person claiming
to represent "the organization" who is not an authorized POC on the
organization or resource records is actually more legitimate than the
person who is an authorized POC?

I understand how what you say seems intuitively correct at face value.
However, when you consider the relative anonymity of the parties
involved with respect to the personal knowledge of ARIN staff, it
becomes quite a bit more complicate as an authentication problem.
As such, court orders are the appropriate mechanism for ARIN to
validate such authentication challenges.

> For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
> Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
> administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
> make changes.

However, how is ARIN supposed to know this? As you said, they were
not informed.

> If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
> ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
> address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
> because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
> authorized.....

ARIN cannot distinguish such a request from a legitimate request.

> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
> organization?

If the officers are not listed POCs, how does ARIN validate that they
are, in fact, officers? How is the situation you describe above distinguishable
from ARIN's perspective from one in which:

Administrative POC remains, but the VCs that own controlling interest
have fired the entire management team (including all officers) and the
POC deletes all of the officers from the POC list as a result? At the
same time, the VCs move the nearly failed venture into new smaller
less lavish offices to conserve capital, so a change of address is also
processed by the Admin POC.

Now, the disgruntled former officers come to ARIN with an attestation
requesting that the changes be reverted in an effort to take over the
resources and cause grief to the new management team.

If you can explain how, absent a court order validating the legitimacy
of such attestation can be properly authenticated by ARIN, I'm all
ears. From my perspective, I suspect ARIN would be unable to
distinguish the two reliably without a court order. 
> 
> 
> If not, perhaps the policy in place is  not really adequate....
> 

Perhaps the policy is just fine, but some events really are beyond ARIN's
ability to identify "the right thing".


Owen




From snoble at sonn.com  Thu Sep 20 23:27:10 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:27:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>

Hi,

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
> Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
> administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
> make changes.
> 
> If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
> ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
> address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
> because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
> authorized.....
> 
> 
> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
> organization?

If said employee was to do that they would probably be in violation of quite a few laws. I suspect it would not be an issue to get enough proof to show ARIN that it happened. 

> If not, perhaps the policy in place is  not really adequate....

There are two (or more) ways to do things. The easy way: ask said fired person to revert it for you, and the hard way: involve the law, which is probably happening anyway. 

From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Thu Sep 20 23:33:23 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:33:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
>> Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
>> administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
>> make changes.
>>
>> If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
>> ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
>> address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
>> because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
>> authorized.....
>>
>>
>> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
>> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
>> organization?
>
> If said employee was to do that they would probably be in violation of quite a few laws. I suspect it would not be an issue to get enough proof to show ARIN that it happened.
>
>> If not, perhaps the policy in place is  not really adequate....
>
> There are two (or more) ways to do things. The easy way: ask said fired person to revert it for you, and the hard way: involve the law, which is probably happening anyway.

My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
*serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
is the nature of business.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Sep 20 23:32:20 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:32:20 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>

On 9/20/2012 6:50 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Bill -
>>
>>     What you suggest is quite reasonable when a transfer is performed, and ARIN is vigilant for potential fraud in such cases.
>>
>>      That does not apply when no transfer was ever performed with a resource.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>
> Precisely the point.  Why bother with a transfer if it's cheaper and
> easier to hack the POC and make a change?  Stronger Auth is needed
> because you don't have to effect a transfer in ARIN in order to change
> registration details (address and POC) to something convincing enough
> to get an ISP to route it.

Heather (and John),

   I frankly believe that ARIN is HOPING that in the case of the 
abandoned legacy resources out there that someone will indeed come along 
and hack them to make a change.

   ARIN views this issue from a birds eye view not a micro eye view.
To you or I, an abandoned /24 legacy space these days is enough 
addressing to run a webhosting business that could generate enough
money to support someone as a full time job.

   But from ARIN's point of view, a /24 is a microscopic amount
of the entire IPv4 space they are in charge of, and they don't give
a rat's ass that some smart cracker may come along and take advantage
of a loophole to change the POC on it.

   I have approached ARIN before, through channels, with documented
proof that once such legacy block is abandoned.  They know it's
abandoned because they have assigned a No, Contact Known NIC handle
to at least the tech contact.  The Abuse contact on it is going to an
obvious domain name speculator.

   But, the organization name on it is a legitimate and existing org.
My guess is ARIN has no guidelines on what to do in this case - the
org exists, the street address on it is correct, but none of the POCs
on it are valid, and the subnet hasn't appeared in the BGP table for
the past 8 years.

   So, the addressing sits idle, and unused - and in the meantime there
are new orgs out there desperate for any amount of IPv4 who cannot take
advantage of it.

    The long list of legacy holders that
> won't update their records proves that there are folks that don't care
> what's listed in whois, as long as their ISP routes it.  Does ARIN
> compare POC changes against routing changes?  or monitor all unrouted
> address space in the region and look for POC changes if it suddenly
> becomes routed?  Probably not - you just rely on someone to complain,
> but what happens when there is no one left to complain?  (when a tree
> falls..)

That's a different issue.  If a legacy resource is routed, and an org is
depending on it being routed, but that org does not maintain it's POCs
on it, then in my opinion I have no sympathy if a cracker changes the 
POC and steals it.  In fact I would LIKE that since it would teach that
org a lesson.

i do not hold with the notion of obscuring POCs on a numbering resource
by putting bogus ones in.  A legacy org that does this deserves to lose
their resources even if the loss is a criminal act.  Frankly I feel that
doing nothing to maintain POCs on resources in use is a worse criminal 
act than someone stealing them.

It's like the people who grow Marijuana.  They are breaking the rules. 
If someone else comes along and steals their pot, then I don't want my
tax dollars going to pay for chasing the thief who stole the pot.  Or, 
if someone is breaking into a home and gets shot and killed by the
homeowner, while in many states the homeowner is guilty of murder I
don't want him being prosecuted, either.

But, if the legacy resource is unused and abandoned, then your kind of
saying that ARIN should be diligent about keeping it abandoned.  I think 
in those cases ARIN rather likes it when a cracker assumes ownership of 
an abandoned resource and starts using it.

Ted

PS, Under the law in the United States, I believe that someone illegally
changing a valid POC on an in-use Legacy resource could be successfully
sued for all of the costs incurred as a result of the network disruption
that happens from the moment the routing stops working to the moment 
that ARIN puts it all back the way it was and the routing is restored.
I think other jurisdictions operate similarly.

Thus I think the scenario of a cracker trying to steal an in-use 
resource and route it elsewhere is unrealistic.

   Stronger auth for changes, better tools for ISP's to
> validate, maybe better monitoring .. or you know we could just do this
> v6 thing with some RPKI and bgpsec.
>
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>
>>> When a registration change is promptly challenged, especially if the
>>> challenge is issued by someone who could reasonably be the registrant,
>>> it's the epitome of wisdom to err on the side of reverting the change
>>> pending adjudication.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Fri Sep 21 00:06:26 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:06:26 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>

On 9/20/12 22:33 CDT, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

> My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
> can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
> 6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
> *serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
> is the nature of business.

So you, as one member, are asking all the other members to take on that 
risk of liability and possible expense of the courts, so you don't have to.

What you ask, may still be the most reasonable thing, but please realize 
that you are asking the rest of the ARIN members to share the risk of 
your problem.

Do you want to share in the risk of other members similar problems?

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
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  Fri Sep 21 00:10:35 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:10:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> ...
> My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
> can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
> 6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
> *serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
> is the nature of business.

Jeffrey - 
 
  There is an such a process and you did engage it, but ARIN is unable
  help in these particular circumstances.  The resources in question
  cannot be changed from their original registrant contrary to their 
  wishes, although ARIN will respect any finding or judgement in this
  matter from a more appropriate legal venue (as it is not ARIN's role 
  to adjudicate contractual disputes between parties.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 00:11:17 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:11:17 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:06 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 9/20/12 22:33 CDT, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
>> can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
>> 6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
>> *serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
>> is the nature of business.
>
>
> So you, as one member, are asking all the other members to take on that risk
> of liability and possible expense of the courts, so you don't have to.
>
> What you ask, may still be the most reasonable thing, but please realize
> that you are asking the rest of the ARIN members to share the risk of your
> problem.
>
> Do you want to share in the risk of other members similar problems?
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> 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.

There isn't actually any tangible risk in my specific scenario, i'm
just giving ARIN benefit of the doubt. Generally, there is a bigger
risk of having to name ARIN in a lawsuit just to get them to change a
record, thereby costing members substantially in legal fees. They
money they save by not taking a hard line approach could be used in
part to buy a really awesome liability insurance plan.

Businesses are expected to take certain reasonable, acceptable risks
in order to serve their customers. ARIN shouldn't be any different.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From mysidia at gmail.com  Fri Sep 21 00:13:56 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:13:56 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <8D4F5595-60D2-41B0-A2A3-24598DA8B429@delong.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D4F5595-60D2-41B0-A2A3-24598DA8B429@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbXxATnmQbF+aU79hX=-iPYhFkAwopmZz=i-JiX5cney0g@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/20/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
[snip]
> If the officers are not listed POCs, how does ARIN validate that they
> are, in fact, officers? How is the situation you describe above
> distinguishable

In most places, corporations have a registration requirement, and the names
of a corporation's officers, such as CEO, and legal agent are often part of the
registration  papers and filings which are a public record,  so ARIN can check
them independently, or rather, require a certified copy....

ARIN can also lookup the  signed RSA that the resources were issued
under, and check who actually signed it...

Unless  there was something very unusual such as two organizations
claiming the same identity,  the truly  unauthorized POC  should have
very little chance of being able to furnish  the same....

--
-JH


From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 00:14:32 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:14:32 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:10 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
>> can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
>> 6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
>> *serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
>> is the nature of business.
>
> Jeffrey -
>
>   There is an such a process and you did engage it, but ARIN is unable
>   help in these particular circumstances.  The resources in question
>   cannot be changed from their original registrant contrary to their
>   wishes, although ARIN will respect any finding or judgement in this
>   matter from a more appropriate legal venue (as it is not ARIN's role
>   to adjudicate contractual disputes between parties.)
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>

John,

The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
court.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 00:25:35 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:25:35 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
 wrote:
> 
> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
> court.

Jeffrey - 
 
  There could easily be organizations holding resources that have today
  no network and no customers; that does not provide one with the ability 
  to transfer their number resources without their consent (nor is it a 
  germane question for a court of law.)  
  
  Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is 
  germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute 
  (and is not ARIN's job.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 00:27:51 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:27:51 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>  wrote:
>>
>> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
>> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
>> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
>> court.
>
> Jeffrey -
>
>   There could easily be organizations holding resources that have today
>   no network and no customers; that does not provide one with the ability
>   to transfer their number resources without their consent (nor is it a
>   germane question for a court of law.)
>
>   Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is
>   germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute
>   (and is not ARIN's job.)
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>

John,

This is the nature of my complaint. It needs to be ARIN's job. We
should not pawn our responsibilities off onto the courts.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 00:41:25 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:41:25 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BB1BFE25-48AB-4389-B564-9C9CF61675AF@arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> 
> This is the nature of my complaint. It needs to be ARIN's job. We
> should not pawn our responsibilities off onto the courts.

Jeffrey - 
   
  There have been numerous transfers of number resources over the years,
  both via NRPM 8.2 (M&A) and via NRPM 8.3 (Specified Transfer).  Many 
  of these involve contractual documents and sometimes such documents
  can be quite large and involve many aspects having nothing to do with
  the registration of Internet number resources.  All of these transfers
  have something in common - the current registrant or legal successor
  concurred with the transfer of the number resources. 

  You have a different circumstance, and suggesting that ARIN should assert 
  itself as the rightful interpreter of your contractual dispute fails to 
  recognize the very nature of contractual agreements (which lie inherently
  within the legal system when disputed.)  Not only is it not desirable to 
  change this fact, but it's also not within the power of the ARIN community.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From cblecker at gmail.com  Fri Sep 21 00:41:36 2012
From: cblecker at gmail.com (Christoph Blecker)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:41:36 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADx2oGHd3gopPGcW3_r5-YuyvZNOBJzSE=Z37+d4uomhQjH4Kw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
>>> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
>>> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
>>> court.
>>
>> Jeffrey -
>>
>>   There could easily be organizations holding resources that have today
>>   no network and no customers; that does not provide one with the ability
>>   to transfer their number resources without their consent (nor is it a
>>   germane question for a court of law.)
>>
>>   Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is
>>   germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute
>>   (and is not ARIN's job.)
>>
>> FYI,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>
> John,
>
> This is the nature of my complaint. It needs to be ARIN's job. We
> should not pawn our responsibilities off onto the courts.
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> President, Black Lotus Communications
> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

Jeffrey,

Why would it be ARIN's job? From what I understand of the situation,
you purchased a portion of a organization as part of a bankruptcy.
Your understanding of the contract says you take over the rights to
the number resources (and are obviously routing/using them at the
moment). The other side disagrees with this, and is not agreeing to
the transfer. Sounds like a cut and dry contract dispute that it's up
to the courts to solve.

If there was a dispute over any other clause of the contract, the
courts would settle it -- why is this different? While ARIN *could*
make up it's own mind about what the contract says, why would ARIN
(and it's membership) want to take on such a liability, when there is
already a civil process to deal with it?

Please let me know if I'm missing or misinterpreting the details of
this particular example.

Cheers,
Christoph


From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Sep 21 00:53:03 2012
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:53:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201209210453.q8L4r3rM014597@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 43 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Sep 21 00:53:03 EDT 2012
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 27.91% |   12 | 27.17% |    87040 | jcurran at arin.net
 11.63% |    5 | 14.29% |    45784 | jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
  9.30% |    4 |  9.18% |    29409 | cgrundemann at gmail.com
  9.30% |    4 |  6.43% |    20601 | rfg at tristatelogic.com
  6.98% |    3 |  6.82% |    21846 | snoble at sonn.com
  6.98% |    3 |  6.55% |    20976 | bill at herrin.us
  4.65% |    2 |  4.43% |    14199 | mysidia at gmail.com
  2.33% |    1 |  3.37% |    10788 | tedm at ipinc.net
  2.33% |    1 |  3.01% |     9636 | owen at delong.com
  2.33% |    1 |  2.98% |     9546 | jrhett at netconsonance.com
  2.33% |    1 |  2.65% |     8480 | farmer at umn.edu
  2.33% |    1 |  2.62% |     8389 | george.herbert at gmail.com
  2.33% |    1 |  2.52% |     8072 | bill at telnetcommunications.com
  2.33% |    1 |  2.34% |     7494 | heather.skanks at gmail.com
  2.33% |    1 |  2.06% |     6590 | narten at us.ibm.com
  2.33% |    1 |  1.81% |     5793 | hannigan at gmail.com
  2.33% |    1 |  1.80% |     5760 | mueller at syr.edu
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   43 |100.00% |   320403 | Total



From george.herbert at gmail.com  Fri Sep 21 00:51:52 2012
From: george.herbert at gmail.com (George Herbert)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:51:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92C7540D-0913-4493-9D73-F413D14C2EB0@gmail.com>


Jeffrey -

It is unconscionable for you to ask a registrar to solve your legal problem.

Your acquisition process was clearly flawed somehow.  Paying for title to whatever without operational control was a mistake.  ARIN can't help you by fixing whatever went wrong there by adjudicating what's fundamentally a civil tort ( slander of title probably, but I am not a lawyer ).

It's not their job, it's your job.

I feel sorry for you under the circumstances, but again, this is what attorneys are for and not what ARIN is for.



George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
>>> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
>>> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
>>> court.
>> 
>> Jeffrey -
>> 
>>  There could easily be organizations holding resources that have today
>>  no network and no customers; that does not provide one with the ability
>>  to transfer their number resources without their consent (nor is it a
>>  germane question for a court of law.)
>> 
>>  Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is
>>  germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute
>>  (and is not ARIN's job.)
>> 
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>> 
> 
> John,
> 
> This is the nature of my complaint. It needs to be ARIN's job. We
> should not pawn our responsibilities off onto the courts.
> 
> -- 
> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
> President, Black Lotus Communications
> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From tedm at ipinc.net  Fri Sep 21 01:12:39 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:12:39 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505BF747.3040203@ipinc.net>

Jeff and George,

   George without knowing the full story, your wasting a lot of time
responding to him.

   Jeff, bankruptcies and court proceedings are PUBLIC at least in
the United States.  It is completely legal for you to post everything
and anything dealing with your problem on a public website.  If you
type up a long explanation of "your side" and your perceived wrongs,
and post it, then include the URL in your posts castigating ARIN, I
would have a lot more respect for you and your problem.

   But this business of throwing stones at John Curran and ARIN then
simply hinting what the problem is, is a big heaping pile of bullpucky.
If you persist in this, I will assume that your opponent is right
and you are wrong, end of story.  And I hope the rest of ARIN does,
end of story!!!!

Ted

On 9/20/2012 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> I was merely answering the OPs question. Naturally, ARIN management
> became defensive with the dirty laundry partially aired
>
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> On Sep 20, 2012 4:34 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com
> <mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Jeffrey -
>
>     With all due respect; 3 issues.
>
>     1, This is not appropriate on-list.
>
>     2, Presumably, ARIN received evidence that the change was proper prior
>     to making it.  That evidence could have been wrong, forged,
>     fraudulent.  But a random person on the net asserting that a change is
>     wrong, forged, or fraudulent does not mean that it is wrong, forged,
>     or fraudulent.  If the process is that anyone can make an assertion
>     like that and the net is suspended, the possible damage is immense -
>     anyone could procedurally disrupt huge parts of the net by making
>     false claims of improper transfers.
>
>     You are not personally "random person on the net" and I assume you
>     haven't changed from an honorable networking professional to a malign
>     saboteur overnight, so I would guess you've got a good case here.  But
>     you're putting ARIN in the job of being a private detective and
>     judicial authority.  That's wrong.  They're a resources management
>     cooperative.  Them insisting that you convince a judge (who deals, by
>     profession, in wrongs, forgeries, and fraud) that something was wrong
>     with the other guy and it should be yours, is proper.
>
>     3, You said (I think) that you acquired these from a bankruptcy.  One
>     of the expected costs of acquiring assets that way is that sometimes
>     there are legal challenges.  If you aren't willing to deal with the
>     occasional legal challenge you should not procure assets that way.  If
>     your expectations were that that never happens, you were wrong in
>     those assumptions to start with, and need to reconsider your business
>     process.
>
>
>     -george
>
>     On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
>     <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net <mailto:jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>>
>     wrote:
>      > John,
>      >
>      > You did not become involved until after our records were
>     illegally changed,
>      > so you're regarding the wrong POC as owner of these resources. We
>     continue
>      > to route them, and the POC listed does not operate a network so
>     they cannot
>      > legally hold these resources.
>      >
>      > Thanks, Jeff
>      >
>      > On Sep 20, 2012 11:01 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net
>     <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
>     <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net <mailto:jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>>
>      >> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> John,
>      >>
>      >> The unauthorized change preceded the failure of ARIN to assist in
>      >> reverting the errorneous record. You're protecting the wrong party.
>      >>
>      >> Jeffrey -
>      >>
>      >>    We've made to resource records from the authorized
>     point-of-contact on
>      >> the address block
>      >>    each time.  Changes based  instead on interpretation of
>     contested legal
>      >> documents requires
>      >>    some form of legal adjudication first.
>      >>
>      >> Thank you,
>      >> /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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.
>
>
>
>     --
>     -george william herbert
>     george.herbert at gmail.com <mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



From mysidia at gmail.com  Fri Sep 21 01:16:04 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:16:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbW-K_w2dT3APAkmHxo632SDOoxLDLTDob-KVM+JVmCDAQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/20/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>   Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is
>   germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute
>   (and is not ARIN's job.)

That makes sense....  if an organization signed an agreement with
another organization stating they would transfer resources,  and they
fail or refuse to do so, for whatever reason,   then no resources have
been transferred, and an agreement between third parties is not an
authorization to ARIN.....  the authorization can be made by the
holder deciding to comply, or being compelled to comply,  but ARIN
lacks jurisdiction to mediate,

ARIN shouldn't form an opinion about the requirements of internal
agreements between third parties,  that might or might not be
enforceable,  or how breaches will be cured, in case of enforcement.



...Just in the same way that some creditor you have a dispute with,
who has not had a judgement entered against you, can't just take a
signed sales contract  to your bank, without permission,    and expect
to use that to withdraw dollars from your bank account or  gain access
to your safety deposit box  to remove items, they feel the signed
agreement entitles them to.

>
> FYI,
> /John
--
-JH


From tedm at ipinc.net  Fri Sep 21 02:03:15 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:03:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CADx2oGHd3gopPGcW3_r5-YuyvZNOBJzSE=Z37+d4uomhQjH4Kw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADx2oGHd3gopPGcW3_r5-YuyvZNOBJzSE=Z37+d4uomhQjH4Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505C0323.7060104@ipinc.net>

On 9/20/2012 9:41 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
>>>> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
>>>> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
>>>> court.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey -
>>>
>>>    There could easily be organizations holding resources that have today
>>>    no network and no customers; that does not provide one with the ability
>>>    to transfer their number resources without their consent (nor is it a
>>>    germane question for a court of law.)
>>>
>>>    Whether such a party transferred its rights via agreement to you is
>>>    germane, but requires a legal adjudication of contractual dispute
>>>    (and is not ARIN's job.)
>>>
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>>
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> ARIN
>>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> This is the nature of my complaint. It needs to be ARIN's job. We
>> should not pawn our responsibilities off onto the courts.
>>
>> --
>> Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
>> President, Black Lotus Communications
>> mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> Why would it be ARIN's job? From what I understand of the situation,
> you purchased a portion of a organization as part of a bankruptcy.
> Your understanding of the contract says you take over the rights to
> the number resources (and are obviously routing/using them at the
> moment). The other side disagrees with this, and is not agreeing to
> the transfer. Sounds like a cut and dry contract dispute that it's up
> to the courts to solve.
>
> If there was a dispute over any other clause of the contract, the
> courts would settle it -- why is this different? While ARIN *could*
> make up it's own mind about what the contract says, why would ARIN
> (and it's membership) want to take on such a liability, when there is
> already a civil process to deal with it?
>
> Please let me know if I'm missing or misinterpreting the details of
> this particular example.
>

Christoph,

   I will address this hypothetical situation (since Jeffrey has not
provided the actual details)

   ARIN is not taking on a liability by offering an opinion on this
situation.  In fact, if it did come to a court trial, a judge could
compel ARIN to render an opinion.

    ARIN telling Jeffrey to go to a judge isn't letting them off the 
hook, here, not by a long shot.  They are still going to get sucked into 
it if it goes to a judge.

   As for the dispute in question, I have had long experience with 
contracts and written many - and I have discovered that businesspeople
typically take one of 2 approaches to contracts.  The first approach is
to spell out everything - that's my approach - resulting in contracts
that are extremely long with many, many pages.

   The second approach is to make contracts short and claim that any
ambiguous things are left open to interpretation, because this 
supposedly reduces loopholes.  The assumption here is that the 
interpretation is always going to be favorable.

   My experience is the second approach always leads to problems.  Yes
at times I've been sucked into it, and I've always fought it going in,
but almost always, as I have predicted in the beginning, those deals 
have turned out in the long run to be the least profitable.

   Yes I understand that a 30 page contract takes hours to read, hours 
to think about and understand it's implications.  Yes I understand that
it's sometimes not possible to "sell" something when you hit the buyer
with a long contract to sign.  Yes, I understand that big contracts are
"hard" to work with.

   But, you don't see these land in courts very often and when they do,
they are usually settled very rapidly.

   So you can have it either way.  Either you do your deals with a word,
a handshake, and a short contract and then later on you spend tens of 
thousands in lawyer fees, or you spend tens of thousands up front when
you do your deals and write a contract that covers all contingencies,
and then later on when people start "forgetting" their obligations, you
can beat their heads with the contract they signed, rather cheaply.

   But you can't escape the fees, or the time, no matter what.  I have 
learned many things about doing deals but the most important thing I've 
ever learned is that unless whoever your doing the deal with is willing 
to put down your deal in writing, all you have is a whole lot of nothing.

Ted

PS  if Jeffrey is smart about this he will go to small claims court.
Here is a handy chart on small claims limits:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html

Jeffrey does not need to hire a lawyer for small claims, and the filing 
fee is small.  Most lawyers will not take small claims cases since
there is no money in it, and most businesspeople hate the time-suck that
preparing for and showing up for a small claims filing takes.  Once
Jeffrey's opponent realizes that they can't hire a lawyer to fight a 
small claims issue unless they fork over ten grand or so, and once they
realize that Jeffrey is going to force them to spend hours down at the 
courthouse, my guess is they will settle quickly.

If Jeffrey has the time to post here he has time to mount a successful
small claims case.



> Cheers,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



From kkargel at polartel.com  Fri Sep 21 11:02:11 2012
From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:02:11 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801233AFC08@MAIL1.polartel.local>

I would like to ask what actually needs to happen in the case of an
organization that fires a disgruntled PoC who tries to stonewall network
changes and prevent the proper updating of resource records?  It seems a
little far fetched that this situation would require a court order to
resolve.  The network owner must have some path to replace a malicious or
obstructive PoC.  

I realize that dns registrations are only borderline comparable, but in that
case the CTO can provide a substantiated request to the domain registrar to
have records changed and that happens with relatively minimal fuss and
delay.  

There must be more to the case under discussion than meets the eye.  

Kevin


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Jimmy Hess
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:39 PM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: Jeffrey Lyon; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy
> question)
> 
> On 9/20/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> Number resources are assigned to the organization that own the
> newtork(s) resources are assigned to;  the resources don't belong to
> the authorized POCs,  whether ARIN thinks a person or their "Arin
> Online account" are an authorized contact or not...  that is an
> expediency.
> 
> Contacts have no right to request changes on their organization's
> behalf, and represent that they are authorized,   if  their role
> within the organization no longer exists and  has changed in such a
> manner,  as they would not be authorized to make the change, so in
> theory... there should be little possibility at all whatsoever of a
> "dispute of authorized status",   ARIN should listen to  whatever
> organization  signed the RSA, actually contracted for the resources,
> and can prove that with suitable notarized documents.
> 
> 
> For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
> Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
> administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
> make changes.
> 
> If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
> ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
> address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
> because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
> authorized.....
> 
> 
> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
> organization?
> 
> 
> If not, perhaps the policy in place is  not really adequate....
> 
> 
> >    the changes to the records, and the changes were all made by
> authorized
> >    contacts for the resources and the registry was updated correctly.
> Note
> > also
> >    this matter has not involved a question of judgement by ARIN, but
> simply
> > that
> >    an ARIN Online account for the party holding the resources made the
> > change
> [snip]
> 
> 
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120921/8229a27e/attachment.bin>

From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 11:02:28 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:02:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801233AFC08@MAIL1.polartel.local>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD2801233AFC08@MAIL1.polartel.local>
Message-ID: <B6849107-8321-4C48-AE9A-C7F681F6D8D8@arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:

> I would like to ask what actually needs to happen in the case of an
> organization that fires a disgruntled PoC who tries to stonewall network
> changes and prevent the proper updating of resource records?  It seems a
> little far fetched that this situation would require a court order to
> resolve.  The network owner must have some path to replace a malicious or
> obstructive PoC.  
> 
> I realize that dns registrations are only borderline comparable, but in that
> case the CTO can provide a substantiated request to the domain registrar to
> have records changed and that happens with relatively minimal fuss and
> delay.  

Same process applies... contact ARIN and provide substantiated request
signed by corporate officer.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From bill at herrin.us  Fri Sep 21 12:33:48 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:33:48 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> There isn't actually any tangible risk in my specific scenario, i'm
> just giving ARIN benefit of the doubt. Generally, there is a bigger
> risk of having to name ARIN in a lawsuit just to get them to change a
> record, thereby costing members substantially in legal fees. They
> money they save by not taking a hard line approach could be used in
> part to buy a really awesome liability insurance plan.
>
> Businesses are expected to take certain reasonable, acceptable risks
> in order to serve their customers. ARIN shouldn't be any different.

Hi Jeffrey,

A quick point: you haven't publicly described your scenario in
sufficient detail for anyone to consider and assess whether ARIN's
actions should or shouldn't be any different than they have been. If
you want the rest of us to consider your problem, you should correct
that oversight. If not, this is probably an issue best addressed
privately between the folks who you've chosen to make privy to the
details.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




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


From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 12:51:26 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:51:26 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:33 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> There isn't actually any tangible risk in my specific scenario, i'm
>> just giving ARIN benefit of the doubt. Generally, there is a bigger
>> risk of having to name ARIN in a lawsuit just to get them to change a
>> record, thereby costing members substantially in legal fees. They
>> money they save by not taking a hard line approach could be used in
>> part to buy a really awesome liability insurance plan.
>>
>> Businesses are expected to take certain reasonable, acceptable risks
>> in order to serve their customers. ARIN shouldn't be any different.
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> A quick point: you haven't publicly described your scenario in
> sufficient detail for anyone to consider and assess whether ARIN's
> actions should or shouldn't be any different than they have been. If
> you want the rest of us to consider your problem, you should correct
> that oversight. If not, this is probably an issue best addressed
> privately between the folks who you've chosen to make privy to the
> details.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Bill,

I can't go into a lot of detail about my specific case as there is now
a court filing from what I understand. My bigger goal here is to
compel ARIN to adopt a process similar to UDRP that would allow
resource holder's to enforce their rights without blowing their rainy
day fund on a lawyer.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 13:08:17 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:08:17 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> I can't go into a lot of detail about my specific case as there is now
> a court filing from what I understand. My bigger goal here is to
> compel ARIN to adopt a process similar to UDRP that would allow
> resource holder's to enforce their rights without blowing their rainy
> day fund on a lawyer.

Jeffrey -

Many parties include an arbitration clause in their contracts which 
provides for a similar mechanism (i.e. a hearing with small panel) 
for this reason, and would be worth considering in any contractual 
arrangements in which you want an alternative short of court in dealing
with Internet number resources.  Feel free to review ARIN's RSA and 
LRSA (in section 14.k.ii) for typical language if that would be helpful:

  <https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/index.html>

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 13:16:33 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:16:33 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> I can't go into a lot of detail about my specific case as there is now
>> a court filing from what I understand. My bigger goal here is to
>> compel ARIN to adopt a process similar to UDRP that would allow
>> resource holder's to enforce their rights without blowing their rainy
>> day fund on a lawyer.
>
> Jeffrey -
>
> Many parties include an arbitration clause in their contracts which
> provides for a similar mechanism (i.e. a hearing with small panel)
> for this reason, and would be worth considering in any contractual
> arrangements in which you want an alternative short of court in dealing
> with Internet number resources.  Feel free to review ARIN's RSA and
> LRSA (in section 14.k.ii) for typical language if that would be helpful:
>
>   <https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/index.html>
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>

John,

Arbitration does not compel ARIN to move resources, so the entire
issue is forced into the courts. From there, we all pay substantial
legal fees. It's a lose-lose situation.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 13:28:01 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:01 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C002271-02A5-410E-B29B-F87BED910D39@arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> John,
> 
> Arbitration does not compel ARIN to move resources, so the entire
> issue is forced into the courts. From there, we all pay substantial
> legal fees. It's a lose-lose situation.

Jeffrey - 
 
  If you get to an arbitrated settlement with the resource holder
  to approve the transfer of their resources to you (in accordance
  with NRPM 8.2 or 8.3), then ARIN would be able to process the
  transfer request. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 13:34:03 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:34:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <4C002271-02A5-410E-B29B-F87BED910D39@arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C002271-02A5-410E-B29B-F87BED910D39@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8dU81f__maSsFfnZmvHA7wAQJ0tGy=nrEHJWt6EmT91+w@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> Arbitration does not compel ARIN to move resources, so the entire
>> issue is forced into the courts. From there, we all pay substantial
>> legal fees. It's a lose-lose situation.
>
> Jeffrey -
>
>   If you get to an arbitrated settlement with the resource holder
>   to approve the transfer of their resources to you (in accordance
>   with NRPM 8.2 or 8.3), then ARIN would be able to process the
>   transfer request.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>

You said "court order," so we already wasted the money pursuing a "court order."

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 13:42:12 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:42:12 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8dU81f__maSsFfnZmvHA7wAQJ0tGy=nrEHJWt6EmT91+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C002271-02A5-410E-B29B-F87BED910D39@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dU81f__maSsFfnZmvHA7wAQJ0tGy=nrEHJWt6EmT91+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0EA0E7C4-8267-4929-9B6E-513B45CF5EF9@arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:

> You said "court order," so we already wasted the money pursuing a "court order."

Jeffrey - 

  You have a dispute with a resource holder regarding whether they 
  intended to transfer resources to you. You may settle that in any
  manner you desire.  If they approve the a transfer request per 
  NRPM 8.2, we will perform the transfer.  If they will not approve 
  the transfer, you may have to seek a court order to have them do so.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From farmer at umn.edu  Fri Sep 21 16:15:40 2012
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:15:40 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <0EA0E7C4-8267-4929-9B6E-513B45CF5EF9@arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C002271-02A5-410E-B29B-F87BED910D39@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dU81f__maSsFfnZmvHA7wAQJ0tGy=nrEHJWt6EmT91+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EA0E7C4-8267-4929-9B6E-513B45CF5EF9@arin.net>
Message-ID: <505CCAEC.8080405@umn.edu>


On 9/21/12 12:42 CDT, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>
>> You said "court order," so we already wasted the money pursuing a "court order."
>
> Jeffrey -
>
>    You have a dispute with a resource holder regarding whether they
>    intended to transfer resources to you. You may settle that in any
>    manner you desire.  If they approve the a transfer request per
>    NRPM 8.2, we will perform the transfer.  If they will not approve
>    the transfer, you may have to seek a court order to have them do so.

John,

I'm not familiar with all of the gory details of arbitration, so one 
question;

Would ARIN accept the ruling of an administrative law judge or other 
arbitrator agreed to by both parties, even if the other party didn't 
agree, or would someone have to get an actual court order enforcing the 
arbitrators ruling?

One would hope, once going through arbitration the other party would be 
reasonable and agree.  However, reasonableness is sometime in the eye of 
the beholder. :)

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================


From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Sep 21 16:28:36 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:28:36 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Contacts have no right to request changes on their organization's
> behalf, and represent that they are authorized,   if  their role
> within the organization no longer exists and  has changed in such a
> manner,  as they would not be authorized to make the change, so in
> theory... there should be little possibility at all whatsoever of a
> "dispute of authorized status",   ARIN should listen to  whatever
> organization  signed the RSA, actually contracted for the resources,
> and can prove that with suitable notarized documents.
?.
> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
> organization?
> 
> If not, perhaps the policy in place is  not really adequate....


This is exactly the same situation which can happen with a house title. Houses have been sold right out from under their owners by exactly the means you listed here in this message. It is not the fault of the city which records the title change based on proper documentation given to them.

For people in this situation to recover their house, they need to open a court case and submit documentation proving that they own their house and they they did not sell it, and that the person who did sell it was not authorized to do so, etc etc.  There is well established legal precedence for this.

There is also a market where one can sue the title insurance company who was supposed to do investigation to clear the title. But nobody can sue the county who records the title change--they accept paperwork, they process paperwork which is properly submitted

Like the county which records the title change, and provides listing of titles and owners, I do not believe that ARIN is responsible for title insurance. I believe that people who fail to update their contacts appropriately cause the failure, and I would like to see ARIN charge the requestor for the effort required to resolve failures due to their own documentation issues.

John, would ARIN require policy to be written to allow ARIN to charge fees for research and resolution of matters which are due to incomplete or out of date contact information?

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120921/026c1cea/attachment.htm>

From jrhett at netconsonance.com  Fri Sep 21 16:37:28 2012
From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:37:28 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B3B61DFB-F50A-4D45-A429-9E1D7BCDDA55@netconsonance.com>

On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
> can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
> 6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
> *serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
> is the nature of business.


I believe that you have somewhere between one and three problems:

1. Your lawyer is overcharging you.

2. Your lawyer in incompetent in these kind of proceedings.

3. Your situation is not as simply as you are making it out to be.

I have personally dealt with the law when an IP block was stolen from a company. The total legal fees were less than $500 to get an injunction against the other company, the total time I spent as a consultant for the company was 12 hours including getting the legal paperwork to be accepted by all the relevant providers and technical work to get the IPs routing again (and technical work to get the service live on alternate IPs during the outage).  That's still less than $5k total fees to the company in question, and I charged them a hefty hourly rate because of the emergency/unscheduled nature of the work.

Anyway, to get back on topic: I believe that you are annoyed that you cannot get ARIN to step in and play judge and jury for your case, when the legal system is not working for you. I believe that ARIN would be out of line to do so, given that the legal system could simply overrule ARIN and at that point ask ARIN to pay damages to the injured party.

You know the way to solve this. That you cannot get this done very quickly indicates that your situation is more complex than you are indicating here. I don't believe that this is a matter for ARIN policy debate, and I am personally asking you to take this off the PPML list.

personally == having zero authority beyond my ability to type on a keyboard

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120921/2068a4a9/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 21 16:39:16 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:39:16 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <505CCAEC.8080405@umn.edu>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BE7C2.6050502@umn.edu>
	<CACrmG8ft5hr6vKBO3VpfTB7kJHoJV6NbHULNWxJsQ-H28Ak_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-guGWgAsf_qpyzfYFdL5N4MdqT-FyK-61gkezGSRgf_HDuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8c0LKd0LCjG+vu17fo2rj0dG-vnct2fW8uXr2uoMpQysw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC2B7DC-05B1-4232-8954-78FCB7CE06D9@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8e+_Juwqy-KeGTauRKH9xOh027MuvMgr7XSrT8qc3sk7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C002271-02A5-410E-B29B-F87BED910D39@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dU81f__maSsFfnZmvHA7wAQJ0tGy=nrEHJWt6EmT91+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EA0E7C4-8267-4929-9B6E-513B45CF5EF9@arin.net>,
	<505CCAEC.8080405@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <86D80E28-FABE-44E5-B96D-FF24BCE12522@corp.arin.net>

David -

Recognize that the goal of arbitration is generally to bring the
parties to a jointly acknowledged outcome.  When that isn't 
present, whether the outcome is still meaningful or not can 
hinge on how arbitration was convened (binding arbitration 
per contract, court-ordered, etc.), venue, and the terms/conditions 
agreed at the start.

Very hard to answer in the abstract - sorry...

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:18 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> ...
> John,
> 
> I'm not familiar with all of the gory details of arbitration, so one question;
> 
> Would ARIN accept the ruling of an administrative law judge or other arbitrator agreed to by both parties, even if the other party didn't agree, or would someone have to get an actual court order enforcing the arbitrators ruling?
> 
> One would hope, once going through arbitration the other party would be reasonable and agree.  However, reasonableness is sometime in the eye of the beholder. :)
> 
> Thanks
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota    
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================


From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Fri Sep 21 16:56:47 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:56:47 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <52445.1348261007@tristatelogic.com>


In message <B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3 at sonn.com>, 
Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, if an organization fires their employee who is also their
>> Administrative POC, but ARIN is not informed.    The former
>> administrative POC is no longer authorized within the organization to
>> make changes.
>> 
>> If that person,  still listed as a POC for the resource, comes to
>> ARIN,   and requests unauthorized changes,  such as a change of
>> address,  or deletion of  other contacts, and they are executed,
>> because ARIN was never informed that the contact is no longer
>> authorized.....
>> 
>> 
>> Will ARIN revert those changes, and replace the Admin POC with the new
>> one,  when provided a suitable attestation by the officers of the
>> organization?
>
>If said employee was to do that they would probably be in violation of quite a
>few laws...

I am not a lawyer, but actually, I suspect that only one ``law'' is being
violated in this and other such similar cases, i.e. common law fraud.

And this brings the discussion back around full circle to my original
question, which was about whether or not ARIN routinely makes referrals
to law enforcement when it notices cases that seem, rather unambiguously,
to involve blatant fraud.

John C. has affirmed that such a policy is in place, and I, for one, certainly 
hope that ARIN does make such referrals.

Over time, I have seen many many cases of fraud, perpetrated against ARIN,
and thus, by implication, against all of us, the entire Internet community.
Whereas, as some here have suggested, it might perhaps be possible to make
some adjustments, here and there, in ARIN procedures to make this sort of
thing either less easy or less likely, I don't think that we or ARIN could
ever devise any system that would absolutely prevent all such possibilities...
not without those policies & procedures turning into a straightjacket for
all of the legitimate users of ARIN's services that is.

And this is why I believe that it is vitally important that ARIN should be
vigorous in seeking the active participation of law enforcement (and/or the
courts, e.g. with private civil suits) in all cases where ARIN has been
intentionally subjected to fraud.  To allow any one of these instances to
go entirely unpunished is to encourage the NEXT fraud against ARIN, and the
next one after that, and so on.

Unfortunately, I am not personally aware of any malefactor who is currently
serving time for having perpetrated a fraud against ARIN.  This is true
despite the fact that I am quite completely sure that there are a number
of entirely worthy candidates out there.

Any crime, without consequences, will be repeated, ad infinitum.


Regards,
rfg


From bill at herrin.us  Fri Sep 21 19:29:10 2012
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:29:10 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> This is exactly the same situation which can happen with a house title.
> Houses have been sold right out from under their owners by exactly the means
> you listed here in this message. It is not the fault of the city which
> records the title change based on proper documentation given to them.
>
> For people in this situation to recover their house, they need to open a
> court case and submit documentation proving that they own their house and
> they they did not sell it, and that the person who did sell it was not
> authorized to do so, etc etc.  There is well established legal precedence
> for this.

Hi Jo,

You missed a step.

At the point where title changes hands, the legitimate owners are
*still in possession* of the house. To do anything with the house,
anything at all, the fraudulent title holder must initiate eviction
proceedings against the owner. The owner keeps possession until and
unless those proceedings complete in the fraudster's favor. Which they
generally don't. The actual fraudster is long gone and the otherwise
honest folks who thought they bought a house are left holding the bag.

Sucks for both of them and correcting the paper title can get
expensive but the legitimate owner is rarely deprived of the use of
the house in the mean time. The old saw is that "possession is nine
tenths of the law."

ARIN, on the other hand, has gone to great contractual lengths to
assure that the paper, the title, the registration *is* the item
possessed. "IP addresses are not property" as they like to say. Upon
change of registration, the new registrant possesses the addresses,
can change the RDNS, can alter the RPKI records and can have the
routes announced without immediate recourse.

So if centuries of jurisprudence on houses has built this onerous,
multi-level barrier to fraudulent dispossession, what's ARIN's level
of diligence for the often more valuable address blocks?


> There is also a market where one can sue the title insurance company who was
> supposed to do investigation to clear the title. But nobody can sue the
> county who records the title change--they accept paperwork, they process
> paperwork which is properly submitted

That's because as a government, the county has sovereign immunity.
ARIN is not a government and no government reviews and approves ARIN
procedure.



On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
<jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> I can't go into a lot of detail about my specific case as there is now
> a court filing from what I understand. My bigger goal here is to
> compel ARIN to adopt a process similar to UDRP that would allow
> resource holder's to enforce their rights without blowing their rainy
> day fund on a lawyer.

Hi Jeffrey,

Reports of injustice at the hands of ICANN's UDRP are legion, and
that's where there's an intrinsic relationship between the disputed
resource and the folks alleging rights to it: that name is my name -
on and off the Internet.

I would far prefer for ARIN to insist that disputes be settle in court
as they do now. IMO, binding arbitration ought to be a crime anywhere
that one of the parties to it lacked genuine choice about
participating. It short circuits due process. Due process is expensive
so when both parties to a dispute want to short circuit it, that's
fine. But when its part of shrink wrap licenses and contracts of
adhesion I have a real problem with it.

Getting off that tangent, my major concern in this discussion is that
while proceedings are ongoing, ARIN should act in the manner least
likely to cause irreparable damage to the eventual victor. Where the
dispute arose over a change to a record, the least damaging course of
action is likely to be reverting that record to a state for which no
timely challenge has been offered.

Where a dispute arises because a record does not change, I have to
think it is exactly correct for ARIN to insist on waiting for a court
order before making any changes.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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


From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Fri Sep 21 19:48:09 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:48:09 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy question
In-Reply-To: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
Message-ID: <53618.1348271289@tristatelogic.com>


Two days ago (9/19)
In message <26463.1348088490 at tristatelogic.com>, I wrote:

>Is this statement of policy still active and in effect?
>
>   https://www.arin.net/announcements/2003/20031014.html
>
>I am particularly curious about the policy specified in the final sentence.

Just FYI for everybody here... That was not just an idle question.

I wanted to do some more research before outting this one, but it seems
that the boys & girls at Spamhaus decided to steal my thunder. :-(

Apparently, they went public about the 147.50.0.0/16 block just yesterday:

   http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings/arin

This block was being routed, continuously, by AS23141 ever since sometime
between 2011-12-23 00:00 GMT and 2011-12-23 02:00 GMT, as far as I can tell,
and presumably right up until Spamhaus outted it yesterday.

This hijack was extra-ordinarilly clever, in at least two ways.

First, the perp(s) in this case somehow managed to find a /16 which not
only had been abandoned (and presumably forgotten about) by it's original
owners, but also where the original POC who was previously listed for
the origanization that owned the block (... sorry... that had ``registered''
the block) was in no position to contradict or dispute ownership of the block:

   http://www.redmonfuneralhome.com/tim-tausch

<digression>
A relevant quote from the classic film noir "Chinatown":

     "He passed away two weeks ago and one week ago he bought the land.
      That's unusual."
                        -- Jake Gittes
</digression>

Second, as noted above, routing for the hijacked /16 was first established
on the Thursday just before Christmas weekend, 2011... a wonderful time of
year when pretty much everybody is NOT paying all that much attention to
anything other than last minute gift shopping and how to get little Johnny
to get a haircut before the in-laws arrive.

Other than these artful touches, the hijack was accomplished the usual way.
The rightful owner is named "Chemstress Consulting" and it owns and operates
the domain named "chemstress.com".  The original POC record never actualy
had an e-mail address associated with it, so the perp(s) simply registed
the new domain name "chemstressconsulting.com" (on or about 2011-08-19)
and then waited patiently until 12-12-2011, when they tricked ARIN into
using their newly manufactured POC contact e-mail address of
"ttausch at chemstressconsulting.com" as the new POC contact e-mail address.

After that, they waited until it was practically Christmas eve before
administering the coup de gras, i.e. actually getting routing for the block,
which the perp(s) obtained from AS23141, Doylestown Communications Inc, aka
"ohio.net", which itself, and previous to this incident, only had slightly
over a /18 to call it's own.  (So routing a entire new /16 must have been
a pretty big deal for them.  Probably not something they did accidentally
or without thinking.)

As usual, I only found this hijack because I had found some other suspicious
and obviously spammy stuff that traced, ultimately, back to that block.  Yes,
this hijacked block _was_ most definitely being used for snowshoe spamming.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  This case represents blatant, two fisted fraud against both ARIN and
the entire Internet community.  I would like to see someone go to jail for
this.  And it would clearly NOT be at all hard to find the actual guilty
party in this case.  As Deepthroat famously said "Follow the money."  This
perp left a trail a mile wide.  If it were me, I would:

      1)  Send a subpona duces tecum to Doylestown Communications, demanding
          production of all documents in their possession relating to the
          customer for whom they were announcing the 147.50.0.0/16 route
          (which they did, continuously, for a period of nearly 9 months).

      2)  Send a subpona duces tecum to Enom, demanding production of all
          documents in their possession relating to the customer for whom
          they registered the domain name "chemstressconsulting.com" on
          2011-08-19.

If law enforcement proved unwilling to take these simple steps, I think
that it would involve minimal expense for ARIN to file a "John Doe" civil
case and pursue these steps on its own.

Note that just because one _opens_ a civil case and sends out subpoenas in
relation to that, that _does not_ commit one to following through all of
the way to trial.  That is entirely optional for the plantiff, and the
plaintiff can quit the case at any time.  In short, there is no need for
ARIN to spend a lot of resources on this.  Just getting to the point where
the perp can be publically outted and shamed would, I think serve the cause
of justice far more than if ARIN just sat back and let this kind of thing
be perpetrated against them, over and over and over again.  (And obviously,
it is really up to ARIN if it wants to DO anything about these kinds of
frauds.  IP and ASN hijackings have occured in spades over the past few
years, and yet there has never been a single criminal action brought
against any of the perps, ever.  Translation:  LE doesn't give a rat's
ass about this stuff.  Thus, the ball is clearly in ARIN's court.)


From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net  Fri Sep 21 19:53:46 2012
From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:53:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> This is exactly the same situation which can happen with a house title.
>> Houses have been sold right out from under their owners by exactly the means
>> you listed here in this message. It is not the fault of the city which
>> records the title change based on proper documentation given to them.
>>
>> For people in this situation to recover their house, they need to open a
>> court case and submit documentation proving that they own their house and
>> they they did not sell it, and that the person who did sell it was not
>> authorized to do so, etc etc.  There is well established legal precedence
>> for this.
>
> Hi Jo,
>
> You missed a step.
>
> At the point where title changes hands, the legitimate owners are
> *still in possession* of the house. To do anything with the house,
> anything at all, the fraudulent title holder must initiate eviction
> proceedings against the owner. The owner keeps possession until and
> unless those proceedings complete in the fraudster's favor. Which they
> generally don't. The actual fraudster is long gone and the otherwise
> honest folks who thought they bought a house are left holding the bag.
>
> Sucks for both of them and correcting the paper title can get
> expensive but the legitimate owner is rarely deprived of the use of
> the house in the mean time. The old saw is that "possession is nine
> tenths of the law."
>
> ARIN, on the other hand, has gone to great contractual lengths to
> assure that the paper, the title, the registration *is* the item
> possessed. "IP addresses are not property" as they like to say. Upon
> change of registration, the new registrant possesses the addresses,
> can change the RDNS, can alter the RPKI records and can have the
> routes announced without immediate recourse.
>
> So if centuries of jurisprudence on houses has built this onerous,
> multi-level barrier to fraudulent dispossession, what's ARIN's level
> of diligence for the often more valuable address blocks?
>
>
>> There is also a market where one can sue the title insurance company who was
>> supposed to do investigation to clear the title. But nobody can sue the
>> county who records the title change--they accept paperwork, they process
>> paperwork which is properly submitted
>
> That's because as a government, the county has sovereign immunity.
> ARIN is not a government and no government reviews and approves ARIN
> procedure.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> I can't go into a lot of detail about my specific case as there is now
>> a court filing from what I understand. My bigger goal here is to
>> compel ARIN to adopt a process similar to UDRP that would allow
>> resource holder's to enforce their rights without blowing their rainy
>> day fund on a lawyer.
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> Reports of injustice at the hands of ICANN's UDRP are legion, and
> that's where there's an intrinsic relationship between the disputed
> resource and the folks alleging rights to it: that name is my name -
> on and off the Internet.
>
> I would far prefer for ARIN to insist that disputes be settle in court
> as they do now. IMO, binding arbitration ought to be a crime anywhere
> that one of the parties to it lacked genuine choice about
> participating. It short circuits due process. Due process is expensive
> so when both parties to a dispute want to short circuit it, that's
> fine. But when its part of shrink wrap licenses and contracts of
> adhesion I have a real problem with it.
>
> Getting off that tangent, my major concern in this discussion is that
> while proceedings are ongoing, ARIN should act in the manner least
> likely to cause irreparable damage to the eventual victor. Where the
> dispute arose over a change to a record, the least damaging course of
> action is likely to be reverting that record to a state for which no
> timely challenge has been offered.
>
> Where a dispute arises because a record does not change, I have to
> think it is exactly correct for ARIN to insist on waiting for a court
> order before making any changes.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

William,

I would agree with you on almost every point you made. My major beef
is that the other party does not own a network. We own the network,
we're using the space, and we're the ones justifying it. With that
said, we also keep routing it whether the other party likes it or not.
It would be very easy for ARIN to revoke the space from the
non-qualified holder and reissue it to the company who is already
justifying its use.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net


From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Sep 22 07:54:25 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:54:25 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29D4439D-B65A-4752-B3B0-4A86B0ABDCD8@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 21, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
> 
> William,
> 
> I would agree with you on almost every point you made. My major beef
> is that the other party does not own a network. We own the network,
> we're using the space, and we're the ones justifying it. With that
> said, we also keep routing it whether the other party likes it or not.
> It would be very easy for ARIN to revoke the space from the
> non-qualified holder and reissue it to the company who is already
> justifying its use.

Jeffrey - 
 
  It is possible that ARIN could reclaim an address block which is
  apparently unused by the registered address holder, but to do so
  when the registered address holder point-of-contact is responsive
  and indicates otherwise would require some very clear direction from 
  this community in terms of policy.  The community has not discussed
  preemption-via-use as a concept, and ARIN lacks policy guidance to
  act as you suggest.  One would imagine that it truly underutilized
  resources would end up transferred with parties with appropriate need,
  but if some form of preemption through cybersquatting policy were to be 
  adopted by the community, the ARIN staff would implement faithfully.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From mysidia at gmail.com  Sat Sep 22 15:58:02 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:58:02 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <29D4439D-B65A-4752-B3B0-4A86B0ABDCD8@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<29D4439D-B65A-4752-B3B0-4A86B0ABDCD8@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbW6y6vU50XV0j-D5-0safDL9UfyO6=eS_8PXsTeJHqd3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/22/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Jeffrey -
>   It is possible that ARIN could reclaim an address block which is
>   apparently unused by the registered address holder, but to do so

Doesn't the RSA say ARIN will not revoke solely for lack of use....?
I don't see that it matters if the contact is responsive or not in that case.

Now I could see "non-use AND fraudulent application", as a reason to
revoke, that would be provided by current policy --  if an applicant
for new address space misrepresented themself as identity of the
End-user organization that operates the network that address space is
being applied for  (with the intent that they could "take away
addresses"; if the person responsible for applying were fired as a
contracter or consultant for the principal that owns the network).

In other words, they want to act as an LIR, but submitted an End-user
assignment request,
using false organization name.


ARIN /could/  revoke in that case,  but are you sure you would want that?
There's no policy that allows revoked resources to be forcibly
assigned to the new user of those resources.

Nor is there a way for the user to /apply/  for resources they are
using, but are not assigned to anyone due to revokation from the
previous registrant who wasn't
actually using them.  Perhaps there should be  a procedure to request a specific
IP block in an application, from ARIN....

With a stipulation, that exact block and size was previously an allocated block,
or ARIN provides a "list"  of blocks available for such requests,
based  on the prefix sizes that are allocated from certain blocks.

E.g. Certain IP ranges would only be available for request from  /20
applicants,
certain IP ranges would only be available for requests from /22
applicants, etc,
as  needed to ensure that requests don't result in an introduction of
inefficiency.


> Thanks!
> /John
--
-JH


From tedm at ipinc.net  Sat Sep 22 16:20:07 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:20:07 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505E1D77.6010305@ipinc.net>


On 9/21/2012 4:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

>
> I would agree with you on almost every point you made. My major beef
> is that the other party does not own a network. We own the network,
> we're using the space, and we're the ones justifying it.

Wrong.  You do not "own" the network.

What you fail to understand is that ARIN doesn't even "own" the IP 
network.  Nobody "owns" the network.

Basically what is going on here is the following:

1) The majority of networks and ISPs have agreed to respect the 
authority of the RIR system to define IP address assignments.

2) your unable to establish an agreement with a member of that system -
ARIN - for them to agree that you are assigned to those numbers

> With that
> said, we also keep routing it whether the other party likes it or not.

3) Your upstreams have also decided in your case to not respect the
authority of the RIR system to define IP address assignments in your
specific case.  Maybe they know something that we do not.


Personally,
I have been in this situation - I have had a customer who wasn't
disputing ARIN but was disputing with someone else, who I continued
to keep routing going for them.  I knew the situation and had to make
a decision on it.  But I will tell you that the three things that tipped
the balance for me to defy the RIR assignment was that first, the
customer had a history with those numbers, second, my customer agreed
the other org owned the assignment but he didn't get enough time to
complete the move, and last he agreed to vacate by a deadline.  But
my customer certainly didn't go running to PPML complaining that ARIN
make an exception for him.  No, he did what everyone else does in this
situation, he renumbered.  And in my case I used my own trust network,
because MY upstreams were also being pressured to block the routing too 
- and because they had a long trust relationship with me, they trusted
that I understood the situation better, and they sided with me and 
didn't do it.

> It would be very easy for ARIN to revoke the space from the
> non-qualified holder and reissue it to the company who is already
> justifying its use.
>

Yes, it would be very easy for ARIN to change it's paperwork.  But
you have to understand something here.

The authority of the RIR system rests on one single thing.

Trust.

As an ISP admin I trust that ARIN and every other RIR in the network
will follow their own policies and procedures.

There are no contractual obligations here.  Yes, ARIN and I have a
contract for my IP assignment space.

But that contract does not guarantee that I can hold ARIN responsible
if Google over there decides to collude with some other RIR elsewhere
and get that RIR to assign space to them not belonging to them.

If an RIR like ARIN were to make an arbitrary decision in your case that 
was not based on their published policy -
even if you could bring convincing documentation to them that you are
supposed to be assigned to that space - particularly if that decision is
based on evidence that you capriciously decide to keep sealed from
public view - then every other RIR and ISP on the Internet can then no
longer trust that ARIN will follow it's policies and procedures.

The entire system then breaks down.

Sure, there's some leeway to bend the rules.  If for example you got the 
rug pulled out of your numbering and weren't given a reasonable time
to renumber, then at times at the ISP level, you may be able to bend the
rules for a certain period of time.  But not at the RIR level.

If the RIR system goes then the only thing that could then replace it is 
the sort of thing that we have that governs radio spectrum allocations 
in the world - that is, a gigantic network of highly expensive contracts 
that exist between the
world's governments and the major spectrum users, all governed by the
United Nations.

If such a thing were to come to pass on the Internet I can pretty much
guarantee that you, Jeffrey, could not possibly afford to participate
as an ISP any longer.  In fact likely just about all of us could not.

Is that the kind of Internet you want?

Keep in mind that there are a LOT of stakeholders with huge sums of 
money to gain who are currently pressuring the United Nations to impose
this kind of regime on Internet IP numbering assignments.  That's why
ARIN joined the ITU, to stave off that pressure.

China for example would love it if all ISPs in the world were
government-owned.  They could then use their government-owned ISP to
pressure the other governments to give up all kinds of information on
Chinese dissidents living abroad.

I ask again, is that the kind of Internet you want?

There are much larger things here at stake than your piddly little
dispute that your trying to drag ARIN into.  The rest of us understand
this and we are trying to politely tell you that your not important
enough for ARIN to initiate actions that could result in wrecking the
RIR system.  Sorry it's not sinking in and I had to get nasty.


Ted Mittelstaedt
NOC Director, Internet Partners, Inc.




From tedm at ipinc.net  Sat Sep 22 16:32:10 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:32:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbW6y6vU50XV0j-D5-0safDL9UfyO6=eS_8PXsTeJHqd3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<29D4439D-B65A-4752-B3B0-4A86B0ABDCD8@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbW6y6vU50XV0j-D5-0safDL9UfyO6=eS_8PXsTeJHqd3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505E204A.6060303@ipinc.net>

On 9/22/2012 12:58 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 9/22/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Jeffrey -
>>    It is possible that ARIN could reclaim an address block which is
>>    apparently unused by the registered address holder, but to do so
>
> Doesn't the RSA say ARIN will not revoke solely for lack of use....?
> I don't see that it matters if the contact is responsive or not in that case.
>

The RSA states the org must define a POC.  A bogus POC doesn't meet the
definition of a POC.  The policy manual also states that nonresponsive
POCs can be defined as such by ARIN and they have a procedure to do this 
and are in fact doing it.  That of course, affects the orgs ability to 
obtain additional IP numbering even if that is obtained via transfer.

So yes, it does matter.  As a practical matter of course, for a regular
RSA the assigned org must respond annually to pay the bill.  if they do
not, the RSA is broken and the resources are then released.

> Now I could see "non-use AND fraudulent application", as a reason to
> revoke, that would be provided by current policy --  if an applicant
> for new address space misrepresented themself as identity of the
> End-user organization that operates the network that address space is
> being applied for  (with the intent that they could "take away
> addresses"; if the person responsible for applying were fired as a
> contracter or consultant for the principal that owns the network).
>
> In other words, they want to act as an LIR, but submitted an End-user
> assignment request,
> using false organization name.
>
>
> ARIN /could/  revoke in that case,  but are you sure you would want that?
> There's no policy that allows revoked resources to be forcibly
> assigned to the new user of those resources.
>
> Nor is there a way for the user to /apply/  for resources they are
> using, but are not assigned to anyone due to revokation from the
> previous registrant who wasn't
> actually using them.  Perhaps there should be  a procedure to request a specific
> IP block in an application, from ARIN....
>
> With a stipulation, that exact block and size was previously an allocated block,
> or ARIN provides a "list"  of blocks available for such requests,
> based  on the prefix sizes that are allocated from certain blocks.
>
> E.g. Certain IP ranges would only be available for request from  /20
> applicants,
> certain IP ranges would only be available for requests from /22
> applicants, etc,
> as  needed to ensure that requests don't result in an introduction of
> inefficiency.
>

the ARIN hostmaster is able to help in these situations without the need 
for formalizing it in policy, and has done so in the past.

Ted

>
>> Thanks!
>> /John
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



From mysidia at gmail.com  Sat Sep 22 17:12:38 2012
From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:12:38 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <505E1D77.6010305@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<505E1D77.6010305@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAAAwwbU2-reu-gN9ryCykKZGaV7rbufoBZsOZOqPhL6jQzMTxA@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/22/12, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> Wrong.  You do not "own" the network.
> What you fail to understand is that ARIN doesn't even "own" the IP
> network.  Nobody "owns" the network.

Networks that communicate using the IP protocol DO have owners.

Nobody "owns" the IP addresses that are assigned to networks, but
there are standards by which networks are assigned addressing; someone
owns the equipment, hosts, and services their network provides;  an
assignment of number resources alone does not make a network.



Anyways, Jeffrey Lyon's  circumstances are obviously more complicated
than he has let on in explaining to PPML,  otherwise, it seems clear
ARIN would have handled the situation.     It  wouldn't be fair for
the community to have an opinion on his circumstances,
without a complete explanation  of the situation that both adversarial
parties could agree is complete -- and we hear only one side.


Nothing conclusive or reliable has been shown, IMO, to indicate ARIN's
response is unreasonable, or that they are creating an unnecessary
burden.

Obviously, some disputes will have to be resolved by the courts, or
settlements that both parties agreed to through arbitration, or
whatever other means,  and ARIN is best served by not passing
judgement, especially when there are complicated situations, that
there isn't a response ARIN can rely on 100% as being correct under
current policy...

--
-JH


From tedm at ipinc.net  Sat Sep 22 21:10:25 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:10:25 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbU2-reu-gN9ryCykKZGaV7rbufoBZsOZOqPhL6jQzMTxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB1C6285-FEC1-4E71-A59B-E7A260707A55@netconsonance.com>
	<CAP-guGVZqbG_JVkhD909pt31kH6uAJNQ9xOJzG0HMup1RtF3MA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8fd=Hgi9k5X9Bo0yPbUoqphDz+PaLgn-UbkzucJ0=ghkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<505E1D77.6010305@ipinc.net>
	<CAAAwwbU2-reu-gN9ryCykKZGaV7rbufoBZsOZOqPhL6jQzMTxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505E6181.8010108@ipinc.net>

On 9/22/2012 2:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 9/22/12, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>> Wrong.  You do not "own" the network.
>> What you fail to understand is that ARIN doesn't even "own" the IP
>> network.  Nobody "owns" the network.
>
> Networks that communicate using the IP protocol DO have owners.
>

Silly boy, in the context he was posting he was clearly writing about 
the IP assignments, not the physical network.

Maybe next time I write a contract I'll hire you to read the fine
print, that was a great hairsplitting example, it nearly made me
laugh hard enough to snort milk out my nose.

> Nobody "owns" the IP addresses that are assigned to networks, but
> there are standards by which networks are assigned addressing; someone
> owns the equipment, hosts, and services their network provides;  an
> assignment of number resources alone does not make a network.
>
>
>
> Anyways, Jeffrey Lyon's  circumstances are obviously more complicated
> than he has let on in explaining to PPML,  otherwise, it seems clear
> ARIN would have handled the situation.     It  wouldn't be fair for
> the community to have an opinion on his circumstances,
> without a complete explanation  of the situation that both adversarial
> parties could agree is complete -- and we hear only one side.
>

That is true but until such time as he posts the facts, the community is
entitled to treat his posts as a -hypothetical- example, just as most
of the contrived scenarios that people have fun posting about here are.


Ted

>
> Nothing conclusive or reliable has been shown, IMO, to indicate ARIN's
> response is unreasonable, or that they are creating an unnecessary
> burden.
>
> Obviously, some disputes will have to be resolved by the courts, or
> settlements that both parties agreed to through arbitration, or
> whatever other means,  and ARIN is best served by not passing
> judgement, especially when there are complicated situations, that
> there isn't a response ARIN can rely on 100% as being correct under
> current policy...
>
> --
> -JH
>



From owen at delong.com  Sun Sep 23 04:18:52 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:18:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXxATnmQbF+aU79hX=-iPYhFkAwopmZz=i-JiX5cney0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D4F5595-60D2-41B0-A2A3-24598DA8B429@delong.com>
	<CAAAwwbXxATnmQbF+aU79hX=-iPYhFkAwopmZz=i-JiX5cney0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86D812A2-C299-440F-8E0D-BBD3C654F3EC@delong.com>


On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:13 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/20/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> If the officers are not listed POCs, how does ARIN validate that they
>> are, in fact, officers? How is the situation you describe above
>> distinguishable
> 
> In most places, corporations have a registration requirement, and the names
> of a corporation's officers, such as CEO, and legal agent are often part of the
> registration  papers and filings which are a public record,  so ARIN can check
> them independently, or rather, require a certified copy....
> 

ARIN deals with a lot of organizations that are not corporations.

Also, what you describe above generally applies only to certain types of corporations.
There are many types of corporations for which that data is not necessarily so public.

> ARIN can also lookup the  signed RSA that the resources were issued
> under, and check who actually signed it...

Not at all unlikely in many such cases that it was the terminated employee.
I've certainly signed plenty of ARIN RSAs as an authorized agent of several
organizations where I was not an officer or an employee in the past. Since
they started requiring officer attestation for resources, I usually get said officer
to sign the RSA now, but I don't know that everyone does so.

> 
> Unless  there was something very unusual such as two organizations
> claiming the same identity,  the truly  unauthorized POC  should have
> very little chance of being able to furnish  the same....
> 

You would think so, but I've seen multiple instances where the management
team knew virtually nothing about how the company got its address space
and the documentation virtually all favored the rogue former administrator.

No, it's not the most common case, but, it happens often enough that I understand
and respect ARIN's inability to know for sure whether or not that is what is
happening and thus requiring people who can't meet that burden of proof
to instead seek adjudication.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Sun Sep 23 04:23:08 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:23:08 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00F3E470-543F-492B-B168-5EFE0D8B7637@delong.com>


On Sep 20, 2012, at 21:14 , Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:10 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:33 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> My biggest gripe is that rather than having a process in which ARIN
>>> can investigate and media these issues, they insist that I spend 5 to
>>> 6 figures dragging the situation through the courts. ARIN should be
>>> *serving* its members. Yes, some liability could become involved. This
>>> is the nature of business.
>> 
>> Jeffrey -
>> 
>>  There is an such a process and you did engage it, but ARIN is unable
>>  help in these particular circumstances.  The resources in question
>>  cannot be changed from their original registrant contrary to their
>>  wishes, although ARIN will respect any finding or judgement in this
>>  matter from a more appropriate legal venue (as it is not ARIN's role
>>  to adjudicate contractual disputes between parties.)
>> 
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> John,
> 
> The original registrant in this case does not operate a network and
> has no authority to maintain or route space according to ARIN's own
> policies. It is unconscionable that I be expected to prove this in a
> court.

Then how did they get the resources?

Certainly, if that is the case, you may well have made a case for ARIN to revoke
the resources for fraud, but you still haven't made a case for ARIN to grant the
resources to you outside of the original organization agreeing to a directed
transfer under section 8.3 of the NRPM or if you can provide documentation
of a merger or acquisition of the network operations that meets the burdens
of section 8.2.

Obviously I haven't seen what you submitted to ARIN, but it seems that the
actual resource holder is telling ARIN that they did not transfer the space
to you and do not want the records modified. Apparently whatever you have
submitted does not provide sufficient evidence to counter that claim as to
make it possible for ARIN to transfer the resources on your say-so alone.

To me, this seems like a reasonable protection of the registered resource
holder.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Sun Sep 23 04:31:21 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:31:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)
In-Reply-To: <505C0323.7060104@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK__KzuMRxdAb3TaPV6zEddS5P9hd5rRfs5jUb_BqFE5s-KfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACrmG8ejucqE5db=ZHdvxmTUK2YGbi34dpm37j8RrKO9WwqOEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<F8C0D547-CC4F-422F-8AD4-2B07CE76CBEA@corp.arin.net>
	<CAAAwwbUd5t1F7KGUjHRLRWdAhAQdeKDbwKHAEVeU5-OfWM8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4DC4A48-F782-41FC-86E7-5E76D19260F3@sonn.com>
	<CACrmG8d8Kc91o1BS1=qtLjOLdpGABX_1Ta35E0k2rHL8=MKkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE067996-4C54-428D-AC2B-8E9E22301A75@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8cU_b5bP7+eUyw13xCm5hKeVrGgnui+coPTqSOpa0TxNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D339294-3F96-4D0F-B7F6-248E54B0E4DF@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8ePUh375-VTg+33qezDW_7NqzONDVwNEU7YCOYze5G7cQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADx2oGHd3gopPGcW3_r5-YuyvZNOBJzSE=Z37+d4uomhQjH4Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505C0323.706010! 4@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <D560EB6C-C248-4A01-B66A-4ACEDA308331@delong.com>

> 
> Christoph,
> 
>  I will address this hypothetical situation (since Jeffrey has not
> provided the actual details)
> 
>  ARIN is not taking on a liability by offering an opinion on this
> situation.  In fact, if it did come to a court trial, a judge could
> compel ARIN to render an opinion.
> 

Perhaps not, but, ARIN would be taking on liability if they were to act on that opinion and modify the resource records accordingly.

>   ARIN telling Jeffrey to go to a judge isn't letting them off the hook, here, not by a long shot.  They are still going to get sucked into it if it goes to a judge.
> 

ARIN is not (as near as I can tell) attempting to evade responsibilities or "get off the hook". ARIN is merely following the policies set by this community and operating the registry in accordance with those policies.

As to your suggestion that Jeffrey pursue this in small claims, I'm not sure that one has the ability to seek injunctive relief of the type he would need in small claims. I thought small claims was limited to monetary damages not exceeding $X where the value of X varies from state to state and time to time.

Owen



From andrew.koch at gawul.net  Tue Sep 25 17:28:37 2012
From: andrew.koch at gawul.net (Andrew Koch)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:28:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAN0k1YhtkEgyZhDqNrzokC9ihdxbpJeaDJt=+KLP5E8PtqsBVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> Heather (and John),
>
>   I frankly believe that ARIN is HOPING that in the case of the abandoned
> legacy resources out there that someone will indeed come along and hack
> them to make a change.
>
>   ARIN views this issue from a birds eye view not a micro eye view.
> To you or I, an abandoned /24 legacy space these days is enough addressing
> to run a webhosting business that could generate enough
> money to support someone as a full time job.
>
>   But from ARIN's point of view, a /24 is a microscopic amount
> of the entire IPv4 space they are in charge of, and they don't give
> a rat's ass that some smart cracker may come along and take advantage
> of a loophole to change the POC on it.
>
>   I have approached ARIN before, through channels, with documented
> proof that once such legacy block is abandoned.  They know it's
> abandoned because they have assigned a No, Contact Known NIC handle
> to at least the tech contact.  The Abuse contact on it is going to an
> obvious domain name speculator.
>
>   But, the organization name on it is a legitimate and existing org.
> My guess is ARIN has no guidelines on what to do in this case - the
> org exists, the street address on it is correct, but none of the POCs
> on it are valid, and the subnet hasn't appeared in the BGP table for
> the past 8 years.
>
>   So, the addressing sits idle, and unused - and in the meantime there
> are new orgs out there desperate for any amount of IPv4 who cannot take
> advantage of it.
>

Ted,

While the addresses may not appear in a BGP table that you can see, that
does not necessarily indicate that they are abandoned, idle or unused. ARIN
seems to have properly judged your report - they cannot know if the ORG,
still a functional business, is utilizing these for any number of other
legitimate non-big-I Internet uses - and therefore has not removed the
registration from the database.

It may be difficult that some organizations may no longer appear to be
using their address space, where others are going to be out-of-luck, but
ARIN policies are very clear in this case - take no action unless directed
by an appropriate POC.

Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120925/e58364a5/attachment.htm>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Sep 26 01:55:45 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:55:45 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <CAN0k1YhtkEgyZhDqNrzokC9ihdxbpJeaDJt=+KLP5E8PtqsBVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAN0k1YhtkEgyZhDqNrzokC9ihdxbpJeaDJt=+KLP5E8PtqsBVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <506298E1.4030703@ipinc.net>

On 9/25/2012 2:28 PM, Andrew Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net
> <mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>> wrote:
>
>     Heather (and John),
>
>        I frankly believe that ARIN is HOPING that in the case of the
>     abandoned legacy resources out there that someone will indeed come
>     along and hack them to make a change.
>
>        ARIN views this issue from a birds eye view not a micro eye view.
>     To you or I, an abandoned /24 legacy space these days is enough
>     addressing to run a webhosting business that could generate enough
>     money to support someone as a full time job.
>
>        But from ARIN's point of view, a /24 is a microscopic amount
>     of the entire IPv4 space they are in charge of, and they don't give
>     a rat's ass that some smart cracker may come along and take advantage
>     of a loophole to change the POC on it.
>
>        I have approached ARIN before, through channels, with documented
>     proof that once such legacy block is abandoned.  They know it's
>     abandoned because they have assigned a No, Contact Known NIC handle
>     to at least the tech contact.  The Abuse contact on it is going to an
>     obvious domain name speculator.
>
>        But, the organization name on it is a legitimate and existing org.
>     My guess is ARIN has no guidelines on what to do in this case - the
>     org exists, the street address on it is correct, but none of the POCs
>     on it are valid, and the subnet hasn't appeared in the BGP table for
>     the past 8 years.
>
>        So, the addressing sits idle, and unused - and in the meantime there
>     are new orgs out there desperate for any amount of IPv4 who cannot take
>     advantage of it.
>
>
> Ted,
>
> While the addresses may not appear in a BGP table that you can see, that
> does not necessarily indicate that they are abandoned, idle or unused.

I didn't say that presence or absence of a BGP table entry should be 
used as the determining factor.  You are simply trying to make a straw
man argument here.

> ARIN seems to have properly judged your report - they cannot know if the
> ORG, still a functional business, is utilizing these for any number of
> other legitimate non-big-I Internet uses - and therefore has not removed
> the registration from the database.
>

Baloney.  As I said the ORGs street address is valid and 1 minutes work 
would get ARIN a website with a telephone number.  How difficult is it
to make a phone call?  How difficult is it for ARIN to send a paper 
letter to the POC's address saying that they need to completely update 
all fields in their POC?

ARIN can find out if it's functional or not with a letter sent return
receipt requested in conjunction with all the other items I cited.

> It may be difficult that some organizations may no longer appear to be
> using their address space, where others are going to be out-of-luck, but
> ARIN policies are very clear in this case - take no action unless
> directed by an appropriate POC.
>

And if the POC is bogus - and ARIN's policies also have a mechanism to 
detect this and they are detecting it and marking them as such - then what?

How can you take no action when directed by the appropriate POC when 
there are no valid POCs on the resource?  You are simply advocating that
abandoned resources NEVER get cleaned up.

Ted

> Andy



From hannigan at gmail.com  Wed Sep 26 08:05:45 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:05:45 +0200
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> On 9/20/2012 6:50 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill -
>>>
>>>     What you suggest is quite reasonable when a transfer is performed,
>>> and ARIN is vigilant for potential fraud in such cases.
>>>
>>>      That does not apply when no transfer was ever performed with a
>>> resource.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> /John
>>>
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> ARIN
>>>
>>
>> Precisely the point.  Why bother with a transfer if it's cheaper and
>> easier to hack the POC and make a change?  Stronger Auth is needed
>> because you don't have to effect a transfer in ARIN in order to change
>> registration details (address and POC) to something convincing enough
>> to get an ISP to route it.
>
>
> Heather (and John),
>
>   I frankly believe that ARIN is HOPING that in the case of the abandoned
> legacy resources out there that someone will indeed come along and hack them
> to make a change.
>
>   ARIN views this issue from a birds eye view not a micro eye view.
> To you or I, an abandoned /24 legacy space these days is enough addressing
> to run a webhosting business that could generate enough
> money to support someone as a full time job.
>
>   But from ARIN's point of view, a /24 is a microscopic amount
> of the entire IPv4 space they are in charge of, and they don't give
> a rat's ass that some smart cracker may come along and take advantage
> of a loophole to change the POC on it.


Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
be the final arbiter.

Best,

-M<


From snoble at sonn.com  Wed Sep 26 09:25:40 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:25:40 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
> Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
> There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
> make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
> to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
> your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
> responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
> ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
> be the final arbiter.

From my dealings with this subject I believe the way ARIN has handled legacy (and even post-ARIN) assets does not align with your interpretation of Stewardship.

Unlike banks (lets not go down the one off cases), ARIN takes actively used assets and tags them as abandoned or "No, Contact Known", requiring the original owner to go through hoops to regain control of the asset that they originally had.  This is claimed to be done to protect the original owner from forgery and asset theft.  Whatever the logic is, the fact is, it cannot be compared to any other system of protection that I know of.

I question the validity of modifying ORG records to say "No, Contact Known" with an ARIN created POC.  In some cases the real POC _is_ known but has not been sufficiently re-vetted by ARIN causing a real POC to be replaced with a ARIN created wrong POC which IMHO makes the ARIN database unreliable.  It's one thing to label the asset as un-verified but it's a whole other issue to replace the real ORG POCs with known wrong one such as CKN23-ARIN.

OrgTechHandle: CKN23-ARIN
OrgTechName:   No, Contact Known 
OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-555-1234
OrgTechEmail:  nobody at example.com
OrgTechRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CKN23-ARIN

The TechName, TechPhone and TechEmail are all invalid, something that would (or should) not be tolerated from any ARIN customer, including ARIN themselves.



From hannigan at gmail.com  Wed Sep 26 10:00:44 2012
From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:00:44 +0200
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
>> Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
>> There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
>> make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
>> to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
>> your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
>> responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
>> ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
>> be the final arbiter.
>
> From my dealings with this subject I believe the way ARIN has handled legacy (and even post-ARIN) assets does not align with your interpretation of Stewardship.
>
> Unlike banks (lets not go down the one off cases), ARIN takes actively used assets and tags them as abandoned or "No, Contact Known", requiring the original owner to go through hoops to regain control of the asset that they originally had.  This is claimed to be done to protect the original owner from forgery and asset theft.  Whatever the logic is, the fact is, it cannot be compared to any other system of protection that I know of.
>

I agree with taking "an" action to protect the original owner from
forgery or theft.

And I used the bank account analogy not to start the inevitable giant
thread of incompatible analogies, but because it fits best. A bank
account are bits in a computer with nothing physical to touch or feel,
much like an address. The account, like a prefix, may be affected by
bad record keeping regardless of who's fault it was, the owners or the
steward. Both require a chain of custody examination to regain the
original rights.

> I question the validity of modifying ORG records to say "No, Contact Known" with an ARIN created POC.  In some cases the real POC _is_ known but has not been sufficiently re-vetted by ARIN causing a real POC to be replaced with a ARIN created wrong POC which IMHO makes the ARIN database unreliable.  It's one thing to label the asset as un-verified but it's a whole other issue to replace the real ORG POCs with known wrong one such as CKN23-ARIN.
>
> OrgTechHandle: CKN23-ARIN
> OrgTechName:   No, Contact Known
> OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-555-1234
> OrgTechEmail:  nobody at example.com
> OrgTechRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CKN23-ARIN
>
> The TechName, TechPhone and TechEmail are all invalid, something that would (or should) not be tolerated from any ARIN customer, including ARIN themselves.
>

Yep. I agree. ARIN should never break a record that may not be broken.
Failure to respond does not mean that the contact info isn't correct
already.

Best,

-M<


From info at arin.net  Wed Sep 26 10:26:41 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:26:41 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations
 Utilization Requirement - revised
Message-ID: <506310A1.8000807@arin.net>

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2
IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

ARIN-2012-2 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion
on this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN
Public Policy Meeting in Dallas.

ARIN-2012-2 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_2.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2
IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

Date: 26 September 2012

Policy statement:

2.14. Serving Site (IPv6) When applied to IPv6 policies, the term 
serving site shall mean a location where an ISP terminates or aggregates 
customer connections, including, but, not limited to Points of Presence 
(POPs), Datacenters, Central or Local switching office or regional or 
local combinations thereof. It does not require the implementation of 
such aggregation in routing, only the implementation of an addressing 
plan that is subnetted along these topological boundaries to support the 
ability to aggregate.

6.5.3. Subsequent Allocations to LIRs

a.	Where possible ARIN will make subsequent allocations by expanding the 
existing allocation.

b.	An LIR qualifies for a subsequent allocation if they meet any of the 
following criteria:

* Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total address space

* Shows utilization of more than 90% of any serving site

* Has allocated more than 90% of their serving site blocks to serving 
sites, and has sufficient actual utilization at their serving sites to 
continue to justify the block size being utilized for all serving sites 
as specified in section 6.5.2.

c.	If ARIN can not expand one or more existing allocations, ARIN shall 
make a new allocation based on the initial allocation criteria above. 
The LIR is encouraged, but not required to renumber into the new 
allocation over time and return any allocations no longer in use.

d.	If an LIR has already reached a /12 or more, ARIN will allocate a 
single additional /12 rather than continue expanding nibble boundaries.

Original Rationale:

If you are executing to a long term plan, you should be able to continue 
to execute on your approved allocation and assignment plan regardless of 
the number of regions/groupings you originally planned for. We want to 
promote tie downs on nibbles and long term planning.

Timetable for implementation: Immediately



From info at arin.net  Wed Sep 26 10:27:08 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:27:08 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party
 Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable - revised
Message-ID: <506310BC.7000905@arin.net>

Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

ARIN-2012-7 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion
on this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN
Public Policy Meeting in Dallas.

ARIN-2012-7 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_7.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7
Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

Date: 26 September 2012

Policy statement:

Insert new section to NRPM to read as follows:

4.2.3.8 IP addresses reassigned by an ISP to an incumbent cable operator 
for use with Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) will be counted as fully 
used once they are assigned to equipment by the underlying cable carrier 
provided they meet the following requirements:

* initial assignments to each piece of hardware represent the smallest 
subnet reasonably required to deploy service to the customer base served 
by the hardware

* additional assignments to each piece of hardware are made only when 
all previous assignments to that specific piece of hardware are at least 
80% used and represent a three month supply

* IP assignments assigned through 4.2.3.8 are non-transferable via 
section 8.3 and section 8.4 for a period of 36 months. In the case of a 
section 8.2 transfer the IP assignment must be utilized for the same 
purpose or needs based justification at a rate consistent with intended use.

Rationale:
A unique situation exists particularly, and perhaps only, in the 
Canadian region that is preventing legitimate ISPs from obtaining 
subsequent allocations of IPv4 addresses for use with the Third Party 
Internet Access (TPIA) framework that has been mandated by the CRTC 
(Canada's version of the FCC). Adding this section to the NRPM will 
allow ISPs that intend to make use of this CRTC mandated framework to 
obtain the number resources that they require but are currently unable 
to obtain.

Timetable for implementation: immediate


From info at arin.net  Wed Sep 26 10:41:42 2012
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:41:42 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - September 2012
Message-ID: <50631426.6020209@arin.net>

In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN 
Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 September 2012 and made a 
decision about a proposal.

The following proposal was abandoned:

     ARIN-prop-181 Penalize IPv4 bad actors

The AC provides the following statement about prop-181:

"The AC abandoned ARIN-prop-181, "Penalize IPv4 bad actors", because of 
a lack of support for the policy on PPML, and because the AC felt it 
would not be technically sound and useful policy.  In addition, several 
members of the AC expressed the sentiment that ARIN policy should not be 
used to penalize a segment of the ARIN community."

The AC abandoned proposal 181. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision 
may initiate a petition. The petition to advance a proposal would be the 
"Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be five 
business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For 
more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP 
Petitions at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html

Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Sep 26 11:01:18 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:01:18 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>

On 9/26/2012 7:00 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
>>> Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
>>> There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
>>> make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
>>> to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
>>> your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
>>> responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
>>> ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
>>> be the final arbiter.
>>
>>  From my dealings with this subject I believe the way ARIN has handled legacy (and even post-ARIN) assets does not align with your interpretation of Stewardship.
>>
>> Unlike banks (lets not go down the one off cases), ARIN takes actively used assets and tags them as abandoned or "No, Contact Known", requiring the original owner to go through hoops to regain control of the asset that they originally had.  This is claimed to be done to protect the original owner from forgery and asset theft.  Whatever the logic is, the fact is, it cannot be compared to any other system of protection that I know of.
>>
>
> I agree with taking "an" action to protect the original owner from
> forgery or theft.
>
> And I used the bank account analogy not to start the inevitable giant
> thread of incompatible analogies, but because it fits best. A bank
> account are bits in a computer with nothing physical to touch or feel,
> much like an address. The account, like a prefix, may be affected by
> bad record keeping regardless of who's fault it was, the owners or the
> steward. Both require a chain of custody examination to regain the
> original rights.
>
>> I question the validity of modifying ORG records to say "No, Contact Known" with an ARIN created POC.  In some cases the real POC _is_ known but has not been sufficiently re-vetted by ARIN causing a real POC to be replaced with a ARIN created wrong POC which IMHO makes the ARIN database unreliable.  It's one thing to label the asset as un-verified but it's a whole other issue to replace the real ORG POCs with known wrong one such as CKN23-ARIN.
>>
>> OrgTechHandle: CKN23-ARIN
>> OrgTechName:   No, Contact Known
>> OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-555-1234
>> OrgTechEmail:  nobody at example.com
>> OrgTechRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CKN23-ARIN
>>
>> The TechName, TechPhone and TechEmail are all invalid, something that would (or should) not be tolerated from any ARIN customer, including ARIN themselves.
>>
>
> Yep. I agree. ARIN should never break a record that may not be broken.
> Failure to respond does not mean that the contact info isn't correct
> already.
>

Sorry, but the address user is required to respond.  When they signed 
the RSA the RSA requires them to supply POCs.  By allowing a POC to 
become invalid they are no longer supplying the POC and are thus in
violation of the contract.

In any case, if an org deliberately ignores an invoice, their account
with ARIN runs in arrears and they lose the assignment.

If an org pays an invoice sent to the POC address then they ARE responding.

Obviously, there is a problem with POCs that have valid contact info
but then simply ignore letters and e-mails sent to that POC unless
those letters or e-mails come from ARIN.  But, in those cases, since
they aren't in violation of the contract they signed, ARIN cannot
do anything.

The issue are the so called Legacy assignments made pre-ARIN that there
is no RSA on file for.  However, the NRPM requires ARIN to mark these
as invalid if the POC fails to respond.

So while your opinion may be that ARIN should never break a record,
the NRPM says otherwise.

Frankly, I see absolutely no benefit to the community to allow POCs
to remain in WHOIS that do not respond to anyone.  At least, if the POC
is responding to ARIN but nobody else, that is some justification for
leaving them in there.  But if they don't even respond to ARIN?

Screw 'em!

Ted

> Best,
>
> -M<
>



From snoble at sonn.com  Wed Sep 26 11:11:55 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:11:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <F71F5E93-8216-4C3F-B651-B3F8C72765B7@sonn.com>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>> 
> 
> Sorry, but the address user is required to respond.  When they signed the RSA the RSA requires them to supply POCs.  By allowing a POC to become invalid they are no longer supplying the POC and are thus in
> violation of the contract.
> 
> In any case, if an org deliberately ignores an invoice, their account
> with ARIN runs in arrears and they lose the assignment.
> 
> If an org pays an invoice sent to the POC address then they ARE responding.

Then that does not explain why ARIN would purposely change a post-ARIN ORG POC to No, Contact Known if they are getting paid, which I can personally attest they have done at least once.

> The issue are the so called Legacy assignments made pre-ARIN that there
> is no RSA on file for.  However, the NRPM requires ARIN to mark these
> as invalid if the POC fails to respond.


> So while your opinion may be that ARIN should never break a record,
> the NRPM says otherwise.

So marking a ORG invalid requires that ARIN put an invalid POC in the record and then force the owner to go through hoops to get the ORG restored?  That makes no sense.  Can you give me the part of the NRPM that you are quoting?

> Frankly, I see absolutely no benefit to the community to allow POCs
> to remain in WHOIS that do not respond to anyone.  At least, if the POC
> is responding to ARIN but nobody else, that is some justification for
> leaving them in there.  But if they don't even respond to ARIN?

How do you know they are not responding to anyone.  Just because they do not respond to ARIN means nothing.  And even if they are responding to ARIN, are you claiming that ARIN does not invalidate POCs if they get a response?  I again will claim otherwise.

> 
> Screw 'em!

That is exactly the attitude we should be trying to avoid.





From adudek16 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 26 11:12:46 2012
From: adudek16 at gmail.com (Aaron Dudek)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:12:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAA0LXWWTka58xhrm9+J7kJzqw59xrQjMvZUMn9d4qg7ohCJ0zQ@mail.gmail.com>

That doesn't apply to Pre-ARIN allocated space (legacy) assuming that
the owner has not required any new services from ARIN, which would
then require the updated agreement.

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 7:00 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
>>>> Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
>>>> There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
>>>> make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
>>>> to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
>>>> your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
>>>> responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
>>>> ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
>>>> be the final arbiter.
>>>
>>>
>>>  From my dealings with this subject I believe the way ARIN has handled
>>> legacy (and even post-ARIN) assets does not align with your interpretation
>>> of Stewardship.
>>>
>>> Unlike banks (lets not go down the one off cases), ARIN takes actively
>>> used assets and tags them as abandoned or "No, Contact Known", requiring the
>>> original owner to go through hoops to regain control of the asset that they
>>> originally had.  This is claimed to be done to protect the original owner
>>> from forgery and asset theft.  Whatever the logic is, the fact is, it cannot
>>> be compared to any other system of protection that I know of.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with taking "an" action to protect the original owner from
>> forgery or theft.
>>
>> And I used the bank account analogy not to start the inevitable giant
>> thread of incompatible analogies, but because it fits best. A bank
>> account are bits in a computer with nothing physical to touch or feel,
>> much like an address. The account, like a prefix, may be affected by
>> bad record keeping regardless of who's fault it was, the owners or the
>> steward. Both require a chain of custody examination to regain the
>> original rights.
>>
>>> I question the validity of modifying ORG records to say "No, Contact
>>> Known" with an ARIN created POC.  In some cases the real POC _is_ known but
>>> has not been sufficiently re-vetted by ARIN causing a real POC to be
>>> replaced with a ARIN created wrong POC which IMHO makes the ARIN database
>>> unreliable.  It's one thing to label the asset as un-verified but it's a
>>> whole other issue to replace the real ORG POCs with known wrong one such as
>>> CKN23-ARIN.
>>>
>>> OrgTechHandle: CKN23-ARIN
>>> OrgTechName:   No, Contact Known
>>> OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-555-1234
>>> OrgTechEmail:  nobody at example.com
>>> OrgTechRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CKN23-ARIN
>>>
>>> The TechName, TechPhone and TechEmail are all invalid, something that
>>> would (or should) not be tolerated from any ARIN customer, including ARIN
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. I agree. ARIN should never break a record that may not be broken.
>> Failure to respond does not mean that the contact info isn't correct
>> already.
>>
>
> Sorry, but the address user is required to respond.  When they signed the
> RSA the RSA requires them to supply POCs.  By allowing a POC to become
> invalid they are no longer supplying the POC and are thus in
> violation of the contract.
>
> In any case, if an org deliberately ignores an invoice, their account
> with ARIN runs in arrears and they lose the assignment.
>
> If an org pays an invoice sent to the POC address then they ARE responding.
>
> Obviously, there is a problem with POCs that have valid contact info
> but then simply ignore letters and e-mails sent to that POC unless
> those letters or e-mails come from ARIN.  But, in those cases, since
> they aren't in violation of the contract they signed, ARIN cannot
> do anything.
>
> The issue are the so called Legacy assignments made pre-ARIN that there
> is no RSA on file for.  However, the NRPM requires ARIN to mark these
> as invalid if the POC fails to respond.
>
> So while your opinion may be that ARIN should never break a record,
> the NRPM says otherwise.
>
> Frankly, I see absolutely no benefit to the community to allow POCs
> to remain in WHOIS that do not respond to anyone.  At least, if the POC
> is responding to ARIN but nobody else, that is some justification for
> leaving them in there.  But if they don't even respond to ARIN?
>
> Screw 'em!
>
> Ted
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From snoble at sonn.com  Wed Sep 26 11:27:36 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:27:36 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>

Hi Again Ted,

On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 
> The issue are the so called Legacy assignments made pre-ARIN that there
> is no RSA on file for.  However, the NRPM requires ARIN to mark these
> as invalid if the POC fails to respond.
> 
> So while your opinion may be that ARIN should never break a record,
> the NRPM says otherwise.


If you are referring to the ARIN NRPM, that would not be valid against a legacy ORG that has not interacted with ARIN or signed a (L)RSA.

Even if you want to claim that the NRPM does apply to legacy ORGs, the only thing I can find that specifically talks about legacy is in section 12.8

"12.8

This policy does not create any additional authority for ARIN to revoke legacy address space. However, the utilization of legacy resources shall be considered during a review to assess overall compliance."

The annual POC review states the following:

"3.6.1 Method of Annual Verification

During ARINs annual Whois POC validation, an email will be sent to every POC in the Whois database. Each POC will have a maximum of 60 days to respond with an affirmative that their Whois contact information is correct and complete. Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked as such in the database. If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the POC record shall be marked invalid. ARIN will maintain, and make readily available to the community, a current list of number resources with no valid POC; this data will be subject to the current bulk Whois policy."

No where in that does it say that ARIN will change the POC to be a different, invalid POC.  Marking something invalid is a lot different than changing the POC to CKN23-ARIN.

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep 26 11:34:39 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:34:39 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <F71F5E93-8216-4C3F-B651-B3F8C72765B7@sonn.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<F71F5E93-8216-4C3F-B651-B3F8C72765B7@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <B06AAED4-6AC2-4956-8207-25B2E32C20DC@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:

> Then that does not explain why ARIN would purposely change a post-ARIN ORG POC to No, Contact Known if they are getting paid, which I can personally attest they have done at least once.

Steve - 
 
  We don't change contacts during the POS validation, we simply 
  mark them invalid.  We remove POCs and replace them with the 
  "No Contact Known" when they ask to be removed or we have factual
  data (e.g. deceased) that the contact is no longer associated with
  the organization.

  If you known of a case otherwise, please bring it to my attention.

> So marking a ORG invalid requires that ARIN put an invalid POC in the record and then force the owner to go through hoops to get the ORG restored?  That makes no sense.  Can you give me the part of the NRPM that you are quoting?

  A non-responsive POC is simply marked invalid as required by NRPM 3.6.  
  It is true that an invalid POC cannot make changes to a resource, so 
  if you are unresponsive and there are no other valid POCs on the record,
  you could be in a situation where you have to subsequently recover the
  Organization ID as a result.  This is very good reason to respond to 
  POC validation requests.

> How do you know they are not responding to anyone.  Just because they do not respond to ARIN means nothing.  And even if they are responding to ARIN, are you claiming that ARIN does not invalidate POCs if they get a response?  I again will claim otherwise.

  Please send us the the details and I will ascertain why they were
  marked invalid.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep 26 11:41:28 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:41:28 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> 
> If you are referring to the ARIN NRPM, that would not be valid against a legacy ORG that has not interacted with ARIN or signed a (L)RSA.

Steven - 

The Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) applies to all number resources 
in the ARIN region, regardless of the point in time when the number
resources were issued.

ARIN provides basic registration services to legacy address holders
including allowing updates to the registration information in Whois.
These services are provided subject to the NRPM, although legacy
address holders may enter into an LRSA if would prefer to have a
defined contractual relationship with ARIN for these services.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Sep 26 12:32:57 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:32:57 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>

On 9/26/2012 8:41 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you are referring to the ARIN NRPM, that would not be valid against a legacy ORG that has not interacted with ARIN or signed a (L)RSA.
>
> Steven -
>
> The Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) applies to all number resources
> in the ARIN region, regardless of the point in time when the number
> resources were issued.
>

Let me just point something out here.

The purpose of the WHOIS database is that IP numbers are public 
resources, an org is just "borrowing" the use of them for a time.

Just like property ownership.  Orgs come and go but property is
forever.  Even locations you would consider immovable - Vatican City
for example - well, there were owners of the property that the
Vatican is sitting on long, long before the Vatican was built,
and there will undoubtedly come a day that the Vatican ends up
a ruin like the Roman Colosseum, and there will be property owners
then who will be doing something different with the land.

Because of this, humanity in virtually all societies thus supports the 
notion that society has a right to know the names of the current 
property owners of that property.

Ip addressing works the same way - the community thus supports the
notion that the rest of the Internet has a right to know who is
assigned a particular IP number in any given point in time.

The whole concept that Legacy owners do not have a duty and 
responsibility to maintain correct and valid POCs on IP numbering
flies in the face of the overall support the Internet has for
knowing who is assigned numbers.

In the past, ARIN could sidestep this issue by telling people "well,
we are gonna force them to keep their record current because if they
don't, and they want more IP numbers, they won't get them until they
clean up their records"

This had a giant glaring flaw in that not all orgs are under unlimited
growth and will ever need more resources - a flaw I and others pointed
out with regularity - but it sufficed for most people, so we were ignored.

But now, since there are no more IPv4 numbers to give out, ARIN can
no longer punt this issue down the field.

We have orgs using IPv4 resources who are effectively unknown because
they don't have to pay a bill every year, and because they have either
deliberately or accidentally allowed their contact info on those 
resources to go stale.

It is unfair that 98% of users of IPv4 are contractually obligated to
maintain contactable information on their IP addressing use, and 2%
of them - the legacies - seem to assume they have some sort of right
to not do this.  It was always unfair but the community didn't want to
face the issue, and allowed ARIN to kick the can down the road.

Well, now the community wants more IPv4 - even though there is none left 
- and the legacies who appear to have abandoned their IPv4
resources by deliberately or inadvertently not maintaining valid
contact info, are being regarded by many as "fair game"

I am very satisfied with this.  Why aren't you?

Ted



> ARIN provides basic registration services to legacy address holders
> including allowing updates to the registration information in Whois.
> These services are provided subject to the NRPM, although legacy
> address holders may enter into an LRSA if would prefer to have a
> defined contractual relationship with ARIN for these services.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



From snoble at sonn.com  Wed Sep 26 13:01:05 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:01:05 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> 
> Let me just point something out here.
<snip>
> 
> The whole concept that Legacy owners do not have a duty and responsibility to maintain correct and valid POCs on IP numbering
> flies in the face of the overall support the Internet has for
> knowing who is assigned numbers.
> 
> In the past, ARIN could sidestep this issue by telling people "well,
> we are gonna force them to keep their record current because if they
> don't, and they want more IP numbers, they won't get them until they
> clean up their records"
> 
> This had a giant glaring flaw in that not all orgs are under unlimited
> growth and will ever need more resources - a flaw I and others pointed
> out with regularity - but it sufficed for most people, so we were ignored.

Did you also point out how hard it is to get things updated in the ARIN database?  Once ARIN changes the POC from a real person to their POC, the company has to go through hoops to get the information updated.  It should be very easy for the original POC to get reinstated.  And if ARIN changes the POC without notice then what?  It now becomes the legacy holders fault?  No.

> But now, since there are no more IPv4 numbers to give out, ARIN can
> no longer punt this issue down the field.
> 
> We have orgs using IPv4 resources who are effectively unknown because
> they don't have to pay a bill every year, and because they have either
> deliberately or accidentally allowed their contact info on those resources to go stale.

Or they cannot update the contact info as ARIN has changed the POC.  I guess you have never been on the other side of the table, but I have and it's a huge pita once ARIN decides that your record is invalid.  You can't update your physical address even if they can verify it.  This is a very one sided system.

> It is unfair that 98% of users of IPv4 are contractually obligated to
> maintain contactable information on their IP addressing use, and 2%
> of them - the legacies - seem to assume they have some sort of right
> to not do this.  It was always unfair but the community didn't want to
> face the issue, and allowed ARIN to kick the can down the road.

You are using the unfair argument?  I can't go with you here.

> Well, now the community wants more IPv4 - even though there is none left - and the legacies who appear to have abandoned their IPv4
> resources by deliberately or inadvertently not maintaining valid
> contact info, are being regarded by many as "fair game"
> 
> I am very satisfied with this.  Why aren't you?

Because I have been and still am on the other side of this.  Since you seem to have never had one of your valid POCs marked invalid, you should try it.  Then when you spend 8 years fighting with ARIN over it you can tell us what a great system it is.  There are two sides Ted.






From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Sep 26 14:10:07 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:10:07 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
	<44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <506344FF.5080601@ipinc.net>

On 9/26/2012 10:01 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Let me just point something out here.
> <snip>
>>
>> The whole concept that Legacy owners do not have a duty and
>> responsibility to maintain correct and valid POCs on IP numbering
>> flies in the face of the overall support the Internet has for
>> knowing who is assigned numbers.
>>
>> In the past, ARIN could sidestep this issue by telling people
>> "well, we are gonna force them to keep their record current because
>> if they don't, and they want more IP numbers, they won't get them
>> until they clean up their records"
>>
>> This had a giant glaring flaw in that not all orgs are under
>> unlimited growth and will ever need more resources - a flaw I and
>> others pointed out with regularity - but it sufficed for most
>> people, so we were ignored.
>
> Did you also point out how hard it is to get things updated in the
> ARIN database?  Once ARIN changes the POC from a real person to their
> POC, the company has to go through hoops to get the information
> updated.  It should be very easy for the original POC to get
> reinstated.

The problem is this runs afoul of the protections that the community
insisted be put into place to guard against malevolent users from
changing the data.

In the olden days, around 2004, it WAS easy - a phone call to hostmaster
would do it - provided that you provided verifiable info.  Alas those
days are gone, now.

I think there's more concern among the community for malevolent people
changing records than for people who accidentally left their records
go stale.  Thus the "good guys" have to jump through hoops.

But seriously this isn't any worse than for example, going to a
bank and getting them to put you on your aged mother's bank account
when she has a stroke and cannot write checks anymore.

  And if ARIN changes the POC without notice then what?
> It now becomes the legacy holders fault?  No.

Yes.  In property ownership there's a concept called adverse
possession that basically states that an org can take over abandoned
property.

It works very easily, you find some property that someone has
abandoned (like property taxes on it haven't been paid for the
last 10 years, etc.) start occupying it, fixing it up, paying
the property taxes on it - then bang, you own it. (after
filing the appropriate paperwork out)

Thus if 10 years later the original owner shows up and demands
their property back they are S.O.L.  It -is- their fault that
they didn't keep things maintained.

In short, in the US at any rate the legal concept of "use it or
lose it" has validity.  Thus I don't see how this concept is
that outrageous.

>
>> But now, since there are no more IPv4 numbers to give out, ARIN
>> can no longer punt this issue down the field.
>>
>> We have orgs using IPv4 resources who are effectively unknown
>> because they don't have to pay a bill every year, and because they
>> have either deliberately or accidentally allowed their contact info
>> on those resources to go stale.
>
> Or they cannot update the contact info as ARIN has changed the POC.
> I guess you have never been on the other side of the table, but I
> have and it's a huge pita once ARIN decides that your record is
> invalid.  You can't update your physical address even if they can
> verify it.  This is a very one sided system.
>

This is an area where a public airing of an actual example would
help clarify your position.  Until such time that you provide it,
I am going to have to side with ARIN, buddy.

>> It is unfair that 98% of users of IPv4 are contractually obligated
>> to maintain contactable information on their IP addressing use, and
>> 2% of them - the legacies - seem to assume they have some sort of
>> right to not do this.  It was always unfair but the community
>> didn't want to face the issue, and allowed ARIN to kick the can
>> down the road.
>
> You are using the unfair argument?  I can't go with you here.
>

Of course you can't because you are operating from the position that
an org should be allowed to put a POC on a resource that is essentially
useless.  Your coming from the position that requiring the 98% of
users to keep their POCs updated is unfair, and that putting a 
punishment into place to convince them to adhere to that requirement
is unfair.  At least that is how you sound.  If I am wrong then
WHAT IS your position?

>> Well, now the community wants more IPv4 - even though there is none
>> left - and the legacies who appear to have abandoned their IPv4
>> resources by deliberately or inadvertently not maintaining valid
>> contact info, are being regarded by many as "fair game"
>>
>> I am very satisfied with this.  Why aren't you?
>
> Because I have been and still am on the other side of this.  Since
> you seem to have never had one of your valid POCs marked invalid, you
> should try it.  Then when you spend 8 years fighting with ARIN over
> it you can tell us what a great system it is.  There are two sides

Provide the story.

Rules and laws are NOT made based on hypothetical situations, despite
what many on this list seem to think.  They are made based on actual
stories.

Tell your story, name names, name dates, provide verifiable info
here, and I am sure people will listen.

During the argument to get 3.6.1 put in, many examples of POCs that
were absolutely silly in the extreme were posted.  There were POCs
that listed UUCP e-mail address and bitnet e-mail addresses, that
were posted.  These were actual examples right out of whois - they
were not hypothetical situations.  ARIN staff even had the decency
to sound embarrassed that they had let it get that bad.

Nobody said who pushed for 3.6.1 that it was perfect.  But nobody
posted any examples from "the other side" as you call it since "the
other side" didn't exist.  Once 3.6.1 was implemented, the "other side"
was created.  If that side has been mistreated, the post the example
and we can put our heads together and see if a policy or an operational
change is needed!

Ted

> Ted.
>
>
>
>
>



From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Wed Sep 26 14:24:55 2012
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:24:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent
	Allocations Utilization Requirement - revised
In-Reply-To: <506310A1.8000807@arin.net>
References: <506310A1.8000807@arin.net>
Message-ID: <FC216860-4E04-4F9E-82B9-4876CCF96AAB@gmail.com>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 7:26 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2
> IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
> 
> ARIN-2012-2 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion
> on this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN
> Public Policy Meeting in Dallas.
> 
> ARIN-2012-2 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_2.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2
> IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
> 
> Date: 26 September 2012
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> 2.14. Serving Site (IPv6) When applied to IPv6 policies, the term serving site shall mean a location where an ISP terminates or aggregates customer connections, including, but, not limited to Points of Presence (POPs), Datacenters, Central or Local switching office or regional or local combinations thereof. It does not require the implementation of such aggregation in routing, only the implementation of an addressing plan that is subnetted along these topological boundaries to support the ability to aggregate.
> 
> 6.5.3. Subsequent Allocations to LIRs
> 
> a.    Where possible ARIN will make subsequent allocations by expanding the existing allocation.
> 
> b.    An LIR qualifies for a subsequent allocation if they meet any of the following criteria:
> 
> * Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total address space
> 
> * Shows utilization of more than 90% of any serving site

I'm unclear on this one.  If I have one serving site full, and have unused blocks, why shouldn't I allocate an additional block to the full site? Why do I need more space from ARIN?

> 
> * Has allocated more than 90% of their serving site blocks to serving sites, and has sufficient actual utilization at their serving sites to continue to justify the block size being utilized for all serving sites as specified in section 6.5.2.

This one makes sense to me.  If the two above were both required, that would also make sense, but I don't get either/or.

-Scott

> 
> c.    If ARIN can not expand one or more existing allocations, ARIN shall make a new allocation based on the initial allocation criteria above. The LIR is encouraged, but not required to renumber into the new allocation over time and return any allocations no longer in use.
> 
> d.    If an LIR has already reached a /12 or more, ARIN will allocate a single additional /12 rather than continue expanding nibble boundaries.
> 
> Original Rationale:
> 
> If you are executing to a long term plan, you should be able to continue to execute on your approved allocation and assignment plan regardless of the number of regions/groupings you originally planned for. We want to promote tie downs on nibbles and long term planning.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Immediately
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From avri at acm.org  Wed Sep 26 15:00:59 2012
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:00:59 +0500
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
	<44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
Message-ID: <d0ac4e3c-16db-47e6-bab4-f6b796ed3d4a@email.android.com>



Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:

>On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Let me just point something out here.
><snip>
>.
>
>Did you also point out how hard it is to get things updated in the ARIN
>database?  Once ARIN changes the POC from a real person to their POC,
>the company has to go through hoops to get the information updated.  It
>should be very easy for the original POC to get reinstated.  

As one of those legacies who recently went through the 'hoops' I've got to say they were rather easy to deal with.
While I may think there are lots of things legacy holders should be able to do that they can't, I also believe the least we can do is make sure our records are up to date, and fix them when we are informed that they aren't - especially since we don't have to pay for the privilege of doing so.
Avri Doria


From snoble at sonn.com  Wed Sep 26 15:03:27 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steve Noble)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:03:27 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <506344FF.5080601@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
	<44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
	<506344FF.5080601@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <CAJjtGxnYpHxtspwnuAq8kNvGScTLHDzdmHdGR9WGWc7b6_t03A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ted,

I am going to snip most of this for simplicity.

I will publicly state that John has my permission to discuss what
happened when/if he can.  I do commend John on spending time with me
on this issue, which at first seems like a simple problem but is
something that affects the community.  If for some reason he cannot, I
will spell it out once he and I are totally clear on what happened.

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> The problem is this runs afoul of the protections that the community
> insisted be put into place to guard against malevolent users from
> changing the data.
>
> In the olden days, around 2004, it WAS easy - a phone call to hostmaster
> would do it - provided that you provided verifiable info.  Alas those
> days are gone, now.
>
> I think there's more concern among the community for malevolent people
> changing records than for people who accidentally left their records
> go stale.  Thus the "good guys" have to jump through hoops.
>
> But seriously this isn't any worse than for example, going to a
> bank and getting them to put you on your aged mother's bank account
> when she has a stroke and cannot write checks anymore.

I think you do a fine job of making my point.  How can you claim that
someone is negligent for not updating their POC records when you bring
up something that would require either planning (living will) or
lawyers.

If the first time you contact and ARIN they refuse to update your POC,
the record is now under dispute and should be noted so.  After that,
the POC has done their job, it is ARIN who holds the ball on
Stewardship.

>
>  And if ARIN changes the POC without notice then what?
>>
>> It now becomes the legacy holders fault?  No.
>
>
> Yes.  In property ownership there's a concept called adverse
> possession that basically states that an org can take over abandoned
> property.

The property is not abandoned.  I already stated this.  I am not sure
if you are listening.

>> Or they cannot update the contact info as ARIN has changed the POC.
>> I guess you have never been on the other side of the table, but I
>> have and it's a huge pita once ARIN decides that your record is
>> invalid.  You can't update your physical address even if they can
>> verify it.  This is a very one sided system.
>>
>
> This is an area where a public airing of an actual example would
> help clarify your position.  Until such time that you provide it,
> I am going to have to side with ARIN, buddy.

I am actually very happy to have you side with ARIN because ARIN and I
currently agree.


>> You are using the unfair argument?  I can't go with you here.
>>
>
> Of course you can't because you are operating from the position that
> an org should be allowed to put a POC on a resource that is essentially
> useless.  Your coming from the position that requiring the 98% of
> users to keep their POCs updated is unfair, and that putting a punishment
> into place to convince them to adhere to that requirement
> is unfair.  At least that is how you sound.  If I am wrong then
> WHAT IS your position?

My position is that legacy resource holders should not be subject to
having known wrong POCs put into their ORG records.  One wrong does
not change another.  If someone has signed the RSA, or I assume the
LRSA then they fall under the direct control of that document.

ARIN already has protections to stop people from changing company
names, reassigning assets and such and in the event that it happens,
they have always claimed that a letter from an executive on letterhead
will correct the issue.

All that happens when you change the POC to a known bad one is you
make it harder for the owner of the resource to update the record, or
refresh the ORG which is what you want.

If you don't want the owners of ORGs to be able to update their
resources, what do you want?


> Tell your story, name names, name dates, provide verifiable info
> here, and I am sure people will listen.

I have clearly stated that John has permission to discuss it and if
not I will once we are happy that we understand what went on.  I am
not claiming that ARIN did something malicious or purposely to me, I
am stating that it took me a very long time to clear up an issue.

I have more of an issue with the fact that you believe that you should
be able to call the shots on other peoples networks.

>
> During the argument to get 3.6.1 put in, many examples of POCs that
> were absolutely silly in the extreme were posted.  There were POCs
> that listed UUCP e-mail address and bitnet e-mail addresses, that
> were posted.  These were actual examples right out of whois - they
> were not hypothetical situations.  ARIN staff even had the decency
> to sound embarrassed that they had let it get that bad.

Did the phone numbers work?  The physical addresses?  The fax
machines?  There are multiple contact spots in a POC and if you think
about it, if you can't send email from your old bitnet account, how do
you change your POC other than calling? :)

>
> Nobody said who pushed for 3.6.1 that it was perfect.  But nobody
> posted any examples from "the other side" as you call it since "the
> other side" didn't exist.  Once 3.6.1 was implemented, the "other side"
> was created.  If that side has been mistreated, the post the example
> and we can put our heads together and see if a policy or an operational
> change is needed!

I can call it whatever you want, it's just the state of a ORG owner
who has their POC handles changed by ARIN without their permission
whether purposely or mistakenly.


From rfg at tristatelogic.com  Wed Sep 26 19:15:02 2012
From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:15:02 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <33672.1348701302@tristatelogic.com>


In message <50632E39.8010709 at ipinc.net>, 
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

>...
>Because of this, humanity in virtually all societies thus supports the 
>notion that society has a right to know the names of the current 
>property owners of that property.


I have no personal opinion on the various issues being discussed in this
thread, however I can't help but interject that the phrase "...virtually all
societies..." in the forgoing may perhaps be more than a little inaccurate,
and that in fact the majority of humankind may, it seems, still be living
largely in the absence of what we in the West think of as normal or traditional
property ownership and/or rights.  (In fact, some have identified the lack
thereof as an extremely serious, if not perhaps even the most serious global
problem.  I mean think about it... How rich can one possibly be if one lives
in a society where one cannot prove or verify that one actually owns anything
at all?)

   http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2023



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Sep 26 19:27:36 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:27:36 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <CAJjtGxnYpHxtspwnuAq8kNvGScTLHDzdmHdGR9WGWc7b6_t03A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
	<44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
	<506344FF.5080601@ipinc.net>
	<CAJjtGxnYpHxtspwnuAq8kNvGScTLHDzdmHdGR9WGWc7b6_t03A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <124BC31B-C49E-44D3-BCC7-96D9C982039E@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:03 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> 
> ARIN already has protections to stop people from changing company
> names, reassigning assets and such and in the event that it happens,
> they have always claimed that a letter from an executive on letterhead
> will correct the issue.
> 
> All that happens when you change the POC to a known bad one is you
> make it harder for the owner of the resource to update the record, or
> refresh the ORG which is what you want.

Steve is correct in that ARIN put the "No Known Contacts" in his
organization record, and I'm currently reviewing the details on
how and why this occurred.  It is _not_ a case of long-abandoned 
registration of resources or failure to perform POC validation 
(which I believe is what Ted is concerned about, with good reason)

>> Tell your story, name names, name dates, provide verifiable info
>> here, and I am sure people will listen.
> 
> I have clearly stated that John has permission to discuss it and if
> not I will once we are happy that we understand what went on.  I am
> not claiming that ARIN did something malicious or purposely to me, I
> am stating that it took me a very long time to clear up an issue.

Agreed - Far longer than should have been necessary, and I will 
rectify that and send details to the list as soon as I am sure
I've finished researching the how and why of what occurred.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN




From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Sep 26 20:35:10 2012
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:35:10 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <33672.1348701302@tristatelogic.com>
References: <33672.1348701302@tristatelogic.com>
Message-ID: <50639F3E.4020701@ipinc.net>


(one cannot prove or verify that one actually owns anything at all?)

The fact the author is claiming this is a problem basically supports
my assertion that the society believes it has the right to know the 
names of the property owners.  The first step in proving ownership of 
anything is stating who the heck you are.

As for the book I'm sure it's a fascinating read, but I would dispute 
the characterization of

"...One of the reasons it was so wild was that those pioneers, most of 
them nothing but squatters, "insisted that their labor, not formal paper 
titles or arbitrary boundary lines, gave land value and established 
ownership."..."

If you read the actual personal diaries of people like Laura Ingalls
Wilder (not her little house fiction, but the reality it was based on)
most settlers of the US Old West were extremely cognizant of property
rights.  The org that actually had the biggest difficulty with them
was our very own US Congress as it repeatedly would issue grants under
the Homestead Act and then make Indian treaties that would take those
grants away (from the settlers) that it had previously issued.

I would guess also that land ownership issues like mineral rights are
even a worse problem in the Third World than the actual squatting
rights.

Ted

On 9/26/2012 4:15 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message <50632E39.8010709 at ipinc.net>,
> Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Because of this, humanity in virtually all societies thus supports the
>> notion that society has a right to know the names of the current
>> property owners of that property.
>
>
> I have no personal opinion on the various issues being discussed in this
> thread, however I can't help but interject that the phrase "...virtually all
> societies..." in the forgoing may perhaps be more than a little inaccurate,
> and that in fact the majority of humankind may, it seems, still be living
> largely in the absence of what we in the West think of as normal or traditional
> property ownership and/or rights.  (In fact, some have identified the lack
> thereof as an extremely serious, if not perhaps even the most serious global
> problem.  I mean think about it... How rich can one possibly be if one lives
> in a society where one cannot prove or verify that one actually owns anything
> at all?)
>
>     http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2023
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com  Thu Sep 27 08:34:55 2012
From: Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com (Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:34:55 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] RE Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third
 Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable - revised
In-Reply-To: <506310BC.7000905@arin.net>
References: <506310BC.7000905@arin.net>
Message-ID: <OFA6E01F8D.03C4F3A3-ON85257A86.00448096-85257A86.00451DDB@videotron.com>

> [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party 
> Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable - revised

Support. 
This is a much better text than the previous one. 

/JF



From snoble at sonn.com  Thu Sep 27 11:58:59 2012
From: snoble at sonn.com (Steven Noble)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:58:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <124BC31B-C49E-44D3-BCC7-96D9C982039E@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
	<44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
	<506344FF.5080601@ipinc.net> <CAJjtG
	xnYpHxtspwnuAq8kNvGScTLHDzdmHdGR9WGWc7b6_t03A@mail.gmail.com>
	<124BC31B-C49E-44D3-BCC7-96D9C982039E@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <1EABFE8C-39AD-4E19-8F5E-A7E774AA5934@sonn.com>

Hi Ted,

On Sep 26, 2012, at 4:27 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> All that happens when you change the POC to a known bad one is you
>> make it harder for the owner of the resource to update the record, or
>> refresh the ORG which is what you want.
> 
> Steve is correct in that ARIN put the "No Known Contacts" in his
> organization record, and I'm currently reviewing the details on
> how and why this occurred.  It is _not_ a case of long-abandoned 
> registration of resources or failure to perform POC validation 
> (which I believe is what Ted is concerned about, with good reason)

Now that we have confirmation, are you willing to accept that lack of a ORG update, or even insertion of No, Contact Known does not always mean that a object is invalid?

>>> Tell your story, name names, name dates, provide verifiable info
>>> here, and I am sure people will listen.
>> 
>> I have clearly stated that John has permission to discuss it and if
>> not I will once we are happy that we understand what went on.  I am
>> not claiming that ARIN did something malicious or purposely to me, I
>> am stating that it took me a very long time to clear up an issue.
> 
> Agreed - Far longer than should have been necessary, and I will 
> rectify that and send details to the list as soon as I am sure
> I've finished researching the how and why of what occurred.


Ted, if you need more information, past John's confirmation, I can share more.  Things happen, people are not infallible, ARIN included.  Your "screw 'em" attitude is not helpful when trying to sort out such a sensitive subject.

If I had not been able to get this issue sorted out, and lost my resources later due to the state of my ORG and your (and probably others) views that I cannot be bothered to update my information therefore I (and anyone else in my position) have no right to the resources?  

Also since you seem to claim you were the one who pushed so hard for the policy that caused me to lose many hours dealing with ARIN are you going to compensate me for said lost hours? ;).

From narten at us.ibm.com  Fri Sep 28 00:53:03 2012
From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:53:03 -0400
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net
Message-ID: <201209280453.q8S4r35A021780@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>

Total of 65 messages in the last 7 days.
 
script run at: Fri Sep 28 00:53:03 EDT 2012
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 18.46% |   12 | 15.22% |    81012 | jcurran at arin.net
 15.38% |   10 | 17.66% |    93950 | tedm at ipinc.net
 10.77% |    7 | 10.51% |    55931 | jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net
  9.23% |    6 |  9.97% |    53034 | snoble at sonn.com
  6.15% |    4 |  5.38% |    28649 | mysidia at gmail.com
  4.62% |    3 |  4.35% |    23172 | owen at delong.com
  4.62% |    3 |  4.07% |    21653 | rfg at tristatelogic.com
  4.62% |    3 |  3.46% |    18416 | info at arin.net
  3.08% |    2 |  4.84% |    25735 | jrhett at netconsonance.com
  3.08% |    2 |  3.22% |    17143 | bill at herrin.us
  3.08% |    2 |  3.06% |    16264 | hannigan at gmail.com
  3.08% |    2 |  2.95% |    15696 | farmer at umn.edu
  1.54% |    1 |  3.00% |    15952 | kkargel at polartel.com
  1.54% |    1 |  2.07% |    11041 | andrew.koch at gawul.net
  1.54% |    1 |  2.03% |    10801 | adudek16 at gmail.com
  1.54% |    1 |  1.61% |     8557 | scottleibrand at gmail.com
  1.54% |    1 |  1.60% |     8538 | george.herbert at gmail.com
  1.54% |    1 |  1.60% |     8533 | cblecker at gmail.com
  1.54% |    1 |  1.31% |     6982 | narten at us.ibm.com
  1.54% |    1 |  1.22% |     6507 | avri at acm.org
  1.54% |    1 |  0.85% |     4546 | jean-francois.tremblaying at videotron.com
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |   65 |100.00% |   532112 | Total



From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Sep 28 04:40:43 2012
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:40:43 +0000
Subject: [arin-ppml] Correction to ASN-only Organization records otherwise
 without contacts (was: Re: Incorrect POC on resource records)
In-Reply-To: <124BC31B-C49E-44D3-BCC7-96D9C982039E@corp.arin.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
	<C598FEF3-D613-45E7-8D62-0DB9654AF1A3@sonn.com>
	<5E1B3F9F-35CA-4192-980C-B3B2285FED20@corp.arin.net>
	<50632E39.8010709@ipinc.net>
	<44C5EFE2-023B-451B-8A2D-B373481D151B@sonn.com>
	<506344FF.5080601@ipinc.net>
	<CAJjtGxnYpHxtspwnuAq8kNvGScTLHDzdmHdGR9WGWc7b6_t03A@mail.gmail.com>
	<124BC31B-C49E-44D3-BCC7-96D9C982039E@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <A6C171FB-1F52-4331-BB00-003BFDF38849@corp.arin.net>

On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:27 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> ...
> Steve is correct in that ARIN put the "No Known Contacts" in his
> organization record, and I'm currently reviewing the details on
> how and why this occurred.  It is _not_ a case of long-abandoned 
> registration of resources or failure to perform POC validation 
> (which I believe is what Ted is concerned about, with good reason)

We have researched the "No Known Contact" situation and we now have a clearer picture 
of exactly what caused this to occur as well as a solution for correcting it. 

In 2002, ARIN converted its existing database over to a relational database that tied 
all existing network and ASN registration records to a new Organization record. During 
this conversion, we took a phased approach to moving the existing Points of Contacts 
(POC) for these resources over to their newly created Organization records.  We first 
converted the network POC records, and then the network reassignment POC records, however,
we now see that the ASN POC records were never completed.  The result of this was that 
any organization who had _only_ a registered ASN in the database never had POCs added 
to their new Organization records.  This resulted in approximately 2034 ASN-only holders 
not having points of contacts on their new organization records, although POC information 
was available in the AS resource record associated with this organization. Again, this 
is a case of not copying contact information to the new Organization records; no POC 
information was ever lost or overwritten.

In Steve Noble's case, his ASN record has always shown him as the registered POC, but 
his POC handle was never added to his new organization record.  The POC handle "No Known
Contact" (CKN23-ARIN) was added to all Organization records in 2011 as the result of two
things: newly established business rules associated with ARIN's web portal (ARIN Online) 
and the implementation of a new policy that required Abuse POCs to be added to all Org 
records.  This is how the "No Known Contact" POC handle ended up being added to many 
organization records otherwise without contacts, including Steve's Organization record.

In order to rectify this situation,  ARIN will be applying the same criteria we originally 
used and will move the ASN POCs over to their associated Org records which otherwise have
no contacts, thus removing the "No Known Contact" handle from any of the Org records that 
fit this situation.  

I'd like to thank the folks who raised this issue, and apologize that it was not more 
promptly recognized as an implementation issue with the migration as opposed to individual 
registration issues.

FYI (and thank you for your patience),
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



From owen at delong.com  Sat Sep 29 10:11:17 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:11:17 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <72C57C5D-81B3-4914-B03D-0E403E049207@delong.com>

> 
> Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
> Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
> There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
> make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
> to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
> your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
> responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
> ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
> be the final arbiter.

This includes an assumption that the belief that such blocks are property is valid.

The fact that there are people who (incorrectly) believe that does not make it so.

ARIN has consistently held the position that they are not property.

IMHO, ARIN has a responsibility to reclaim addresses which are truly not in use. However, detecting such addresses is rather difficult and things are definitely murky in the case of legacy blocks without a contract. As such, caution is prudent.

In any case, the days of readily available IPv4 addresses are coming to a close and it is time to move on to IPv6. Fortunately, there are no legacy registrations in IPv6.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Sat Sep 29 10:19:15 2012
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:19:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
In-Reply-To: <506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
References: <26463.1348088490@tristatelogic.com>
	<CACrmG8emrrq61iKTirCzktMC6KakRUGenW-Yd78gGPdS73Pzvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3C43B4B-78CB-47C6-9038-CC84F777D930@corp.arin.net>
	<CACrmG8dsw6-en9=Z_y=rBftN=JKyWXcCDiuYeAir5E6Xk7xoyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC9DA7D-B5B4-488E-8482-B6587FD63454@arin.net>
	<CACrmG8eS_yCZdG4YqAnPej_wZqEUzMXXZm7Q-jU9E5PvsBM0CA@mail.gmail.com>
	<27E650E9-6452-4EA2-A580-73CEDC272488@corp.arin.net>
	<CAP-guGW0gHs12oNo6+RHjgVk7SMj8wixd12wYssYL7cgCfRQcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<290220CF-E43F-4CDC-B6E9-13AB35909487@corp.arin.net>
	<CADricwpZ8s5Bhj=pXaJMTwsLpws_N8X+pfk1rj1sof74tNJ0bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<505BDFC4.8060205@ipinc.net>
	<CAMDXq5P+ZaL9P+=UbS26FqOM9XBqRjxPpra0qr738MfK9mvVgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<E23B884F-BFF8-4EBF-B10B-6B10743EFB96@sonn.com>
	<CAMDXq5Nu-iTS4pDc0YuWcVV8g4BdcmiehToywHqTjB-fnmyW-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<506318BE.2050305@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <7BBD6333-469D-46F7-B939-60BD7BEBCE41@delong.com>

> Sorry, but the address user is required to respond.  When they signed the RSA the RSA requires them to supply POCs.  By allowing a POC to become invalid they are no longer supplying the POC and are thus in
> violation of the contract.
> 

The RSA is somewhat superfluous in this case, especially when we are speaking of legacy registrations.

However, ARIN maintains the database in accordance with ARIN policy and the following section of the NRPM is quite clear on the matter:

3.6 Annual Whois POC Validation

3.6.1 Method of Annual Verification

During ARINs annual Whois POC validation, an email will be sent to every POC in the Whois database. Each POC will have a maximum of 60 days to respond with an affirmative that their Whois contact information is correct and complete. Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked as such in the database. If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the POC record shall be marked invalid. ARIN will maintain, and make readily available to the community, a current list of number resources with no valid POC; this data will be subject to the current bulk Whois policy.



Admittedly, this is not what happened in Mr. Noble's case and I accept Mr. Curran's explanation of that particular situation and his assertion that it has now been (or is in the process of being) corrected overall.  However, unresponsive contacts are, in fact, invalid contacts because the whole point of a POC is that they be responsive and they are required by policy to respond at least to the annual verification message from ARIN. ARIN policy applies to legacy registrations just as much as current registrations, in spite of assertions to the contrary by some legacy holders.

> In any case, if an org deliberately ignores an invoice, their account
> with ARIN runs in arrears and they lose the assignment.
> 

Legacy holders that have not signed an RSA do not receive invoices from ARIN to ignore.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120929/c100caa4/attachment.htm>

From shenzhi at cnnic.cn  Sat Sep 29 12:00:16 2012
From: shenzhi at cnnic.cn (ÉòÖ¾)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 00:00:16 +0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Auto-Re: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 87, Issue 51
Message-ID: <JMKNSCRPHRISYBQKPISUDFQDCKTF.shenzhi@cnnic.cn>

Hello,

I will be on our National Holidays during 30th,Sep. to 7th,Oct, so I could not reply to you during this peroid. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Wish you a good day.

Jessica

From shenzhi at cnnic.cn  Sun Sep 30 12:00:17 2012
From: shenzhi at cnnic.cn (ÉòÖ¾)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 00:00:17 +0800
Subject: [arin-ppml] Auto-Re: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 87, Issue 52
Message-ID: <MXXSWFFKNTUMKOYTJUEKPCGNEOSY.shenzhi@cnnic.cn>

Hello,

I will be on our National Holidays during 30th,Sep. to 7th,Oct, so I could not reply to you during this peroid. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Wish you a good day.

Jessica

From cgrundemann at gmail.com  Sun Sep 30 18:37:27 2012
From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:37:27 -0600
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent
 Allocations Utilization Requirement - revised
In-Reply-To: <FC216860-4E04-4F9E-82B9-4876CCF96AAB@gmail.com>
References: <506310A1.8000807@arin.net>
	<FC216860-4E04-4F9E-82B9-4876CCF96AAB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC1-dtm=CwwwwTHJEcaAsjsJX0Ys-V23yDZAOvwEk_20QEMG6w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 7:26 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

>>
>> b.    An LIR qualifies for a subsequent allocation if they meet any of the following criteria:
>>
>> * Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total address space
>>
>> * Shows utilization of more than 90% of any serving site
>
> I'm unclear on this one.  If I have one serving site full, and have unused blocks, why shouldn't I allocate an additional block to the full site? Why do I need more space from ARIN?

FYI: This one is existing policy. It's intention is to allow all
serving sites (regions, etc.) to grow uniformly.

>> * Has allocated more than 90% of their serving site blocks to serving sites, and has sufficient actual utilization at their serving sites to continue to justify the block size being utilized for all serving sites as specified in section 6.5.2.
>
> This one makes sense to me.  If the two above were both required, that would also make sense, but I don't get either/or.

This is the new criteria being added. I am unclear what "sufficient
actual utilization" means in this context though.

Cheers,
~Chris

> -Scott
>


-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com